A sense of perspective on Saddam vs Bush

Posted:
in General Discussion edited September 2014
For those who believe that Bush and Saddam are cut from the same cloth.



http://www.iraqfoundation.org/hr/2002/cdec/irdp.pdf



If after reading this one document you still feel Bush is as bad as Saddam, and Bush's Administration is as evil as Saddam's Regime then you are truly convinced and there is no reasoning with you.



The reality of the situation should overshadow the rhetoric. At least that is my hope...
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 34
    Are you aware that Exxon hired an army to ethnically cleanse an area in Indonesia and the peasants were often brought into company compounds to be tortured in the way described in that document?



    Are you aware that some of the surviving members of these tribes attempted to sue Exxon in the United States, for these crimes?



    Can you guess who intervened to stop this from happening?



    And the best bit of the whole sorry tale? When the reason was given as: it would harm the fight against terrorism if these people were brought to justice.



    Read all about it, its eye opening stuff.



    http://dte.gn.apc.org/50Ach.htm



    http://dte.gn.apc.org/53Ach.htm



    edit: missed of a link



    http://www.laborrights.org/press/wsj080702.htm



    Hooray for the War on Terror and our continued support of the torturers of pregnant women!
  • Reply 2 of 34
    noahjnoahj Posts: 4,502member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by stupider...likeafox

    Are you aware that Exxon hired an army to ethnically cleanse an area in Indonesia and the peasants were often brought into company compounds to be tortured in the way described in that document?



    Are you aware that some of the surviving members of these tribes attempted to sue Exxon in the United States, for these crimes?



    Can you guess who intervened to stop this from happening?



    And the best bit of the whole sorry tale? When the reason was given as: it would harm the fight against terrorism if these people were brought to justice.



    Read all about it, its eye opening stuff.



    http://dte.gn.apc.org/50Ach.htm



    http://dte.gn.apc.org/53Ach.htm



    Hooray for the War on Terror and our continued support of the torturers of pregnant women!




    I read your links and guess what. It has nothing to do with GWB. One part talked about how Exxon was a large contributer to GWB's campaign but that is about all I saw of his name in there.



    I guess you are referring to this"



    Quote:

    In June sixteen members of Congress and 2 senators sent letters to the State Department warning that an intervention "would send precisely the wrong message: that the United States support the climate of impunity for human-rights abuses in Indonesia."



    Which 16 member of Congress? What 2 senators? And how does this relate to Bush and his Administration exactly?



    The Company is not owned and operated by the US Government, and the US Government is not responsible for said companies actions around the world. The Articles were long on speculation and rhetoric and short on actual facts and links to corroberating evidence. In all, it appears to be a sidetrack from the real issue I posted. Very sad, but not linked in the way you appear to be claiming.
  • Reply 3 of 34
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Quote:

    Can you guess who intervened to stop this from happening?



    I just read both of those links and no, I can't. Who?
  • Reply 4 of 34
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    I see that plant has been operating since the 1960s. Bush's fault.

    I've heard of overseas torture in oil areas since the early 90s. Bush's fault.



    Noah: You're not supposed to think about it critically. You're not even supposed to read it. Just take his word for it.
  • Reply 5 of 34
    tmptmp Posts: 601member
    I really don't think that most people who, like me, are not for this war and don't like our President think that George W is in any way akin to Sadaam.



    Believe it or not, one can be liberal and reasonable at the same time.
  • Reply 6 of 34
    noahjnoahj Posts: 4,502member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by tmp

    I really don't think that most people who, like me, are not for this war and don't like our President think that George W is in any way akin to Sadaam.



    Believe it or not, one can be liberal and reasonable at the same time.




