'The liberators are worse than the dictators'

[dArKeR]

By Paul Majendie

London - Photos purporting to show American soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners drew international condemnation on Friday, with Arabs saying the United States campaign to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis was now a lost cause.

"This is the straw that broke the camel's back for America," said Abdel-Bari Atwan, editor of the Arab newspaper al Quds al Arabi. "The liberators are worse than the dictators."

"They have not just lost the hearts and minds of Iraqis but all the Third World and the Arab countries," he said.

http://iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=3&art_id=qw1083349440439B262&set_id=1

Americans are good people the same as Jewish people are good people. It's the leadership that are rotted with maggots.

[fearnobush]

1. Yep, we've gotta get out of this place. If it's the last thing we ever do.

Warning Very Very Graphic!!!<http://www.aljazeera.net/news/arabic/2003/3/3-22-26.htm>

[Direckshun]

4. fearnobush

I know I may just be a wuss, but maybe you could put a warning by that link.

Just warning that they are graphic.

But kudos for posting such an appropriate link.

[dArKeR]

26. In the year 2004 of Lord Bush. Just think, you're tax dollars are the

reason this was accomplished. No one is questioning defending our country. We question the lies Bush told which caused the killing these people and our children too.

[boobooday]

2. They are just going to muck up the whole world

Does this make us look like the biggest hypocritical ASSHOLES ever? Will the Iraqi people EVER FORGET this?

The shame seems unbearable, and then it just gets worse.

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[Direckshun]

3. That's sad that that would be written about us...

Particularly because it's not true.

Under the United States liberators, you only have to deal with a few maggots in the ranks who purport these horrible crimes. Those people will then be shamed in their own country and court martialed, and you'll never see them again harming POWs.

Under the Iraq dictators, you have to deal with the entire government and police force which would be allowed to do whatever they want, including those horrible crimes that our troops were doing. Those people will then be praised by Saddam for their superior work, and be told that Allah is smiling down upon them, which means they will only continue treating prisoners poorly.

We aren't doing the smoothest job that we could be, but we are far better rulers than their dictator was.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

5. Direckshun, again you've outdone yourself with Bush apologetics

"We aren't doing the smoothest job that we could be, but we are far better rulers than their dictator was."

Listen to that sentence. Where, exactly, is it in the Constitution of this Republic that we be better "rulers" of any country than the previous dictator?

[Direckshun]

7. Are you saying our occupation is worse for the Iraqis...

...than Saddam's dictatorships?

I don't understand what you're objection is.

[Sandpiper]

9. Can't speak for Soundgarden1

But that's exactly what I'm saying.

We're condescendingly and brutally attempting to recreate their country for them, whether they like it or not.

We'll end up leaving Iraq in disgrace, just like we did Vietnam.

[Direckshun]

10. Fair enough, but I disagree.

I do think that if we "drop off" the country at June 30th, than Iraq is in serious trouble.

But considering the fact that Saddam would diliberately, and systematically murder hordes of innocent civilians with chemical and biological weapons in the 1980's and '90's, I think we pale in comparison.

[Sandpiper]

11. And who was it

But considering the fact that Saddam would diliberately, and systematically murder hordes of innocent civilians with chemical and biological weapons in the 1980's and '90's, I think we pale in comparison.

That taught Saddam about chemical and biological warfare?

Oh yeah, the United States.

[Direckshun]

13. What's your point?

I don't get it.

I'm saying that the country was worse off with Saddam in power than they are with USA right now.

Yes, the US gave Saddam his weapons, but didn't he use them when he was in power? Yes.

Have we used any since we've conquered? No.

I guess I just don't understand your point.

[arcane1]

15. if that is all you have to make us better

then you do not have much. Saddam gassed the Kurds and Iranians when they went after him, and we have used MOAB's and napalm and depleted uranium in Iraq. The line is very fine

and we also have the shame of having invaded them, un-provoked.

[Direckshun]

16. You are describing our wartime weaponry...

Since we have taken over the country, we haven't put a finger on the MOABs, napalm, or uranium.

Since we've been in control, we've used no such weaponry on the Iraqis. When Saddam was in control, he used such weaponry to great extents. Unprovoked.

[Sandpiper]

19. Ok

So we're more humane because we kill them cluster bombs? :crazy:

Since we have taken over the country, we haven't put a finger on the MOABs, napalm, or uranium.

Iraq is still littered with Depleted Uranium from Bush War I.

[Direckshun]

22. Sandpiper:

We don't kill them in the quantities that Saddam did.

