TRANSMISSIONS FROM ARIZONA

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The real irony is that we executed Hussein for human rights violations which occurred in the name of his regime being "tough on terror". I guess it's OK when WE do it, though.

[AFK]

I'm not sure that is a valid comparison.  Saddam purposefully killed his own people.  The U.S. entered a war it should not have entered.  But it hasn't purposefully, targetted innocent Iraqis. 

[Cain]

I'm not sure that is a valid comparison.  Saddam purposefully killed his own people.  The U.S. entered a war it should not have entered.  But it hasn't purposefully, targetted innocent Iraqis. 

Wanna bet?  I can trace purposeful, willful and excessive use of force against Iraqi citizens as the direct responsibility of the government and occupation authorities.  Sure, they probably didn't have direct orders to go pop a few innocent Iraqis in the head, but consider the choice of Blackwater for defence of US installations and Proconsul Bremner.  They know if they let Bremner die, or the insurgents take control of an installation, they can kiss their contracts goodbye.  So they have 'rules' of engagement to reflect that, where an Iraqi can be shot in the head for not stopping his car half a street away from a checkpoint, for example.  What's more, Bremner made such people immune to prosection in Iraq, while Republicans on the Hill have bought the line that they cannot be tried under the UCMJ either.

Sounds to me exactly like the sort of policy that is targeting innocent Iraqi civilians.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm not sure that is a valid comparison.  Saddam purposefully killed his own people.  The U.S. entered a war it should not have entered.  But it hasn't purposefully, targetted innocent Iraqis. 

He tortured and killed his own people when they were SUSPECTED OF BEING TERRORISTS.

We invaded his country and have killed millions more because they were under the rule of a man who was suspected (wrongly, as it happens) to be associated with terrorists.

Our own government is rapidly working on eroding civil rights laws that protect us from being imprisoned, interrogated, tortured, and even killed if they suspect us of being terrorists.

Huh. Go figure.

[AFK]

Of course you can find examples of members of the U.S. Military who went too far.  I won't argue that point.  And yes, the U.S. has contracted with some Mercenaries who have gone over the line as well.  However, I don't think you can equate the misdeeds of some, generalize it to the whole of the U.S. Military and then equate that with what Saddam did to his people. 

I know there's a lot of mocking of the "Support The Troops" thing, but I think it is equally as mockable to go for the polar opposite and generalize the U.S. Military force as a bunch of barbarians.  There are some, no doubt, but I don't think it's fair to cast their petulant shadow across those who are trying to just do the job handed to them by their commanders. 

As far as I'm concerned, that portion of irresponsibility does not equate to a Dictator enacting some paranoid-driven revenge upon a portion of his population.  If Bush starts stuffing U.S. citizens in gas chambers, and has roving death squads in the U.S., then the comparison will be valid.  He's a dope, no doubt, and has enacted bad, bad, bad policy, but it's still not on the same level of vileness that was Saddam. 

[Cain]

Hang on a minute.

I was equating US policy in regard to Saddam's policy.  The troops didn't even come into the equation.  The US government has willfully pursued a policy where innocent Iraqis are going to die, in very large numbers, and instead of taking steps to mimimize those casualties, has instead decided to cover its own ass and those of the people it lets kill Iraqis with abandon.  It has taken steps either to torture Iraqis, or allow their torture at the hands of the secret police.  I see no moral difference between that and Saddam whatsoever.

I didn't comment on the morality of the US army at all, in the same way as I did not comment on the morality of the Iraqi army.  It was irrelevant to my critique of government policy.  Goddamnit.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Cain is correct.

There is no moral difference between the policies we have created, and the policy of just deliberately killing random Iraqis.

[AFK]

Alright, let me back up to my entry into this discussion.  What I disagree with is Nigel's statement:

The real irony is that we executed Hussein for human rights violations which occurred in the name of his regime being "tough on terror". I guess it's OK when WE do it, though.

How I read this, and correct me if I am wrong, is that if what Hussein did rose to the level where he deserved execution so does the U.S. policy that lead to the invasion of Iraq. 

I don't argue that innocent Iraqis have died as a result of the U.S. invasion.  I don't argue that some in the military (I believe a very small minority) and some of the contracted Mercenaries (Blackwater being the obvious example) have overstepped their mission and purposefully killed those it should not kill. 

