Politics

Open letter to CNN; Subject: Iraq and Libya – “Good Guys” and “Bad Guys”/ Otvoreno pismo CNN-u; predmet: Irak I Libija – “dobri momci” i “losi momci”

Dear CNN “Friends”

I like your motto: “facts first”.

But, I am not sure that you really follow the moto.

It struck me when Chris Como was talking about Iraq and Saddam Hussein.  He said something like:

“OK, we didn’t find the weapon for mass destruction (it was the reason for the attack on Iraq) but it doesn’t matter, Saddam Hussein was killed, he was bad guy”.

First, according to you it was OK to attack a sovereign country on the basis of false premises, on the basis of lies (not facts)?!?!?!

Iraq is destroyed, ancient sites have been damaged, hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, hundreds of thousands have been affected by war and left sick due to the usage of depleted uranium during the bombing.

Second: “Anyway, Saddam was a bad guy”. 

Who decided that Saddam was a bad guy?  What is the fact?

I would like if CNN could explain the following:

Why Bush, Bill Clinton and Hilary, Obama, Kennedy etc (the list is long) are considered as “good guys” after attacking Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Yugoslavia, Syria etc. and leaving disaster behind, destroyed countries, hundreds of thousands killed innumerable sick and poor?

But, Saddam Hussein is labeled as a “bad guy” because he kept Iraq under control. During his regime the country was without poor people, without homeless people, with free education and health services.

He built new cities, infrastructure, roads, irrigation…

And, yes, we didn’t have ISIS during his regime.

A similar story is applicable to Gaddafi and the Libyan case.

Speaking of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi it would be interesting if you give a comparison (using your sources and American Intelligence) of the following:

  • Number killed during Saddam’s regime in Iraq, Gaddafi’s regime in Libya and number of killed during and after American involvement in Libya and Iraq
  • Standard of living today and before American interventions

Regards

Branislav Kovachevich

bk@kovachevich.net

Dragi moji CNN “prijatelji”

Svidja mi se vas moto: “prvo cinjenice”.

Ali, ja nisam bas siguran da vi stvarno postupate po tome.

To me je “strecnulo” kada je Krus Kuomo govorio o Iraku I Sadamu Huseinu.  Rekao je nesto otprilike ovako:

“U redu, nismo nasli oruzje za masovno razaranje (sto je bio razlog za napada na Irak) ali, nema veze, Sadam Husenin je ubijen, on je bio los momak”.

Prvo, prema vama to je u redu da napadnete suverenu drzavu na osnovu laznih podataka.

Irak je razoren, anticka mesta ostecena, stotine hiljada ubijenih, ranjenih I bolesnih zbog upotrebe osiromasenog uranijuma za vreme bombardovanja.

Drugo, “…nema veze, Sadam je bio los momak…”

Ko je tu da presudi da je Sadam bio “los momak”?  Gde je tu cinjenica?

Voleo bih da CNN objasni sledece:

Zasto se Bus, Klinton Bill I Hilari, Obama, Kenedi I ostali Americki predsednici (lista je dugacka) tretiraju kao “dobri momci” posle napada na Vijetnam, Irak, Libiju, Jugoslaviju, Siriju itd I ostavljajuci iza sebe pustos, unistene zemlje, stotine hiljada ubijenih, bolesnih I siromasnih?

A, zasto se Sadam Husein naziva “losim momkom” zato sto je drzao Iraq pod kontrolom.  Za vreme njegovog rezima zemlja je bila bez siromasnih, bez beskucnika.  Skolstvo I zdravstvo su bili besplatni.

Izgradjeni su novi gradovi, putevi, infrastruktura, irigacija…

Za vreme njegovog rezima nije bilo ISIS – a.

Slicna prica vazi I za Libiju I Gadafija.

Kad se vec prica o Sadamu I Gadafiju, Iraku I Libiji, bilo bi interesantno ako bi objavili poredjenje (koristeci vase izvore) o sledecem:

  • Broj ubijenih za vreme Sadamovog rezima u Iraku, Gadafijevog rezima u Libiji I broj ubijenih u vreme I posle Americkih intervencia u tim zemljama
  • Zivontni standard pre I posle Americkih intervencija

Sa postovanjem

Branislav Kovachevich

bk@kovachevich.net

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

%d bloggers like this: