Who is the bigger war criminal: Hussein or Bush?- Page 2

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 11:25am

Im with ckeaton 150%. Hussein cant be compared to Bush. Its just...ugh...this is why I avoid political threads on here.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 12:31pm

The real question is why did Hussein choose to bring

I contend is is a combination of religious fanatacism and being power-hungry.

Sound like Bush exactly? Yeah. THAT'S why we're having this discussion.

The reason I think Bush may be worse is because he has more powerful tools at his disposal, but the same motive.

[EverythingIsRENT]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 2:48pm

this thread is disgusting =/

Bush did not personally murder troops or other Irqai citizens. Bush is NOT the only one involVed in this war, so no, he is NOT a murderer the way Saddam is. And yeah, i'm done with this thread and all other political ones =/

Updated On: 12/10/05 at 02:48 PM

[Plum]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 2:51pm

I'm going to stick to a very small point for now.

It's because we consider everyone to be a human being that Hussein is getting a trial, and an American lawyer volunteered to defend him. If we just believed he was a rabid dog, we'd have put him down like a dog.

So think for 2 ****ing seconds before, in your haste to condemn the President, you diminish the crimes of a tyrant.

[justthefacts2]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 4:28pm

"...diminish the crimes of a tyrant."

Well said, Plum. Well said.

EverythingisRENT, I know exactly how you feel.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 5:28pm

IF Bush took us to war for oil and corporate greed, then, yes, he is a monster.

IF his intentions are genuine, then, no, I do not think he is a monster.

Until all the facts come to light, I will accept doubt.

But, let's not pretend that America isn't guilty of torture--that's the huge debate in Congress right now.

[Plum]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 5:42pm

I'm not pretending a thing. But as long as we're dealing in degrees of awfulness, let's remember that likening Bush to Hussein doesn't make the former look like a horrendous despot on a massive scale- he'll never look like that by sheer virtue of the fact that he's limited to 2 terms- but instead works to make the latter look like a bumbling, wrongheaded idiot who believes the ends justify the means. And that's being far, far too kind to Hussein.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 5:46pm

I'm just saying that Bush (and Co.)'s hands are not clean. I haven't compared him to Hussein or Hitler. But, if he took us to war for greed, I might start imagining those comparisons when I look at the thousands of soldiers dead and the 100,000s of Iraqis dead.

[Plum]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 5:54pm

Here's where intent matters. Let's say Bush intended to get money. He still didn't intend to kill American soldiers, but saw it as the means to an end. Hussein precisely intended was to kill his citizenry based on their ethnicity or the fact that they stood up to him. Not the same thing.

And I agree, there's no way you can say Bush's hands are clean. I'm just saying that while his hands are dirty, Hussein's have been mutliated by corrosive acid. Let's not give him retroactive plastic surgery.

[Elphaba]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 8:29pm

everthing, the buck stops AT Bush......he is responsible......no matter how hard he tries to wriggle out of it.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 9:58pm

The "Bush has done reprehensible things" posts contain many truths, but as Plum has suggested the nature of this thread simply causes the repressible actions of Hussein to be diminished, and that is a disservice on the worldwide scale.

There are shades of grey to all of this, but in the end it comes down to the crimes against humanity committed by Hussein (and yes many of them were done during a war, whether or not they were to his own people) are myriad.

None of this is to say that Bush is good, or I think the US is without blame for actions on a world scale, I think I have been very clear on that.

In addition, to those of you who claim "I will not post in this or any other politics thread." If you truly have no interest then don't post at all. However, if you have a viewpoint, albeit different from the majority here, you should post and be prepared to defend it. Often discussion on the board is cut far too short because people with differing views don’t post.

It is not enough to think that something is the case, to back it up with a reasoned argument is important. Yes, it is difficult especially since so many here, me included, will likely be vehemently opposed, but if you can withstand and defend, your argument will be much better. I hope that we could then all learn from the exchange.

[Yawper]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 10:17pm

not just W. to blame I'm afraid - we (the U.S.) helped Hussein to power, we were not 'aware' of the extent of his conduct until it was politically convenient, we decided to send our troops to take him down

and ultimately it is we (the citizens eligible to vote) who are responsible for those in our places of power

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 10:20pm

Damn, Yawper, that's twice in one day I have to agree with you--maybe you aren't such a bad guy after all. :)

[Plum]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 10:23pm

Damn straight. That's why we're a democracy; we're responsible even for the assholes we didn't vote for. It stinks, but that's the price we pay. Freedom for consequences.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 10:28pm

Since when did Hussein kill based on ethnicity?

All I've ever heard is that he killed because he wanted to keep those who opposed him from uprising against him (which is a crime, mind you).

I think the problem with the way many of you posting on this thread is that you don't work to discover a motive for Hussein. And you don't do that because our media doesn't ask that question -- much like the traditional action films, the bad guys don't have a motive, they are just rotten to the core.

My contention is that perhaps there isn't anyone who is rotten to the core. Which doesn't mean Bush or Hussein deserve to walk away unpunished. In fact, I would contend that if we look at this as a traditional battle against evil people, we miss the point that the same potential for evil exists within us. And until we hold ourselves accountable for the highest standards, we will continue to demonize and we will forget to say, "but for the grace of God..."

