After my March 25, Letter to the Editor, I have had many people respond to my letter including Les Stanaland, Nathan McWilliams and Andrew Currie. I feel the need to respond back to all of these comments and especially Les Stanaland’s letter.
In Mr. Stanaland’s Letter to the Editor, he sounded like a typical politician using big words and making personal attacks. I’m not a politician, so I don’t use big words or make personal attacks, but I do state my opinions and some of the facts that I know. So if you want to read an article with big words and personal attacks, I advise you to wait on Les Stanaland’s next letter.
I feel that some people misconstrued my Letter to the Editor. In Mr. Currie’s letter, he accused me of not supporting the men and women in the military. I would like for Mr. Currie to understand that just because I am opposed to the war doesn’t mean that I am opposed to the men and women in the military. I love these men and women so much, that is why I want them to come home to their families and not go overseas, putting their lives in danger.
Mr. Stanaland claimed that it is justifiable for the Bush administration to invade Iraq because of the threat Saddam poses to the U.S with his “potential Weapons of Mass Destruction.” So if that is the case, why is the Bush administration not in North Korea, which we all know have WMD and poses a threat to the U.S.? I don’t know about you all, but to me it seems like a double standard in their foreign policies.
While on the subject of double standards, how about the double standard the administration is using for atrocities in the Iraq war. The torture and execution of POWs by Iraqi forces is a violation of international law and must be condemned.
Those responsible for this horror must be held accountable according to the standard of international law. Before the invasion, the Bush administration told the nation that Saddam was a brutal leader and did not adhere to the level of civilized society. The execution of American POWs is certainly consistent with that and sadly, is not unexpected. By the same token, the administration promised that American forces would not act in violation of international laws on war and human rights. I think that must be investigated. The U.S. media (CNN and the likes) thus far have provided a sanitized version of the war, with images of bombings and troops advancing to Baghdad, but almost no pictures whatsoever of the human consequences of the U.S. attacks. International media and independent observers, however, have already reported on significant numbers of civilian casualties. Reports have confirmed that non-combatants, including women and children, have been killed and badly hurt. This would be a violation of international law and human rights standards-as is Iraq’s behavior.
If, indeed the administration wants to be known as exceptional, wants to be a guardian of human rights, wants to liberate the people of Iraq from the Saddam regime, it must not conduct operations that kill and injure large civilian population.
A double standard, where the so called enemy is condemned and the home team is condoned, should not be accepted. To condemn the enemy atrocities but accept the American’s actions that deny human rights to Iraqi civilians would be to undermine the very principles on which this war is supposedly being fought.