Hmm, an interesting read...
Well, firstly I'm tempted to agree with you about the media these days. Independant news sources aren't perhaps as unbias as we might like. Just look at the differences between CNN, BBC News and Al Jazeera, who each offer distinctivly different viewpoints even when they are reporting on the same topic. It all comes down to business (money) and politics in the end, and each news station carefully edits and cuts out information that might make them look bad. But even if they do choose to go the whole nine yards, the truth can remain a very dangerous item.
There is also the matter of the reliability of sources. During the Iraq war, journalists could only report on what they had been 'allowed' to see. Remember that 'daring rescue' of that servicewoman Jessica Lynch, that turned out to be completely blown out of proportion in the end? It's to journalists credit that the real 'truth' about what happened was revieled, and proof that the system does still work from time to time.
Journailism and war have had a very unsteady relationship since the Vietnam war, when the war was brought to television screens around the world. It was revolutionary for the media, but a huge blow for the military and government. The anti-war protests that followed the broadcastings were so huge they are still famous even today. Face it, the protesters effectivly caused the war to end in the way it did, as the government feared the domestic implications that continued military action would cause.
As for the war itself and the politicians, I believe that the politicians and commanders have a better idea of what is going on than any of us do.They get their information from their own intelligence services, that have to be as unbias as possible in the their reports.
Though I suspect that elements of the US government really didn't care if Iraq was a threat or not (but wanted to invade anyway), I can't forgive my own government for going along with them. While I think that our Prime Minister honestly thought that Iraq had WMDs, I don't believe that he thought they were a real threat. During a session at the House of Commons, Tony Blair said that Saddam could launch weapons against us in 45 minutes. It was later revealed that the source for that claim was a thesis from a university student, and not from MI6.
From what i've learned since the war, and with current events, I've decided that it's likely the UK commited troops to Iraq simply so we could maintain a strong relationship with the US. It's this alliance that give the UK such massive bargaining power in European Politics, which is essetial with the reforming of the EU.
Furthermore are the claims that the Iraqi war is a war against terrorism. I find this notion laughable, as i'm sure you do. Saddam was a dictator, and dictators don't like to have people or organistions challenge their power. If Al Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden were to enter Iraq and start recruiting Iraqis, then they could undermine Saddams influence. There is no way he would have allowed that. So really, Saddam was the one force that made Iraq terrorist free... even though I am partly glad that he's gone now.
And lets not forget that it's not just US soldiers and Iraqi civilians dying in Iraq. British, Italian, Austrailan, Japanese, Ploish, Swedish, Spanish and other troops/civilians of different nationalities have lost, or are losing their lives probably as we speak. I'm sure many of them feel as betrayed as we do.
Who said that they have been manipulated or lied to? Do they even need to have been? Keep in mind that we sent our armies into Iraq without provocation, and we have killed, destroyed and incarserated thousands. We've destroyed a million ways of life, and it's understandable how pissed off they probably all are. If the UK or the US were to be invaded in the same way, I could probably name a few people who would fight back.Originally Posted by Ninrev Sirgem
Searching for the truth is all good... but with so many truths out there, it's a hard thing to pinpoint and uncover. The best you can maybe do is just to be there and describe what you see so people can form their own opinions. Well, that's what I think.