So, perhaps the issue is that we are not out-thinking a media who plants the us vs. them mentality. Think through that, and then explain to me how a person who condemns hussein is not solely responsible to condemn Bush as well.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 10:32pm

I totally agree with what you are saying, touchme. It's easy to think that terrible men like Hussein and Hitler were all one thing, but the truth is--they were fleshed out humans who *thought* they were justified. It's the same thing as when an actor plays the bad guy--you don't play a bad guy thinking you are the bad guy.

And, only when we think on these more rational terms, can we get to the truth of things.

[Plum]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 10:33pm

Did I just imagine how he massacred Kurds?

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 10:36pm

The ethnicty of the Kurds WAS a major factor in their being a target. It was not the only reason, but it was a major one. The name itself is an an ethnic stereotype.

Of course, no one is "all good" or "all bad." My contention remains that some people are worse than others.

It may be the case that many people are dooped or deluded by the media, but suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you is deluded,or is not thinking through the issues is not a legitimate form of debate.
The contention you are making that those who may not feel the two are equal are somehow "not thinking through" the issues is quite offensive.

[Plum]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 10:39pm

Oh, the poor goddamn woobie wanted to hold on to power he got through a series of violent coups. Let me play the world's tiniest violin for him.

Hey, did you know he also helped modernize Iraq's economy and improve education and literacy rates? What a great guy! Ignore the tortured citizens in the corner.

This is a guy who responded to an assassination attempt against him by massacaring, imprisoning, and torturing over 1,500 people from the town where the attempt took place. Yes, that's exactly like President Bush. Yep.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 11:08pm

I knew you'd come to my defense, jerby. Thanks.

His massacre of the "Kurds" wasn't done on ethnic grounds, as we all know. It was done for political and religious reasons. You are being imprecise if you call him racist. He is not. A fundamentalist, yes. A power-hungry man, yes. But, racist isn't anything we know of yet.

Smart, your argument is based on a logical fallacy. you claim I am forcing people who disagree with me into the category of those who are duped, but that is not my contention in the slightest. Don't straw man me. My point is that the Western media is accepted as unbiased truth, but in the same way the various middle eastern media sources write stories to push a worldview, our media needs to tell stories of good and evil to sell the news. My contention is that viewing any human an a figure head of evil buys into this worldview, and I need someone to explain why doing that is justified on both ethical and logical grounds -- so far, all I've gotten are a lot of assertions with no evidence as to Hussein or Bush's motive.

And, Plum, you know my posts well enough to know that I am not pro-Hussein. He is awful and should be held accountable.

But, how does speaking about him as evil and Bush as better answer the divide between east and western ways of talking about this war? Does it help to bridge gaps or does it make the gap wider?

In addition, how does it help us progress as a society if we aren't willing to examine the ways we accept and reject not just media stories, but the worldview the medai supplies us with?

Again, no one has answered the question I have been asking since moment one -- what is the difference between the motive of Hussein and the motive of Bush?

[Plum]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 11:18pm

So motives are all that matter now? Not just the means? I mean, I'm sure Bush doesn't like prostitution anymore than Hussein does, but he never had prostitutes' severed heads displayed in public.

And even assuming motives are supreme, uh...why is it so much better than Hussein massacred, tortured, gassed, imprisoned, and starved at 50,000-100,000 people of his own country, including noncombatants, on the basis of religion? And, oh wait, he also got 60,000-130,000 Shi'as. Just in case anyone's forgetting.

He bombed Israel in the Gulf War in hopes of breaking up the Saudi Arabia/U.S. alliance. I mean, it's not like Israel had done anything, but what the hell? He hated Jews anyway. (Don't ****ing tell me he's not a bigot.)

What Hussein did isn't a media story. The fact that I had to learn how to put on a gas mask at age 5 thanks to that bastard isn't some neo-con fabrication. At what point do you stop accusing me of being a narrow-minded Westerner and get the fact that there's bad and then there's worse, and Hussein is worse?
Updated On: 12/10/05 at 11:18 PM

[Luscious]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 11:21pm

They both should be shot.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 11:21pm

Your view that the media is often biased, and that the "good veres evil" rhetoric is not appropriate are both items on which we agree.


"So, perhaps the issue is that we are not out-thinking a media who plants the us vs. them mentality. Think through that, and then explain to me how a person who condemns hussein is not solely responsible to condemn Bush as well."

This implies that those who have not come to your conclusion are not "thinking through" the issues. It is not a "logical fallacy."

The Kurds are almost all Sunni Muslem, and while there was a political motivation in the Iraq situation they have been dominated and discrimated against as an Ethnic minority for hundreds of years. In Iraq, Turkey, and Iran.

The Columbia Encylopedia: "Ethnically close to the Iranians, the Kurds were traditionally nomadic herders but are now mostly seminomadic or sedentary. The majority of Kurds are Sunni Muslims. Kurdish dialects belong to the northwestern branch of the Iranian languages. The Kurds have traditionally resisted subjugation by other nations. Despite their lack of political unity throughout history, the Kurds, as individuals and in small groups, have had a lasting impact on developments in SW Asia. Saladin, who gained fame during the Crusades, is perhaps the most famous of all Kurds."

[Plum]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 11:23pm

No, I want them to have life in prison. Maximum security prison, with murderers and rapists.

[Luscious]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 11:24pm

"No, I want them to have life in prison."

Well... if they could be cell mates...