While US/UK enthusiasm for removing Saddam remains a mystery, the media, worldwide, seem to be focusing on US/UK torture of suspect Iraqis alone. I suspect this goes beyond the upcoming US election.
Why don't the media probe the mystery mentioned above and come up with a really satisfactory answer? Oil? But how does the removal of Saddam and occupation of Iraq boost significantly Western oil interests? Why was Iraq chosen as the target? There are many other oil-rich nations, not necessarily friendly to the West, why didn't the Western powers choose one of these?
Secondly, while any torture must be condemned, what about the notoriety of the Abu Ghraib prison under Saddam himself? Were Iraqis incarcerated in it during his rule overjoyed to be there?
Democracies suffer from one 'weakness'--their information is accessible most of the times. Iraq under Saddam, or even before, was not a democracy and, hence, could afford to hide a lot of info. Hence, since little is known about Iraqi torture of their own people, apart from POWs from the recent war, and ongoing assaults seem not worth a great deal of attention relative to what is being daily flashed in the media about the US/UK misdeeds, there is little consternation about Iraqi crimes, which are continuing.
Also, what about the numerous attacks on the efforts to establish a stable govt. in Iraq, and attacks on innocent foreigners, UN personnel, aid workers and others by some lunatics? Why not provide equally extensive coverage of these stories and condemnation, on equal footing with the US/UK tortures, of the same? Or is assault--and presumably torture, too-- by some fanatics on innocent civilians sweet for the newsmen? Hence, not 'news'worthy!
Would anyone care to enlighten me, please? Any condemnation must be fair and even-handed, and not one-sided.
Prof. Dr. J. Banerjee