Who is the bigger war criminal: Hussein or Bush?- Page 3

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 11:44pm

smart, my point above wasn't "think through THAT, stupid people," as much as it was "first, think through that, second, explain why you shouldn't always condemn Bush in the same breath". I didn't intend to imply those who disagree are idiots. Damn internet doesn't allow me to imply non-verbally what I mean. I'll work to be more specific.

I do believe that we are thinking about the issue in two different ways, though. My way helps to bridge gaps, and your helps to do what?

Also, I do know about the Sunnis (unlike Bush when he was first in office), so no need for definitions for my sake.

Plum, I understand what you are saying -- especially given your first-hand experience with it (I've had quite a bit of first-hand experience in the politicizing of worlds, too). Hussein's means are much more brutal than Bush's. But, I wouldn't attribute that to anything other than the fact that Bush has other ways of getting things done. Cleaner ways than displaying heads in the town.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 12/10/05 at 11:53pm

That was a definition of "Kurds" not "Sunnis."

I do not think that your way bridges gaps. I think by understanding and accepting the wrongs in the world we can try to undertake the measures to right them. The way I see to do this is to honestly dissect the issues, but I see it a diservice for us to claim our leader is a tyrant on the scale of the Iraqi's tyrant. To me, that diminishes the suffering of the Iraqi people. It sounds like, "yeah your guy is bad, but ours is just as bad" without our having to deal with the same horrible consequences.

ETA: I agree that lack of inflection is a problem, especially in this type of potentially heated argument.
Maybe that has been part of our problem, your post seem to read very "absolutist" to me, mine may do the same for you. Then we become much more "at odds" than we had intended.

Updated On: 12/10/05 at 11:53 PM

[My Fair Lady]

Posted: 12/11/05 at 12:00am

This is possibly the dumbest thread I have ever seen. As people have mentioned before, HUSSEIN CREATED TORTURE CHAMBERS. To quote someone else, these were "atrocities not seen since Hitler." As much as I dislike Bush, and as much as I disagree with the Iraqi war, BUSH DOESN'T HAVE TORTURE CHAMBERS. Bush doesn't rape people. Bush is an idiot, but he's not purely evil.

[Plum]

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

Bingo, penguin. To anyone who had friends and relatives tortured, raped, and gassed by Saddam just because they were in the wrong town, a comfortable American saying "oh, we're living under a tyrant, too" is just plain insulting.

Oh, and the Bush administration has tortured, MFL. Unfortunately. Just on a much tinier and more secretive scale rather than as an active means of political persuasion.

touchme, I just can't agree that the ends are the only things that matter. You can't say that to people who have been victimized by the means. Look, let's say we have two guys who both want to get promotions. One does so by kissing ass. The other does so by blackmailing his boss. You're going to tell me they're moral equivalents?

[ajayspak2]

Posted: 12/11/05 at 12:22am

EverthingIsRent you write:
"When, exactly, has Bush created turture chambers and killed children? Come on, this is ridiculous, and this whole thread is insane and making me angry. Bush is by no means an angel, but he is NOT a murderer."
He didn't need torture chambers, he had carpet bombs that killed many many innocent children, get a clue, watch something besides the Fox News Channel and maybe youll get a clue as to what is actually happening out there.

[ajayspak2]

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

EverythingISRent its obvious being extremely naive makes you uncomfortable so hence you are going to choose to ignore Politics, nice job, great american you are, go hide under the sheets and cry like a fool. Are you even old enough to vote, cos you don't sound like it.

[ajayspak2]

Posted: 12/11/05 at 12:29am

uh.. touchme... Try the Kurds, GOD this is really pathetic.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 12/11/05 at 12:30am

my point has nothing to do with the means. it has everything to do with the MOTIVE.

the point isn't that we live under a tyant who is ruining our lives -- he's not so much ruining OUR lives as he is ruining the lives of those around the world (although we often get caught up in it, too). but, i would never say americans have it hard. we don't. in the slightest.

ok, smart...

so, now we get into it...you say your way helps us to recognize wrongs and work to right them. did we not know these things were wrong before? do we need to call a person evil in order to know the difference between right and wrong? you claim my way doesn't bridge gaps. i can say from personal experience mediating talks between cultures that this way helps quite a bit -- people don't want to talk to the "other"...but, as soon as they have something in common (aka their humanity), it is easier to talk.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 12/11/05 at 12:38am

Respecting the humanity of people around the world is definately important, that is not what I am saying.

I don't see it, I can't see how your saying Bush is as bad as Hussein, helps anything.

I have not been saying that we should call Hussein or anyone else "evil" that is a straw man representation of my argument.
I believe the US has done really awful things. I would agree with many of your contentions.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 12/11/05 at 1:20am

The problem that I solve for is this: pro-Hussein people in Iraq (yes, for those of you who haven't been there, there are quite a few of them) have bought into the notion that Hussein did everything he did to create a stable Iraq...free from political usurpations. So, they are VERY anti-Bush. In fact, they won't even engage in a conversation with someone who doesn't see the atrocities Bush's war has done to the Iraqi people. If we don't admit to wrongdoing, we lost a population and (in fact) mobilize their defensiveness into to grassroots movement.

