Was Saddam worse than U.S.Army?

rimon-jad · Post by **rimon-jad** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:45 pm

http://www.rotten.com/library/crime/prison/abu-ghraib/

Turpissimus · Post by **Turpissimus** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 9:28 pm

I don't think much can beat this:

Iulius Caesar · Post by **Iulius Caesar** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 3:16 am

You know something.... did Saddam punish his people who killed and tortured thousands of people? Now here you let a handfull of crummy dirtbags in uniform destroy the honor of the best fighting force in the world. I am not sure if you knew this but we are bringing all involved to justice. In answer to your question:

Were the Nazis better than the Americans?

Turpissimus · Post by **Turpissimus** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:28 am

Now here you let a handfull of crummy dirtbags in uniform destroy the honor of the best fighting force in the world.

The worry is that the responsibility for the prisoner abuse scandal might extend far beyond some low-level MPs from appalachia. According to one source approval or wilful ignorance of these measures extended some way up the chain of command. I doubt that these abuses occured solely because of a corrupt few junior staff. I suspect that it was part of a deliberate policy of "softening up" the prisoners, prior to interrogation by the "civilians" which appear in one or two of the photos.

I think the average Briton, and in this respect a class myself as average, likes and respects Americans, and two years ago I could have said the same with confidence of the average Egyptian. But these various scandals chip away at American moral authority. To wage this kind of war successfully, I do think you need to mind your reputation. No Iraqi will want an American style democracy, if that democracy is perceived as worthless or morally corrupt.

rimon-jad · Post by **rimon-jad** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 7:12 pm

I am getting tired of US military campaigns. If Goerge Double-U Bush gets a presidential seat, we can expect another 2 - 3 war conflicts. The reason for the invasion to Iraq were the biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. They didn´t find any. One would think at least WE live in a civilized world. Did Nazis do such things to the English and French soldiers during the WW2? (No, they had another victims.)
I did NOT compare Saddam´s practices with Americans´, but with USArmy´s. And that makes a difference.

Emma_85 · Post by **Emma_85** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:30 am

I don't think you can say that the US army is worse than Saddam, but it would be unwise to say that certain practices of the US army are not as bad as those under Saddam. I believe that you can hardly have just a few soldiers doing such things on their own. Everyone knew it seems - the doctors too, they knew about the beatings and the deaths and did nothing.
But it is not just the treatment of prisoners that the US army has got wrong. Some of their tactics remind me too much of Israel’s tactics against Palestine. That is something the Americans should have been careful about. The Iraqis, glad as they were at first to be freed from Saddam's rule, probably still looked at the Americans with suspicion and when the US army started to act in a similar fashion to the Israeli one - well, they won't have been too happy. The US army is not able to keep the peace in Iraq, but we all knew before that they wouldn't be able to. Everyone was saying so (at least in Germany), so why is everyone acting all confused that there are militant cells that are fighting against the US army?
To just go in there and think that everything will be fine - that's bad too. So many lives have been lost in this war, less would have been lost if Saddam had stayed in power and maybe grudually got rid of (I mean there are other ways than war, war should always be the last option). Had it all been better planned and organised maybe things would have been different. I'm glad Saddam is gone and so are quite a few Iraqi's I would think. But they are not happy with the US, because they aren't able to keep the peace. Bombing cities is not really the best thing to do either. Imagine bombing part of NY because you suspect that some militants are there. It's just not something you would do in your own country, and as the US should be acting as if it were the Iraqi military they should not be doing it either.
The reasons for going to war were also terrible. Saddam probably lied to his people, did Bush and Blair not do that same? They had crap intelligence, but I think that just says all. To go to war because of a grainy picture of a structure that might be making WOMD or toothpaste - well.
To go to war to get rid of Saddam and so help the Iraqi people, that was not the official reason (nor the actally reason of Bush) to go to war (it is illegal to go to war to change a regime under international law). Nor to stop terrorists (what evidence did they present us with that Iraq supported terrorists?). Officially it was because of WOMD. But Blitz said he needed more time and that he didn't think they really had any worth speaking of - and still there was war.
I call that being as bad as Saddam.
In other things Bush and Blair are not as bad or worse than Saddam, but in these things yes.

classicalclarinet · Post by **classicalclarinet** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:46 am

Everyone was saying so (at least in Germany), so why is everyone acting all confused that there are militant cells that are fighting against the US army?

'Cause Americans aren't Germans.

To go to war because of a grainy picture of a structure that might be making WOMD or toothpaste - well.

I think events of 9/11 so changed American minds so significantly, they could accept this then..

I think the point to recognise in this question is that the Americans did not drop gas bombs, massacre Shiites, etc. Althogh the fact that Congress has unofficially stopped holding hearings on the abuse and killings is just disgraceful.

Emma_85 · Post by **Emma_85** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:55 am

I think the point to recognise in this question is that the Americans did not drop gas bombs, massacre Shiites, etc. Althogh the fact that Congress has unofficially stopped holding hearings on the abuse and killings is just disgraceful.

Yes, that's what I said, the US army is not worse than Saddam, but just in some points it's just as bad or worse (worse at keeping the peace than Saddam for example).