Saddam Hussein had 150 people from Dujail executed, including some young teenagers.  He had over 1000 other residents, including women and children, imprisoned and tortured.  Women and children are not military targets. 

Yes, the Bush policy to invade Iraq, I believe, was morally wrong.  What I'm saying is the motivation wasn't the same, and in my mind, doesn't rise to the same level of vile of Saddam Hussein.  So we'll have to agree to disagree.

But, if one really thinks someone from the U.S. should hang for the Iraq invasion, who do we hang? 

[LMNO]

Rumsfeld.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Rumsfeld.

Maybe... though Bush is ultimately responsible as Commander In Chief. He had to say Yes to all of this Bullshit.

[Cain]

Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bremner, some other people involved in the CPA (especially those involved in the selling off of Iraqi assets), those who the Abu Ghraib orders originated with, probably a few Pentagon personnel as well.

[Requia ☣]

You'll never get to hang Cheney or Rumsfeild for the Iraq war while I'm around, I'll be too busy hanging them for Vietnam.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

But, if one really thinks someone from the U.S. should hang for the Iraq invasion, who do we hang? 

The President.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Alright, let me back up to my entry into this discussion.  What I disagree with is Nigel's statement:

The real irony is that we executed Hussein for human rights violations which occurred in the name of his regime being "tough on terror". I guess it's OK when WE do it, though.

How I read this, and correct me if I am wrong, is that if what Hussein did rose to the level where he deserved execution so does the U.S. policy that lead to the invasion of Iraq. 

I don't argue that innocent Iraqis have died as a result of the U.S. invasion.  I don't argue that some in the military (I believe a very small minority) and some of the contracted Mercenaries (Blackwater being the obvious example) have overstepped their mission and purposefully killed those it should not kill. 

Saddam Hussein had 150 people from Dujail executed, including some young teenagers.  He had over 1000 other residents, including women and children, imprisoned and tortured.  Women and children are not military targets. 

Yes, the Bush policy to invade Iraq, I believe, was morally wrong.  What I'm saying is the motivation wasn't the same, and in my mind, doesn't rise to the same level of vile of Saddam Hussein.  So we'll have to agree to disagree.

But, if one really thinks someone from the U.S. should hang for the Iraq invasion, who do we hang? 

I'd start with Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and George W Bush.

[Jack of Turnips]

"He had over 1000 other residents, including women and children, imprisoned and tortured."

*shrugs* The USA put more than that through Abu Ghraib. Not many women, but plenty of young boys and men.

"Beginning in 2004, accounts of abuse, torture, sodomy and homicide of prisoners held in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq (also known as Baghdad Correctional Facility) came to public attention. The acts were committed by some personnel of the 372nd Military Police Company of the United States, and possibly additional American governmental agencies."

Afghanistan too.

"Two inmates [at Bagram] in December 2002 were tortured and beaten to death in cells down the hall from [Captain Carolyn Wood's] office. Hung by their arms from the ceiling and beaten so severely that, according to a report by Army investigators later leaked to the Baltimore Sun, their legs would have needed to be amputated had they lived."

Imprisonment, torture, and murder. Best of intentions, sure. Right. Beaten so severely their legs would have needed to be amputated had they lived. Best of intentions. Right. Sorry about that, guys.

Extrapolations from pre- and post-war mortality rates suggest that the destruction of public services infrastructure in Iraq probably resulted in 600,000 more deaths than would have occurred if Saddam Hussein had been left in power. (By 2006, I believe. The figure is probably larger now.)

*shrugs again* A disinterested but compassionate Being would probably see no moral difference between President Bush and Saddam Hussein. I don't.

With regards to Iraq itself, the greatest difference is that before the American invasion Hussein had been rendered mostly powerless to commit the kinds of genocidal murders that won him infamy in the 1980s. One effect of the Bush invasion was to re-introduce those horrors without the mitigation of preserving an orderly society with a survivable infrastructure.

Interestingly, if Saddam had been asked why he did what he did I bet he would have said, "I did it for the good of my country, for the good of my people."

Same as George Bush.

Best of intentions. Right. Sure. Sorry about that, guys.

~~ Jack of Turnips