Truth about Iraq not confined to one view
First, of course, he would have to be guilty of speaking the truth, and in quoting from the “independent reports” published in The Lancet he should know he is quoting extremely unreliable sources.
The 100,000 civilian casualty figure in Iraq is a projection - and we all know about ‘lies, damned lies and statistics’ - though I’m sure if the war were to continue indefinitely, it might eventually become true.
The other figures quoted, based on the same data, are equally questionable.
Mr Horgan is not so much guilty of speaking the unvarnished truth as of ignoring the difficult complexities involved in working out a true moral position on the war.
He ignores the thousands of deaths, the poverty and the sheer terror which resulted from living under Saddam’s rule.
He ignores the impoverishing effect of the sanctions imposed since the first Gulf War; these would have continued in the absence of war. One beneficial result of the war has been the removal of Saddam and the passing of his deranged sons who no longer terrorise, murder and destroy at will.
Mr Horgan shows his bias in decrying the American use of white phosphorous while ignoring the deliberate targeting of civilians by terrorists, politely referred to as ‘insurgents.’
He accuses the Americans of using chemical weapons against “insurgents and civilians,” implying that the latter were deliberately targeted, which is simply not the case.
I would respectfully suggest that ‘peace activists’ such as Mr Horgan would be far more effective if they also demonstrated a degree of balance, and if their anti-Americanism were not so self-evident.
As for the Shannon stopover, let us hope that Mr Horgan’s fears of a terrorist attack on us are allayed by the possibility of American success in Iraq, and the establishment there of some form of constitutional government to which we would have made our small contribution by providing that stopover.
James McGrath
Birchgrove
Hollyford
Co Tipperary