Nor have we killed for the same reasons.

[arcane1]

25. what are the numbrs now? The ones we killed in GW1, sanctions, and this wa

vs the ones Saddam killed?

with links please

and what reasons did we kill them? What reason did we destroy Baghdad, with a population of 5 million under age 15?

:shrug:

[Direckshun]

28. Arcane1:

what are the numbrs now? The ones we killed in GW1, sanctions, and this war:

Why are you asking me this?

I'm talking about the United States as the ruling power in Iraq. We were not a ruling power in GW1, sanctions, or this war.

Saddam executed his own citizens during times of peace, in mass quantities.

and what reasons did we kill them? What reason did we destroy Baghdad, with a population of 5 million under age 15?

Again, you're just asking questions about the Iraq War, when the United States was not a ruling power in Iraq yet.

Secondly, it sounds like you're asking me to justify the Iraq War, which I cannot do, because I too believe it was an unjust war.

[arcane1]

36. splitting hairs doesn't begin to describe it

lol :)

and you still haven't backed up your generalized statements about Saddam

if you were an Iraqi, at what point do you think those who we killed should begin to count?

your we haven't killed as many as Saddam because we just got there is a dodge. we killed 1600 in a month just now, and put the rest under the heel of Saddam general. Where might that go?

where are the stats? How many have we killed since whatever time frame counts for you, vs the number Saddam killed in the same time period

[Direckshun]

42. It was a topic that split hairs in the first place, arcane1.

and you still haven't backed up your generalized statements about Saddam

What?

if you were an Iraqi, at what point do you think those who we killed should begin to count?

When Bush declared that the war was over a year ago.

your we haven't killed as many as Saddam because we just got there is a dodge.

What? Please, tell me when I made that argument.

we killed 1600 in a month just now, and put the rest under the heel of Saddam general. Where might that go?

Well I don't understand the question, and as soon as I do I'll answer you.

where are the stats? How many have we killed since whatever time frame counts for you, vs the number Saddam killed in the same time period

I'm not even comparing numbers. I never made the claim that our rate of killing was lower than Saddams. You people are putting paragraphs in my mouth.

The moral distinction between the civilian deaths NOW vs. when SADDAM was in power is different. Unless you really do believe we're trying to execute the entire Kurdish population. Do you?

[Sandpiper]

27. You're splitting hairs

We don't kill them in the quantities that Saddam did.

US forces have killed over 1600 Iraqis in the past month alone.

Nor have we killed for the same reasons.

I have to agree that you are trying to make a moral distinction that simply doesn't exist. These people were killed in furtherance of the US occupation.

[Direckshun]

30. There is a moral distinction.

So I have to disagree with you there, man.

At least our kills occur mostly in battles that we are taking part in. We partake in these battles now to either (a.) defend ourselves or (b.) keep uprisings from threatening the lives of more civilians.

Whereas with Saddam, the majority of his kills of his own civilians were not in battle. They were in concentration camp-like settings, with gas chambers executing hordes of Kurds and Shi'ites.

United States: self defense

Iraq: racism and power whoring

[Sandpiper]

34. You've hit rock bottom

United States: self defense

As the aggressor and the invader, the United States has no moral standing whatsoever to claim self defense.

[arcane1]

37. gas chambers?

where did they come from? :shrug:

our friend needs to cancel his cable

[Direckshun]

39. He gassed his people. Maybe not in chambers, though. (n/t)

[arcane1]

41. catch-phrase #1475a

then how? don't you know the circumstances of this gassing? You can't compare without knowing

[Direckshun]

38. I disagree.

First of all, now that we've conquered the state, we are no longer the aggressor. We fight only when we are struck first, or to intervene.

We were no longer the aggressor when we won the war.

[arcane1]

40. this is getting sad

if I broke into your house, killed your wife and beat the hell out of you, moved all my shit in, and locked you and the kids in the closet, would I not be the aggressor?

If you broke out of the closet and tried to kick my ass, are you saying YOU would then be the bad guy?????

whether or not you beat your kids would be irrelevant

[Direckshun]

43. False analogy.

You've heard that term before, haven't you?

Comparing you to the United States military is like comparing a pretzel to...the United States military.

[arcane1]

44. what is false about it?

we INVADED their homes, KILLED them, IMPRISONED them. Now they kill us, and you blame them, and somehow manage to get self-defense out of it...

the analogy is perfect

[arcane1]

21. we've had the country for how long?

would you say? Did Saddam just gas people for kicks every 3 months? Read up, man. That doesn't hold up, jsut because we haven't used those weapons for a few months doesn't change the fact that we used them. Everything we use in Iraq contains depleted uranium...

