Posted by David on July 11, 2007, 10:04 pm http://dynamic.rte.ie/quickaxs/209-rte-todaywithpatkenny.smil Your interview with Professor Gwyn Prins on Today this morning struck me with the same impression George Galloway verbalised in his 'brief interlude'; I could imagine a similar discussion took place somewhere in polite English society at the height of the troubles. You simply offered Professor Prins a 'clear run' to expound the merits and mistakes of 'imperialism light'. Yet almost as soon as Mr. Galloway began, you interrupted him with your opinion - stating that Saddam was a 'blood thirsty barbarian', and thus had to be removed? That is no doubt the disparity that caused him to discontinue the interview. In answer to your statement, an uncontroversial one at that, but one that actually implicitly defines your support for the invasion and thus highlights your opinion as that shared by Professor Prins, thus explaining his willingness to 'engage' - the US led invasion and occupation has caused far more deaths in the last 4 years than Saddam's 24 years of rule. Saddam's killing, as Professor Prins eluded to, was also made possible by tacit and direct Western support. Would you re-evaluate your position in light of this stark fact? No one questions Saddam's despotic title, what is validly questioned is the idea that Western imperialists acted with some sort of benign intent, or 'moral motive' - which was 'devalued' by unfortunate revelations of fabrications and deception. Not once did you posit that the invasion was not just a 'mistake' but a crime, as was stated by the UN's Kofi Annan when he called the invasion 'illegal'. Nor did you seek to examine the situation from an Iraqi perspective, a point made to you by George Galloway. The vast majority of Iraqi people are opposed to the continued occupation and a similar number support attacks on coalition troops - who are the predominant target of insurgents. Instead you simply offered Professor Prins the opportunity to eloquently hammer out, almost verbatim, the imperialist 's rhetoric. I accept the Today show is light radio, but if you are going to treat issues such as these like this, perhaps it would be better to forgo the pretence of impartiality. Yours sincerely, David Manning 1. http://dynamic.rte.ie/quickaxs/209-rte-todaywithpatkenny.smil
Message modified by board administrator July 11, 2007, 10:07 pm
todaypk@rte.ie
Dear Derek Davis,
2. http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf
3. http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-institutions_government/blair_ignorance_3718.jsp
4. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm
5. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721.html
6. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/10/23/ixportaltop.html
Message Thread:
« Back to thread