No wonder they love us!

[Mycroft]

Whatever you need to tell yourself to justify those actions. Go right ahead.

Daredelvis

So you prefer to attack your opponent rather than discuss ideas. Got it.

 

[UserGoogol]

So do you always abuse power when you have the opportunity?

I personally disagree with your premise. Some people do abuse power, certainly, but it's not "just what people do." Not even close.

I dunno, I haven't had much in terms of power given to me yet. I'd like to think I wouldn't, and I don't think I am of that sort of personality, but of course it would be rather unskeptical of me to make assumptions without prior evidence.

But at any rate, I meant "what people do" in the statistical sense. Of course not every single person is a power abusing dick, but they're a common enough part of the human condition that in a large enough group (and the number of troops stationed in Iraq is large) they are probably going to be wreaking their havoc. Plus, certain social situations can increase person's willingness to "abuse power," and it seems plausible that war is one of those situations.

 

[Lonewulf]

Uh-oh Lonewulf, it appears that in your own country authorities confiscated a man's wheelchair after he was caught speeding in it!

But we must do better than that in Iraq!

"My own country"?

I'm a U.S. Citizen, smartass. Do some research and read my posts before you move your fingers and make an ass out of you and... well... you.

By the way, great article. It's obviously very objective.

[...]

Now, here's my question: Could these people have contested the confiscation of their wheelchair in a court of law, or not?

What's the matter, Wildcat? Wolf got your tongue?

Destroying or confiscating the tools used to commit a crime is hardly tantamount to torture or rape...

Yeah, except that the only people that brought up torture and rape were the ones that were saying how it's okay to destroy property because the previous guys were so much worse.

How about this? I can steal from you, because the previous guy would have stolen from you AND beaten you up. Therefore, I'm morally in the right. Hey, cool, huh?

and is in fact SOP in the United States and I suspect many other western nations.

With no court of law, right?

In this case, it is not practical for the soldiers to tow the car and sell it at auction later, nor are they equiped to arrest and jail thieves. And the thieves still have their lives, limbs, and freeedom intact and their car will not be used to commit any more crimes.

And a person with a cab won't be able to make a living.

Is it a sure thing that the owner of the vehicle was even partly responsible for any of the crimes? If not, then I'd be interested in hearing how ruining his way of life is helping ... anyone, really.

This isn't about doing marginally better than local custom, it's better by leaps and bounds.

Of course it is.

Hey, the previous guy could have tortured you, so therefore I can walk into your home, rough you up a bit, take your stuff, destroy your stuff, and then go on my merry way and masturbate to how great I am.

Glad to hear.

 

[Travis]

Here's the thing. They're tankers that are charged with stopping looting which is a hard thing to do for properly equipped and suitably trained civilian police forces.

What do they do? They can't arrest them because they're in a freaking tank which barely has enough room for the crew of four. They obviously don't want to just summarily execute them even though that has been done to looters since war began. They can't just let them go because that sends the message that looting is ok and permissible. They could have just beaten the crap out of them to make an example of them but that doesn't seem too civilized either. But.... crush their car and it sends a message to everyone that looting is not cool and it avoids the other options of beating them, letting them go unpunished or killing them.

So, as much as my emotions detested what happened I can actually understand their logic given what they were told to do and what they had to do it with.

Honestly if you were in their situation what would you have done?

 

[dann]

Personally, I would consider how to get myself out of that situation fast.
There is something about the what-would-you-have-done-in-that-situation logic I don't like: It asks you to empathisize with somebody by identifying with that person´s concerns, which you may not share. To do it correctly, you would have to start at the beginning:
'Let's say you invade some country, dispose of its (certainly crappy) leader (but yours aren't any better) and half-heartedly try to establish a new regime, which nobody ever wanted; the whole structure of society is upset, and some people are left to depend on looting to get necessary things like firewood, building materials (whatever).
You, on the other hand, are a soldier and have been ordered to prevent this from happening, no matter what.
Now, what do you do?'
The answere is pretty easy: 'You're a soldier who has learned (been conditioned, whatever) to obey orders, so you obey orders. Your room for independent thought consists in coming up with more or less creative ways of following orders, which is what you do. It's rather late to consider whether or not you'd like to actually be in this situation. You should have done so much earlier ... if you had a choice back then.'

 

[Travis]

My point was that the problem was asking the wrong people to do the job with the wrong tools. Think of it as like asking a paramedic team to put out a house fire using only what's in their ambulance then ridiculing them for lamely trying to beat out flames with thermal blankets and spraying saline onto the flames.

 

[Lonewulf]

dispose of its (certainly crappy) leader (but yours aren't any better)

Wait, are you seriously claiming that Suddam Hussein and Bush really are/were just as bad as each other?

My point was that the problem was asking the wrong people to do the job with the wrong tools. Think of it as like asking a paramedic team to put out a house fire using only what's in their ambulance then ridiculing them for lamely trying to beat out flames with thermal blankets and spraying saline onto the flames.

Which isn't really much of a defense outside of "We need to seriously re-evaluate how we're handling Iraq". And taking people like Wildcat's blind acceptance of these actions, that still goes against a lot of the common arguments in this thread.

 

[dann]

I'm not a Kurd, but if I'd been, I'd probably say that Saddam Hussein was much worse than Bush. But on the other hand, in order to decide if they are/were "as bad as each other", I would have to take into consideration that only one of them had/has WMD's! I don't know who has actually killed most people: Bush or Saddam? Saddam's power was never very long-range, but it definitely wasn't pleasant for a lot of the people within his reach.
If it weren't for Bush, Danish troops probably wouldn't be killing Iraqis and Afghans (or each other: "friendly fire") right now. This, by the way, is not meant as an excuse for Danish foreign policy!

 

[Lonewulf]

I'm not a Kurd, but if I'd been, I'd probably say that Saddam Hussein was much worse than Bush. But on the other hand, in order to decide if they are/were "as bad as each other", I would have to take into consideration that only one of them had/has WMD's! I don't know who has actually killed most people: Bush or Saddam? Saddam's power was never very long-range, but it definitely wasn't pleasant for a lot of the people within his reach.

Uh... so killing an enemy combatant is morally equivalent to killing a civilian to keep power?

If it weren't for Bush, Danish troops probably wouldn't be killing Iraqis and Afghans (or each other: "friendly fire") right now. This, by the way, is not meant as an excuse for Danish foreign policy!

Bush is forcing the Danes to go into Iraq by pointing a gun at their head, right?

 

[dann]

Uh... so killing an enemy combatant is morally equivalent to killing a civilian to keep power?

You think that Saddam killed only civilians and Bush kills only "enemy combatants"? I think that you aren't very well informed about the war in Iraq ...

Bush is forcing the Danes to go into Iraq by pointing a gun at their head, right?

Is that in any way implied in my post???! I have a very hard time following your line of reasoning ...

 

[m_huber]

I'm not a Kurd, but if I'd been, I'd probably say that Saddam Hussein was much worse than Bush. But on the other hand, in order to decide if they are/were "as bad as each other", I would have to take into consideration that only one of them had/has WMD's! I don't know who has actually killed most people: Bush or Saddam? Saddam's power was never very long-range, but it definitely wasn't pleasant for a lot of the people within his reach.
If it weren't for Bush, Danish troops probably wouldn't be killing Iraqis and Afghans (or each other: "friendly fire") right now. This, by the way, is not meant as an excuse for Danish foreign policy!

Are you kidding? Saddam Hussein engaged in deliberate genocide of his own people. He definitely did have WMD's, although it is not clear for what period of time he had them.

Currently, the number of civilian casualties in Iraq (most of whom were not attacked by Americans) is around 80,000. Saddam killed around 180,000 of his own people. There is no comparison between Bush and Saddam.

I am not a Bush supporter, but he isn't quite so bad as he is made out to be (as bad as he is). He is certainly not a tyrant to be compared to Saddam, Stalin, or Hitler, if for no other reason than the fact that he simply lacks their genius.

 

[Lonewulf]

You think that Saddam killed only civilians and Bush kills only "enemy combatants"?

Okay, now I need proof.

Please show me footage of U.S. troops tying up thousands of innocent people to posts and shooting them, plz. I can dig up footage of Suddam's troops doing the same.

Show me footage of people being killed just so Bush can stay in power; show me the fear people have in Congress where if they go up against Bush, they'll be shot. Show me how the Democrat party has been decimated because all the democrats are in fear for their lives.

Oh, wait... maybe you should actually think before you post?

The fact that people like you need to sensationalize your hatred of Bush to the point where you think of him as no different than people like Suddam Hussein really tells me that some people are really fraggin' desperate to attack the guy. It's really funny, too, because attacking the guy is so easy I don't quite get why you have that desperation.

 

[Travis]

I'm not a Kurd, but if I'd been, I'd probably say that Saddam Hussein was much worse than Bush.

Not just Kurds, he terrorized Shiites too, had over 100,000 killed after the failed revolt in 1991, then had their farmland irrigation diverted to further punish them.

But in truth everyone under Saddam was subject to terror. His own son was imprisoned and tortured can you imagine Bush allowing Jenna to be extraordinarily renditioned to some hell hole third world country to be "interrogated" by the local thugs?

But on the other hand, in order to decide if they are/were "as bad as each other", I would have to take into consideration that only one of them had/has WMD's!

I guess the people in Halabja just died of mass hysteria and not the Mustard Gas, Sarin and VX gas that was evident everywhere.

I don't know who has actually killed most people: Bush or Saddam? Saddam's power was never very long-range, but it definitely wasn't pleasant for a lot of the people within his reach.

Let me let you in on the answer: Saddam. He had more Iraqis executed during the Al-Anfal campaign than all the civilians that have been killed by American troops so far. Furthermore with the exception of a handful of extraordinary instances all civilian deaths by American forces were non-deliberate accidents.

Bush, to my knowledge, has never ordered anyone to execute any Iraqi.

If it weren't for Bush, Danish troops probably wouldn't be killing Iraqis and Afghans (or each other: "friendly fire") right now. This, by the way, is not meant as an excuse for Danish foreign policy!

Afghanistan would almost certainly have been invaded no matter who was President right after 9/11. Therefore NATO involvement would likely also have happened regardless of whether Bush was President or not.

I always feel so dirty when I have to defend Bush but my commitment to defending Truth takes precedent.

 

[dann]

Okay, now I need proof, Lonewolf.

Please show me where I say that troops tie up thousands of innocent people to posts and shoot them, plz. It's possible, that you "can dig up footage of Suddam's troops doing the same", but how exactly does that mean that I ever claimed that Bush did the exact same thing?
Do you want me to show you photos of the way that Americans treat prisoners of war? There are plenty of those. Why is it of utmost importance to you to top that with photos of Saddam treating his prisoners worse than that? Does it make the US treatment of POW's any better?

Please show me where I say that people are "being killed just so Bush can stay in power"; show me where I say that people in Congress fear that "if they go up against Bush, they'll be shot." And show me where I say that "the Democrat party has been decimated because all the democrats are in fear for their lives."
By the way, even Saddam had people killed for other reasons than that. Even he had people killed because they got in the way of other objectives than simply his wish to stay in power. Did that make either his ambitions or his deeds any better? I don't think so.

Oh, wait... maybe you should actually think before you post?

The fact that people like you need to sensationalize your comparison of American leaders of state and the people in other countries that they consider their enemies to the point where you think of them as completely and in every respect different really tells me that some people are really fraggin' desperate to defend the guy and the system he represents.
Describing Bush in a condescending manner as "attacking the guy is so easy" and at the same time defending him by comparisons that make him seem so much better than his opponents in other countries merely serves to play down the harm done by the US to people abroad.
Show me footage of an American tank running over a taxi in N.Y., please. But N.Y. is not a war zone? No, it isn't.

It's really funny that the way in which people are killed always becomes so very important. The Coalition of the Willing and other military efforts backed up by approximately the same nations may be killing thousands of people in Iraq, Afghanistan etc., but not the way Saddam did it. Bombs are so much cleaner, apparently, in particular whey they are dropped from planes and not by suicide bombers, and you usually don't have much footage of the people dying in the those attacks.

 

[dann]

I'm not a Kurd, but if I'd been, I'd probably say that Saddam Hussein was much worse than Bush.

Not just Kurds, he terrorized Shiites too, had over 100,000 killed after the failed revolt in 1991, then had their farmland irrigation diverted to further punish them.

And he had a lot of Iranians killed too, didn't he, in the war between the two countries, but back then he had strong allies (not only) on the other side of the Atlantic, I think, which might be the reason why you didn't mention those as well. (Did I ever say or imply that he only killed Kurds?)

But in truth everyone under Saddam was subject to terror. His own son was imprisoned and tortured can you imagine Bush allowing Jenna to be extraordinarily renditioned to some hell hole third world country to be "interrogated" by the local thugs?

No, probably not, but I can imagine Bush 'allowing' a lot of foreigners to be extraordinarily renditioned to some hell hole third world country to be "interrogated" by the local thugs, and so can you, I think. So what is your point, exactly? That it is so much better to do that to foreigners as long as it doesn't happen to Jenna?

I guess the people in Halabja just died of mass hysteria and not the Mustard Gas, Sarin and VX gas that was evident everywhere.

That wouldn't be by guess.

Let me let you in on the answer: Saddam. He had more Iraqis executed during the Al-Anfal campaign than all the civilians that have been killed by American troops so far. Furthermore with the exception of a handful of extraordinary instances all civilian deaths by American forces were non-deliberate accidents.

And this is what makes "all civilian deaths by American forces" so beautiful, isn't it? The so-called "collateral damage". I can imagine how many people die in this manner since about 50 per cent (my guess, I haven't got the exact numbers) of Danish casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan appear to be from "friendly fire", and you wouldn't expect the troops to fire at positions occupied by allied forces. I don't know if it makes a hell of a lot of difference to the dead that they were killed in "non-deliberate" "accidents", I haven't asked them. But I suspect that the meaning of "non-deliberate accidents" is that you drop a bomb to kill enemy soldiers or destroy enemy property, and civilians who happen to be near that place then die 'accidentally'. Is that correct?

Bush, to my knowledge, has never ordered anyone to execute any Iraqi.

I don't know. I would expect him to have people in Iraq to give those orders. I don't even know if he (or his brother) actually ordered executions in Texas. Is that the way it happens? I also don't know if Kennedy or Johnson (whoever) ever actually ordered US troops to execute anybody in Indo-China in the 1960s and 1970s, but several millions died anyway, but maybe you don't remember since the names of these foreigners, as far as I know, don't appear on any memorial walls in the USA. Now there's an idea ...

Afghanistan would almost certainly have been invaded no matter who was President right after 9/11. Therefore NATO involvement would likely also have happened regardless of whether Bush was President or not.

Did I ever claim that this would not have happened?

I always feel so dirty when I have to defend Bush but my commitment to defending Truth takes precedent.

Did you ever consider that it might be possible to defend "Truth" without defending Bush? I certainly don't want you to feel dirty after the act.

 

[dann]

Are you kidding? Saddam Hussein engaged in deliberate genocide of his own people. He definitely did have WMD's, although it is not clear for what period of time he had them.

Well, not at the time of the invasion, apperently.

Currently, the number of civilian casualties in Iraq (most of whom were not attacked by Americans) is around 80,000. Saddam killed around 180,000 of his own people. There is no comparison between Bush and Saddam.

No, you have me there. American presidents don't usually kill that many of their own compatriots, I think, but I'm not sure. Would you count the people who die because they don't get health care, for instance? (By the way, you should take into considereation that US and allied troops haven't been in Iraq for the number of years that Saddam was in power. Patience!)

I am not a Bush supporter, but he isn't quite so bad as he is made out to be (as bad as he is). He is certainly not a tyrant to be compared to Saddam, Stalin, or Hitler, if for no other reason than the fact that he simply lacks their genius.

Well, compared to Saddam, Stalin or Hitler, Charles Manson is a pussycat. Genius, however, is not the word that would occur to me in a description of any of them, but I think that you all underestimate Bush when you simply dismiss him as unintelligent. Why should he be intelligent? He is the president! He can pay and order people to be intelligent for him!

 

[m_huber]

No, you have me there. American presidents don't usually kill that many of their own compatriots, I think, but I'm not sure. Would you count the people who die because they don't get health care, for instance? (By the way, you should take into considereation that US and allied troops haven't been in Iraq for the number of years that Saddam was in power. Patience!)

I don't think there is a real comparison between old people without health care dying and young people being rounded up and shot. Even if there were, there are numerous agencies in the US that do little more than help people who don't get any other help. It isn't necessarily the president's job to provide health care, and many would actually oppose it.

US troops in Iraq who inadvertently kill civilians as part of their attempt to destroy terror cells cannot be compared to Saddam ordering his troops to kill his own civilians. No matter how much time either one has.

Well, compared to Saddam, Stalin or Hitler, Charles Manson is a pussycat. Genius, however, is not the word that would occur to me in a description of any of them, but I think that you all underestimate Bush when you simply dismiss him as unintelligent. Why should he be intelligent? He is the president! He can pay and order people to be intelligent for him!

Good point.

 

[Lonewulf]

Okay, now I need proof, Lonewolf.

Please show me where I say that troops tie up thousands of innocent people to posts and shoot them, plz. It's possible, that you "can dig up footage of Suddam's troops doing the same", but how exactly does that mean that I ever claimed that Bush did the exact same thing?
Do you want me to show you photos of the way that Americans treat prisoners of war? There are plenty of those. Why is it of utmost importance to you to top that with photos of Saddam treating his prisoners worse than that? Does it make the US treatment of POW's any better?

Please show me where I say that people are "being killed just so Bush can stay in power"; show me where I say that people in Congress fear that "if they go up against Bush, they'll be shot." And show me where I say that "the Democrat party has been decimated because all the democrats are in fear for their lives."

dispose of its (certainly crappy) leader (but yours aren't any better)

You think that Saddam killed only civilians and Bush kills only "enemy combatants"?

Bam. There's your proof. Thank you, don't forget your hat, and don't let the door hit your ass on your way out.

So, you are now saying that you did not state that Bush is "as bad as" Saddam?

Oh, wait, no, you're just busting your ass trying to equivocate the two while simultaneously admitting that Bush isn't as bad.

Describing Bush in a condescending manner as "attacking the guy is so easy" and at the same time defending him by comparisons that make him seem so much better than his opponents in other countries merely serves to play down the harm done by the US to people abroad.

Yes! I don't immediately attack him and say that he's equal to Hitler, or equal to Pol Pot, or equal to Chairman Mao... I mean, how dare I?! If you don't like him, he MUST be immediately equal to all of those people, right?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nothing worth listening to here. Goodbye.

 

[dann]

Bam! You are aware that you are quoting yourself with your "as bad as", aren't you?! What I said, and in this case you quote me correctly, was, "dispose of its (certainly crappy) leader (but yours aren't any better)".
Saddam Hussein doesn't come anywhere near the number of killings ordered/decreed/brought about (?) by US foreign policy in the past forty years. And that is even if we don't credit it with helping its old buddy Saddam during his war against Iran.
This is what would actually make American presidents deserve a prominent place among the foreign statesmen mentioned that you bring up out of the blue, for some reason.

So there's nothing worth listening to here. Goodbye, Lonewolf!

 

[dann]

I don't think there is a real comparison between old people without health care dying and young people being rounded up and shot.

The comparison is that they all die, the difference is that they die for different reasons: You shoot some, and you let others die by withholding medical aid from them (and they aren't all old!).

Even if there were, there are numerous agencies in the US that do little more than help people who don't get any other help. It isn't necessarily the president's job to provide health care, and many would actually oppose it.

The president himself being one of them! I'm not sure, but are you implying that it necessarily is the president's job to invade foreign countries and killing people there? It certainly appears to be!

US troops in Iraq who inadvertently kill civilians as part of their attempt to destroy terror cells cannot be compared to Saddam ordering his troops to kill his own civilians. No matter how much time either one has.

I don't think that Saddam would have described them merely as "civilians"; I think that he was just as proficient as Americans when coming up with terms to describe his enemies. He would probably also have been able to call his enemies terror cells, for instance, and the civilian Kurdish victims of his poison-gas attacks, inadvertent collateral damage.