To counter Mark Griffith's letter ("U.S. forced war on innocent Iraqis," Jan. 25), in the last paragraph he stated, "I don't remember hearing of car bombs in the streets of Baghdad or of foreign civilians being kidnapped and beheaded before this war started."
Has anyone thought that possibly the media weren't interested in specifics of what goes on in a Third World country like Iraq? Saddam did horrific things to people who opposed him. I watched a program on the History Channel about Saddam approximately a year-and-a-half ago. He flogged people to death, put them through meat grinders, poured acid on them, gassed them and shot them. But why? Only because they spoke against his actions.
What is worse, being sent through a meat grinder alive for denouncing a brutal dictator like Saddam, or being liberated and getting caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, risking becoming the victim of a car bombing? At least the latter gives you a chance at freedom. I would choose liberation; to me some things are worth fighting for.
William Long
Greensboro
The writer is a freshman at Page High School.
Comments (5)
Yeah, William, but that wasn't the choice we and Congress were presented with.
The choice we were presented with was invade Iraq or be nuked by Saddam.
Posted by Lex | February 9, 2005 11:37 AM
Lex, you'd better do some research before you go spouting off lies like that.
Please cite ONE single instance in which ANY administration source said that Hussein had nuclear weapons. Just one will do. You won't find it because it didn't happen.
Hussein did, however, have other WMD's, and was pursuing a nuclear weapons program. It's likely he would have had nuclear weapons if stopped. Clinton realized that and warned against it, and the UN recognized that and tried to stop him.
It took real courage from President Bush to finally take action.
Accept the fact that Presdient Bush knows just a bit more about what's happening in the world than you do.
Posted by Sinjan Smythe | February 9, 2005 12:10 PM
William,
The purpose of my letter was not to defend Saddam. No doubt he was a bad man. The purpose of my letter was to express my dismay at how easily some people can dismiss the deaths of innocent people when it's someone they don't know. This war was not sold to us as a way to attain freedom for the Iraqi people. It was sold to us on the fear of another terrorist attack linked in one way or another to Saddam. We were not asked to liberate Iraq. We went in as an invading army, and
thousands of civilians are now dead. And now our leaders are trying to justify their actions by saying they're spreading democracy. And unfortunately, democracy will not take root in that part of the world.
Posted by Mark Griffith | February 11, 2005 9:20 AM
Mark, by toppling Saddam we DID prevent the proliferation of terrorism in our world. It's not possible to accurately predict where Saddam would have spread his terror if not stopped. However, we were his main enemy and it's possible, even inevitable, that he would have made direct attacks against us or indirect attacks through his well-established links with Al Quaeda.
Yes, thousands of civilians are dead in the fight for freedom. But those numbers pale in comparison to the hundreds of thousands murdered by Saddam, as William points out. In the numbers of "civilians" killed are thousands of terrorists, Saddam supporters, and Al Quaeda members who came to Iraq to fight for the continuation of a terrorist government and lost.
No one involved in this war dismisses the loss of lives, whether they're innocent civilians or our brave soldiers who bear the responsibility of keeping us safe.
"Democracy" is a reality in Iraq. Whether it mirrors the American flavor of democracy remains to be seen. Free elections is the first step on a long journey.
The freedom to own a business or talk freely on the phone or watch satellite TV or use the internet to discover the rest of the world are hallmarks of a free and democratic society. Free societies don't launch chemical or biological attacks against their own people or their enemies across the globe.
It's all connected.
Posted by Sinjan Smythe | February 11, 2005 10:36 AM
"And unfortunately, democracy will not take root in that part of the world."
Mark, just were are you refering to when you say that democracy will not take root in that part of the world? Are you refering only to Iraq or to the Middle East in general? If you are refering to the Middle East in general then perhaps you should do some reading on the Middle East before making such a statement. I believe that Turkey is included in "that" part of the world,also Afganistan, Pakistan, Yemmen, Israel and a few other countries. I am sure that since I lived there others have adopted one of the many forms of democracy. Others are trying. While they may not perfectly mirror the "democracy" that is in the US they still hold free elections where they have several parties holding forth candidates and of a democratic society. The dictionary says:
democracy, republic, commonwealth: a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them.
People also said that Japan could not become a democratic society or South Korea.Seems like Russia was also included in this group and they seem to be doing fairly well at the moment, shakey but still kicking. Seems as if they missed the target in their predictions just as you have.
Posted by mrproduce | February 11, 2005 7:29 PM