How would you respond to this email from local talking head?

[merh]

To give you some background, we have a local call in show that airs on the weekend. The format is the "worldly" talking head and a guest or two. This past weekend the guest was Retired Generald Ronald Griffith, the man that was instrumental in the attack on Iraq in the first Gulf War. Well, the uninformed General told a caller that the casualties in Iraq were minimal because the US used "smart bombs" and "bunker busters". Then the host made the mistake of telling a lady caller opposed to the war that the women of Iraq were better off now than they were under Saddam. The telephone lines were busy, so I couln't call in, so I emailed the talking head the website http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ and asked that he give it to the general and some information regarding Iraq, and I just received the below email:

====================
Subject: Re: For your information, Iraq was a relatively progressive
state prior to our invasion and occupation.

I've used words like "mess", and "quagmire" to describe situation in Iraq. I've advocated getting out of Iraq. Not for the same reasons you've articulated. I say get out because Iraq (and the rest of the antiquated middle east) does not deserve us. Why spend 137 million dollars a day and thousands of US lives trying to drag this culture out of the 7th century? I'll get the reference to Iraq and Usama Bin Laden for you. Setting off car bombs in crowded city streets,....sabotaging oil pipelines and derailing Iraqi economic recovery,....threatening and murdering government
leaders,..beheading hostages,....no they're not terrorists,..they're FREEDOM FIGHTERS.

[alcuno]

1. Who decided that we'd try to "drag this culture out of the 7th century?"

Certainly not the American public. Iraq is considered the cradle of civilization; they are culturally very different from Americans. That's not a bad thing but a different thing. Who gave us the right to go into a sovereign nation and impose our will upon it? The ultimate mystery are those so naive in our government who then expected the people to be grateful for it. Outrageous!

I hate to use such a crass analogy but it's no different from raping a woman and then expecting her to thank you for it.

[merh]

2. Thank you, I think that analogy is very appropriate.

I will include your words in my response if you don't mind.

:thumbsup:

[alcuno]

3. To me, that has been the ultimate outrage of this war.

These neocon thugs who stomped in with their "shock and awe" strategy of essentially terrifying the people of Baghdad into submission only to later pout and whine about how the Iraqis weren't grateful.

[merh]

4. You are so right, it was very aggravating to hear that

retired general minimalize the deaths in Iraq and pretend to be an "expert". He may have been an expert in 1991, but not now, not 13 years later. I was so angry, so I had to respond and now the email war continues.

Thanks again!

[alcuno]

6. "I'll get the reference to Saddam and bin Laden for you..."

So now we're going to go after every bin Laden connection in the Middle East? Are we going to capture his barber? I hear we got his chef.

Rummy shook Hussein's hand. A "connection?" Should Rummy be captured as well?

[merh]

7. He claims that the 9/11 commission report links Al Qaeda and Iraq

I told him I wanted that cite in the report that he was referring to.

The email I sent to him which resulted in his email above was this one:

Now ______ you don’t think that I would send you the information contained in my email if you had not made some type of comment that reflected your misconceptions about Iraq prior to our occupation, now do you? Your response to a female caller that opposed the war elicited my email. You asked if, as a woman, she didn't think the women of Iraq were better off or something to that effect. As the blog suggests, they are not better off, they are in a more precarious position. Like other Islamic nations (Iraq was secular under Saddam) she has to be escorted by males when she leaves her home. I suggest that you check your tape of the show to find the comment that spurred my email.

In response to your statement “ I suppose General Griffith is out of touch from his 3 years RUNNING central command over Southern Iraq.” Well, if he honestly believes that the deaths in Iraq have been minimal, then yes, he is out of touch. How long ago did he retire? How long ago did he oversee the central command in Southern Iraq? As far as my doubting his “knowledge” I give General Griffith no credibility relative to the CURRENT STATUS of Iraq, especially since he had the nerve to say that casualties have been limited. (In my opinion, 11,000 to 13,000 Iraqi casualties is not limited.) He is either uninformed or lying, I would prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is too removed from the region and is therefore, UNINFORMED.