If we wish to talk to the people at all, we MUST admit that Bush has done HORRIBLE HORRIBLE things. Weighing them may not be the most accurate way to describe things, but if it helps to start a discussion, that is good. Right now, we have two sides calling one another evil. And until one side stands up and says "yes, we are evil" and then progresses to "we are evil, but human -- just like you", we won't have anything to talk about -- because we'll talk like two ships passing in the night.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 12/11/05 at 1:28am

OMG you guys! This thread is like sooooooo stupid! I mean who like wants to like use their brains and think through like difficult like issues and ideas and like stuff when there are Rent and Wicked threads to create. GOSH!!!! Like just GOSHHHHHH!

BUSH like rules! Like just get over it ok?? I mean like who are you to think for like yourselves?? OMLikeG!!!!

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 12/11/05 at 1:36am

I think that is a valiant effort, in Iraq, with those people.

I don't think it works here to say, "We must see ourselves as evil in order for others to see us as human."
Yes, there is misinformation, yes the US has engaged in horrible things.

Yet, there is still a difference, and if we are honestly assessing the situation I don't think it is appropriate to call the two equal.

In the political climate here, saying the things you are saying makes people less likely to be involved and less likely to seek the truth. Here the issue is helping people understand that we are not perfect and they are not evil, but disregarding the attrocities that have been done, and saying things like "seeing the inhumanity in others is only a reflection of the inhumanity in oneself" does not accomplish that.

Certainly there are many Iraqis that are pro-Hussein, that does not lessen the horrors of his actions. Just as calling those actions horrible does not mean the actions of the US in many cases were not also horrible.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 12/11/05 at 1:47am

Jerby, that was funny.

I will say, I much prefer discussing the issues and disagreeing, than just glossing over real life and posting inanities.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 12/11/05 at 1:52am

Amen!

[justthefacts2]

Posted: 12/11/05 at 6:32am

Sounds like an awful lot of rationalizing for Hussein's actions going on.

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 12/11/05 at 6:37am

Bush is a War Criminal

Hussein comitted crimes against humanity.

both should be brought before The Hague.

[Plum]

Posted: 12/11/05 at 10:58am

my point has nothing to do with the means. it has everything to do with the MOTIVE.

Well, yeah, my point exactly. Way to counteract my arguments against that approach. Hey, tell me something, are a missionary and a terrorist moral equivalents because they both want to convert the whole world to their religion? I mean, they have the same exact motive. Who cares that one does things by preaching and one does it by blowing stuff up?

You say that Bush only refrained from committing as many atrocities as Hussein because he had other means of achieving his goals. Conversely, you're saying that Hussein (poor baby) had to do what he did because of the limited means available to him. I can't countenance that, and if you really believe it, I can't believe a single judgement you make from this point forward.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 12/11/05 at 11:41am

No, Plum. Bush HAS done everything Hussein has done, but he's done it in a Western-friendly way. And I don't for a second say that Hussein is ok. He is awful awful awful. The point is also not SOLELY motive, it also has to take into account ends. If you only have one, you miss the boat.

smart, why is it not appropriate to call the two things equal? If Bush has killed as many innocent people, and his motive is the same, why not call them equal?

I agree that discussing this is important...just as important as discussing art/Broadway.

[Plum]

Posted: 12/11/05 at 1:55pm

Uh...what? Ends and motive are different how, exactly? The separation is between means and ends, not motives and ends.

One second you say Bush didn't display the heads of prostitutes because he didn't have to, the next you say he's done everything Hussein has done. Make up your mind.

And for that matter, even taking the most pessimistic point of view, Bush's ends or motives or whatever the hell you feel like calling them are not the same as Hussein's. Assume that he was after oil for the benefit of all the corporations that bankroll his campaigns. That's a different motive than trying to consolidate the power you got through violent coups by any means necessary. You can argue about which motive is worse, but they ain't the same.

But go on, keep saying the two men are exactly the same. There's a certain perverse pleasure in seeing "rationalization" spin out of control.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 12/11/05 at 2:45pm

I can't keep going with this.
Although I love discussion, and will state for the record my point is not change any ones mind, but just to try to lay out the reasons for my argument and attempt to understand the other persons, this is going nowhere.
I do not subscribe to your definitions of the terms. I do not believe your assertions that the actions are the same.

Bush has done reprehensible things, he has been responsible for the deaths of innocent people, Hussein has also done horrible things. Yet, they are not the same.

I do not believe the motives, or the actual actions themselves are equal. Nor do I think if we actually counted on a person by person basis we can say "Bush killed as many innocent people."

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 12/11/05 at 3:16pm

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/scheer_column_113005/

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/international/europe/29casualties.html?ex=1134450000&en=524b6e148a6a4cf7&ei=5070

While we couldn't possibly do a body count with any sort of efficiency, I don't think I exaggerate to say that Bush and Hussein are in the same ballpark.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 12/11/05 at 3:28pm

I am counting the eight years of Saddam's war with Iran. As well as countless others in political and internal struggles.
The numbers are not the same. We can make any claim we want when adding in "indirect" casualties.

I am not supporting the US's military action in Iraq.

[Plum]

Posted: 12/11/05 at 3:43pm

See, penguin, you're making a key error here. War doesn't count when Hussein wages it because you can't blame the poor darling for not using "Western" means of conflict resolution. You're just being ethnocentric.

Of course, this is all a way of breaking barriers between cultures, not being incredibly condescending to Arabs.
Updated On: 12/11/05 at 03:43 PM