Emma_85 · Post by **Emma_85** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 11:03 am

classicalclarinet wrote:
Everyone was saying so (at least in Germany), so why is everyone acting all confused that there are militant cells that are fighting against the US army?
'Cause Americans aren't Germans.

I just makes you realise how hopelessly dependant we often are on the media coverage we receive and how we just like to believe our own governments propaganda. In Germany they concentrated on saying why it would not work, what all the problems were and so on. In America the news was more bright and optimistic. Propaganda makes such a huge difference. I really believe that just proves that there is a huge need for more independent news stations around the world. The more there are the better the coverage should be, and the danger that all the media is owned by just a few people who of course often have other interests than to correctly inform the public is very real. Look at the way Russia is going - all the media controlled by Putin. And things are getting worse in America too. In Germany things are a bit better, but not much really. They only news channels are privately owned. There is no publicly owned news station. I listen to the news on the private ones but I trust the news on the public stations, but they only have time to go into a few subjects in detail as normally they play pop-music all day.

classicalclarinet · Post by **classicalclarinet** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 11:18 am

independent news stations

Having one would be very difficult to keep fincacially stably, I'd Imagine..

Look at the way Russia is going - all the media controlled by Putin

Oh, don't get me started up about him..

Turpissimus · Post by **Turpissimus** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:28 pm

I suppose if Americans want balance they could always listen to Air America. I was surprised to see liberals in the US had talk radio as well.

Always nice to see Chuck D from Public Enemy back at work as well.

Emma_85 · Post by **Emma_85** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:46 pm

Having one would be very difficult to keep fincacially stably, I'd Imagine..

Oh, they are doing fine in other countries. The BBC is public, as are ARD and ZDF, and the BBC seems to be doing fine financially the other two aren't doing bad, they have huge budgets, but spend most on buy BBC productions I sometimes think

. Surprisingly enough The Independent http://news.independent.co.uk/ is still an independent newspaper and the only good one in the UK as far as I can tell (only read it when I'm there of course and it is a bit of a tabloid sometimes). But we were talking about TV stations and not newspapers...

Maybe the American definition of a Liberal is different to my one. I wouldn’t trust the liberals here in Germany...

Turpissimus · Post by **Turpissimus** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:51 pm

Maybe the American definition of a Liberal is different to my one. I wouldn’t trust the liberals here in Germany...

Yeah, Liberal is one of those words that mean everything depending on the context. Of course it comes from liber meaning free, and freedom is something which everyone is in favour of.

Traditionally (18th, 19th centuries) Liberals were in favour of individual freedom (press, speech etc), free trade (though this is more of a 19th century thing), and freedom of contract and property rights (which means they would oppose things like business regulation and progressive taxation). This is still the sense, broadly, in which in the term is used in Europe. So European liberals are right of centre in terms of economics, they could also be considered left of centre in terms of civil rights (certain of them at least) and immigration. This pattern is broadly replicated in the US by people who call themselves Libertarians - who generally tend to be in favour of things like the complete elimination of immigration controls, income tax, labour market regulation, gun control, and drug crimes. Badnarik is their presidential candidate. I see Liberals on continental europe as far more moderate versions of Libertarians - both dislike market regulation, as well as government interference in individual choices.

In the UK, the old Liberal Party (which had been through the process US liberals went through - though more on that shortly) merged with the Social Democrats, and consequently their party (Liberal Democrats) is a good deal more left leaning than Liberals on the continent. They have however inherited Liberal concern about security measures, and immigration crackdowns.

In the US, the term Liberal came to mean someone who felt that personal freedom from government interference was worthless without the economic capability to make use of those freedoms - so, since about the time of FDR, Liberals have been those on the centre left of US politics. Liberals there tend to favour affirmative action, expansion of Medicare and other forms of Social Security, and other things which, while they technically abridge individual freedom, do tend to make that freedom more meaningful. The left in the US is not gigantic, but those that are further to the left than liberals (believing in, say, such communistic policies as universal healthcare) tend to call themself progressives, rather than socialists.

All this is complicated by the fact that US politics tend to be inclined further right than UK politics, and UK politics tend to be further right than continental European politics. Michael Howard's support for some form of universal healthcare (and I think most UK conservatives do support "socialised healthcare" - albeit in some form less heavily state controlled) would leave him on the far left of US politics. Most UK conservative voters, if not the party faithful, seem to view Bush as a dangerous cowbow who ought to learn English before daring to run for the highest office of one of the worlds most sophisticated countries.

Also, as a corollary to this, I would add that the definition of conservative is subject to a similar variety. If conservatism is about fiscal discipline and gradual change, and suspicion of the grand designs of utopian dreamers, there could be grounds for saying that the neo-con project to turn Iraq into a free-market democratic paradise, while at the same time running up enormous debts for the US public to pay in future ($200bn so far?) is the furthest thing from conservatism one could possibly imagine.

Emma_85 · Post by **Emma_85** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:35 pm

Ah, now I see, thanks for that. It's a bit confusing when trying to work out the different meanings that concepts have in America and Europe.
I think I understand better now why some Americans seem to think being liberal is nearly like being communist

.