Did you read the articles attached at the end of my email? Just curious. Now, even the president admits that they made “miscalculations” and had “won too quickly” thus we are in the quagmire we are in. To be honest, Saddam Hussein had lost most of his army and weaponry as a result of the first Gulf War. Then the sanctions and U.N. inspections effected his containment. We invaded a virtual “sitting duck” and we now have no idea how to get out of the mess. The president and his administration did not listen to our nation’s military leaders and have screwed up the “mission”. They went to war based on lies and now our soldiers are in harms way and our military is stretched far too thin. To add insult to injury, our nation was once respected internationally. We are no longer respected. We are seen as the “invading” nation, the terrorist, the aggressor and not the liberator.

You asked one caller on your show if those who were fighting our soldiers in Iraq were “freedom fighters”, well, yes they are. What would you do if a nation invaded the U.S. of A and destroyed our infrastructures and homes and killed thousands? Would you sit back and kiss their boots, offer them roses and chocolates and thank them for liberating us?

Our nation is not secure (check the security provided to the oil refineries, chemical plants, nuclear plants and the ports and realize how unprotected soft targets actually are). Here is you one to consider. How many nuclear plants are within 8 hours of the Gulf Coast? Or, just consider all of the chemical plants and oil refineries within a two hour drive. Those numbers alone should concern you given that they are not really secured. Will the national guard be available to help as it did during Camille should a hurricane threaten the Coast? Doubtful, since the national guard is not protecting the state, it is in Iraq fighting an illegal war. Yes, the president violated the resolution that gave him the authority to use force and since it is a republican controlled congress, no one will hold him accountable. Read the resolution.

It is you that believes propaganda - that propaganda distributed by the current administration. The internet is a wonderful tool, you can access the media throughout the world and you can obtain a very different perspective of this war and how other nations now feel about our nation. The woman that writes the blog just provides you with a perspective of someone living in Iraq. It may help you get a clearer picture of what is really going on over there.

By the way, I would appreciate it if you could tell me where you found the reference to the connection to Al Qaeda in the 9/11 commission report.

[alcuno]

8. al Qaeda is a terrorist organization, not a nation state.

I'm sure that they are linked all over the world in every country. I don't suppose that there were people on the 9/11 Commission playing politics by linking Iraq? Did they include all the links or just the one that would play into the war rationale?

I like your email. The women of Iraq are in a precarious position right now because they had certain rights under secular law that aren't there under Sharia (sp) law. Certain concessions were made to the hardliners in order to make the deal. And look at how many women were on the governing council making the laws. Wasn't it three?

[merh]

9. This is my response - what do you think? (with your borrowed words)

Well, we at least agree that the war is wrong.

Who, pray tell, decided that we should try to "drag this culture out of the 7th century?" Certainly not the American public. Incidently, Iraq is considered the cradle of civilization; they are culturally very different from Americans and that is not a bad thing, only a different thing. What gave us the right to go into a sovereign nation and impose our will upon it? The ultimate mystery is how could this administration be so naive to expect the Iraqi people to be grateful for our "shock and awe", invasion and occupation. How outrageous! At the risk of sounding crass, to me it is no different from raping a woman and then expecting her to thank you for it and saying she wanted it or needed it!

Come on, wasn't America so outraged over the murder of 3000 of our citizens that we invaded not one, but two countries? How then SHOULD the Iraqis respond to the deliberate killing of the 11,000 to 13,000 of their citizens, like we did? With gratitude? (Some estimates have it over 20,000, but it is hard to get an accurate count since the war is still waging and records have been destroyed.)

The head leader that we installed, the head puppet if you will, Allawi, has specifically said that the militias are NOT terrorists.

Those that have beheaded hostages are terrorists, but they are not necessarily Iraqi. Some of the car bombings are the responsibility of terrorists and some are not. I would venture to guess that the leaders of the terrorists groups are Saudi or Pakistani and some are even Al Qaeda. Paul Johnson was beheaded in SAUDI ARABIA, by Saudis. 15 of the 19 terrorists on 9/11 were Saudi, yet Saudi is our allie, and we invaded Iraq.

The president abandoned his "hunt" for Usama Bin Laden and attacked Iraq, a sovereign nation, that had nothing to do with 9/11. The brutality of our actions has spawned new terrorists and new hatred of America, thus all of our government's "success" in defeating most of the Al Qaeda has been diminished because we are the "occupying force" and we are seen as the evil regime, so more people are joining in the terrorist's efforts to defeat and destroy us.