And we invaded them, Unprovoked, and used MOAB's and napalm on them, Unprovoked.

Saddam gassed Iranians during a war. Gassed Kurds during an uprising. I'm not a Saddam apologist but you need to understand what actually happened. You are trying to find a moral difference that does not exist. Let's go through 30 years opf Fallujah and see how many MOAB's we use, then you can compare

[beanball]

29. A kinder gentler death.

So the american invaders don't nuke them or use napalm,so what are we kind and gentle killers?

[Direckshun]

32. Hey lets get our stories straight.

I'm not calling anybody a "kind and gentle killer."

We don't nuke or use napalm, which doesn't make us KIND or GENTLE, but it certainly makes us less CRUEL than Saddam.

[Sandpiper]

17. And I don't understand yours

We gave the killer the ammunition which he used for his killing. How does that make us better?

Your attempting to justify the unjustifiable. There was no valid reason for the United States to ever get involved in Iraq.

[Direckshun]

18. Sandpiper you are putting words in my mouth.

Let's set the record straight:

1. I never said there was a valid reason for the United States to go to Iraq. There isn't one.

2. I am not trying to justify anything the United States has done. You guys are right when you accuse them of some of those atrocities.

I'm just saying, when stacking up Saddam-era Iraq vs. Iraq now, Iraq now is better off.

[Sandpiper]

20. In what way?

n/t

[Direckshun]

23. Look at my #1 and #2. (n/t)

[arcane1]

24. 1) they built a school or something

2) toddlers can fly kites now

3) women don't wear burkhas

4) <insert other b.s. catch phrase of your choice>

:silly:

[NuttyFluffers]

46. *Sigh* Go read history

he was our malicious dictator that gassed the people he controlled. he did it with our blessings. we gave him the weapons, we gave him the leeway. just because he pulled the trigger when we said, "/shrug 'go ahead'" after locking, stocking, and loading the barrel of the gun for him doesn't mean we get off scott free.

so what if you say, "it's better than Saddam." he was our responsibility too. saddam was *our* responsibility. he was *our* puppet. and now we took him away and are doing the dirty deeds ourselves.

i know you mean well, but you are pressing yourself into a corner and would be better served if you just went and did some historical research. don't keep defending this out of pride - it's no longer productive.

[arcane1]

14. we are now the government and police force

so now we can do whatever we want, just like under Saddam. And we are even hiring Saddam's goons to help us.

Thus, we are equally as likely to be just as bad. We are the dictators of Iraq, we own it, literally.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

35. my argument

is that its not Constitutional. Remember, that little piece of paper covered in Ashcroft's piss?

[Sandpiper]

6. It's time to take off the blinders

And accept the reality of what the United States is doing in Iraq.

In the past 13 months the US has:

Invaded Iraq on false pretenses

Killed 10,000 noncombatants

Tortured Prisoners

Replaced the previous regime with an unelected puppet council of US sycophants

Shut down newspapers

Attacked Mosques

Attacked Hospitals

Attacked Ambulances


If someone was doing this to your country, would you consider it liberation?

[Direckshun]

8. Hey I'm not saying we're doing a good job, quite the opposite.

But I do think the citizens weren't much better off under Saddam.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

31. fair enough Direckshun

as long as we're the guarantors of a Dictatorless world:

North Korea
Sudan
Cuba
Algeria
Congo
East Timor
Libya (oh, that's right, that Dictator's our friend now)

we gotta a lot of World to make better!

[Direckshun]

33. Which is why I was opposed to this war...

...because we can't justify wars based on the idea that life in those countries sucked.

If we simply went to war over that, we'd have to invade all those countries you'd mentioned...and more.

[CJCRANE]

45. I kinda of agree with you

Direckshun, but America should never have got itself into a situation where it's only excuse is "well, we're not quite as bad as Saddam". Even that is questionable, as life for most ordinary people (not involved in politics) was ok under Saddam as they had jobs, security etc.

The problem is that this war was never about "liberation". If it was, then as soon as Saddam had fallen they would have got the UN in to help form an interim govt (just like in Afghanistan) and would have opened the reconstruction contracts to local bidders to get everything fixed and up and running ASAP.

[Ironpost]

12. americans

are good people the same as jewish people are good people. Its the leadership that are rotted with maggots. What a statement