The derailing of the Iraqi economy was done by the US and the UN, first by sanctions, then by our invasion. The recovery would not be so great if we had not invaded them. Bremer left and $20 billion was missing from the Iraqi government's coffers, but no one has tried to investigate the missing money, let alone recover it. Talk about the derailing of the recovery efforts. Haliburton overcharges the U.S. and the Iraqi people in the millions, if not billions, yet you are blaming the citizens of Iraq, who are defending their homes, with "derailing the recovery efforts". The citizens that have taken up arms are doing so because we imprison, torture and kill their citizens, we bomb their homes and businesses and we threaten their mosques.

The government leaders are not the elected leaders of Iraq. They were the leaders appointed by our government. Some in Iraq may perceive them as "puppets" of an occupying force. Since we are the invading and occupying force, don't you think the leaders we appointed are suspect?

Let's see if I can put it in terms that you may understand. Remember the movie "Red Dawn" when the USSR was attacking our nation, murdering and imprisoning our citizens? Did you cheer for the USSR or for the young freedom fighters that sabotaged the Soviets' efforts to control our nation? I am sure that the Soviets thought their government and way of life was much better than ours, so why were we resisting? When the military leader was killed in the end, did you think, "my what horrible terrorists those kids are" or did you think "yeah, kill that s.o.b."?

When the leader in "Brave Heart" rallied his men to fight for freedom in his country, did you think, what a bunch of terrorists, killing the leaders of the government, burning property, attacking the troops? Or, did you understand his determination and admire his perseverance? Could you understand how the "insurgents" in "Brave Heart" resented the occupation of their nation and the control of their lands by the "robber barons"?

Okay, so those are movies, let's go back to the Revolutionary War. Would you have been the good citizen that accepted the rule of King George? Do you see the minute men as terrorists or as freedom fighters? King George was sure that he knew what was best for the colonies. The revolutionary army's efforts to drive out King George's forces "derailed" the colonies economic growth, but it was necessary in the fight for freedom. I am sure the minute men killed many "government leaders" in horrific ways, they had to for their families, their homes, their freedom -- our freedom.

The U.S. is now an occupying force, we are the robber barons, we are trying to tell these folks how to live and at the same time we are taking the bounty of our "victory", the oil. American corporations are profiting as a result of the war and the monies are not being seen by the Iraqi people. War profiteering has run amuck and we condone it because "we liberated the Iraqi people from a dictator" and because of "9/11". The ironies of this war coupled with the sad truths of the atrocities all shout out that we are the hypocrites and we are wrong.

I am happy that we agree that the war is wrong. I will do something about my beliefs, I will vote for a regime change at home and I will continue my meager efforts to have the truth heard. As a journalist, you should be on the same mission, unfortunately, you tend to believe the propaganda. As an American, I know that dissent is necessary and appropriate when the leaders have gone beyond their bounds and when their actions are destroying the cherished principles of my beloved nation. We are not the world police, we are only a member of the international community. Our nation is in great peril and it is our leaders that have placed us there by their failure to adequately and appropriately respond to the terrorist attack of 9/11/01.

In closing, you are right the Iraqi people "do not deserve us", no nation, no people deserves to be attacked, invaded and occupied as the U.S. has done in Iraq. No civilized society deserves to have the values of another nation shoved down its throat.

[alcuno]

10. I like it and I must add two things.

1. A reminder that the British were complaining about the Americans not fighting fair during the Revolutionary War. Sound familiar?

and

2. I have no argument with a candidate for president running on a platform of world liberation. Hell, I might even vote for him myself. However, the American people needed to be told the truth up front so that they could decide whether or not they wanted to be the country that invaded for liberation. My guess is that the American people would have given it the same response as they did the president's proposal for a manned mission to Mars.

[merh]

11. I will add those, thank you - thanks for the help in

composing this response. :thumbsup:

Isn't it sad that a "reporter" has to be encouraged to find the truth. Talking heads are just that, empty, talking heads.

Thanks again. :hi:

[alcuno]

5. And another thing......

America was so outraged over the murder of 3000 of our citizens that we invaded not one, but two countries. How then SHOULD the Iraqis respond to the deliberate killing of at least 20,000 of their citizens. Like we did? With gratitude?

I must add that the head puppet over there, Allawi, has specifically said that the militias are NOT terrorists.

This subject really irritates me. Let him have it.