    Which is why I prefaced the thread with:



    For those who believe that Bush and Saddam are cut from the same cloth



    Can you be liberal and read the whole post effectively without going off at the same time?
  • Reply 7 of 34
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NoahJ

    Which is why I prefaced the thread with:



    For those who believe that Bush and Saddam are cut from the same cloth




    I seriously doubt that anyone here actually believes that Bush and Saddam are cut from the same cloth, as you so eloquently put it.
  • Reply 8 of 34
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    I consider myself somewhat liberal and I am perfectly reasonable.
  • Reply 9 of 34
    noahjnoahj Posts: 4,502member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BR

    I seriously doubt that anyone here actually believes that Bush and Saddam are cut from the same cloth, as you so eloquently put it.



    Have you been reading the forums lately? Try a few posts from Bunge when he states that Bush is a bigger threat to world peace than Saddam. Or a few others who parrot that same line of thought saying Bush is worse than Saddam. They are out there or I would not have posted this.
  • Reply 10 of 34
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NoahJ

    Have you been reading the forums lately? Try a few posts from Bunge when he states that Bush is a bigger threat to world peace than Saddam. Or a few others who parrot that same line of thought saying Bush is worse than Saddam. They are out there or I would not have posted this.



    That doesn't mean that he thinks Bush is worse than Saddam. It simply means that he's a bigger threat. Frankly, he is. He has the most power in the world and thus he can either be the greatest asset to world peace or the greatest threat. It all depends on his actions. You misunderstand.
  • Reply 11 of 34
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Since many here consider containment a "peaceful" option that kills Iraqi civilians by the truckload I don't necessarily cringe at them saying Bush is a threat to peace.



    Their definition of peace is perverted.
  • Reply 12 of 34
    tmptmp Posts: 601member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NoahJ

    Which is why I prefaced the thread with:



    For those who believe that Bush and Saddam are cut from the same cloth



    Can you be liberal and read the whole post effectively without going off at the same time?




    No, I can't. So there.
  • Reply 13 of 34
    i missed off the vital third link, edited above and repeated here:



    http://www.laborrights.org/press/wsj080702.htm



    My point wasn't to equate Bush with Saddam but to puncture the rather lame, Saddam is Evil(tm) therefore we are the good guys/war is justified message which I, wrongly it appears, assumed you were implying.



    If you were just defending Bush's besmiched honour then carry-on, he may be a drug-addled, drunk-driving felon but I'm fairly sure he's not been directly responsible for torture.



    I mean Bush Sr. did shut down the School of the Americas when his administration discovered manuals for instructing the henchmen of Latin-American military juntas in how to torture human rights activists and commits acts of terrorism didn't they? Whoops, no, he didn't. Sorry.



    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/SO...re101_SOA.html
  • Reply 14 of 34
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    I consider myself somewhat liberal and I am perfectly reasonable.



    As is well known, even the madman appears reasonable to himself.
  • Reply 15 of 34
    But seriously, I don't think anyone here really sees Saddam and Dubya as long lost brethren.



    I mean Saddam has a moustache for cripes sake! ... sorry! I've got to stop this kidding around
  • Reply 16 of 34
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Saddam Hussein, in my view is truly evil, that is, if a human being can *be* evil. (Which I am not sure, since evil is all to do with malevolent intent, and action upon that intent). I haven't seen any redeeming qualities in this man. He is one of the nastiest people to come out of the 20th century. I often wonder why Saddam and the US were so allied for so long until Gulf War 1.



    Some of the people round him are also a bunch of thugs, specially his sons. However I am sure that there are some in the Iraqi military who are reasonable folk and dare not show dissent, or defect for fear of being caught and shot without trial.



    As for Bush: I don't believe Bush is evil. However he does come over as an addictive personality, demonstrated in how he had drug problems, then a severe alcohol dependency, which he has since replaced with a heavy "born again" religious bent. He is not the brightest spark but thats not his fault...and I dislike his politics and the dodgy way way he came to be president, but so be it, we gotta live with that and hopefully 2004 will see the back of his presidency. Even his father GHWB is disturbed at the path this adminstration is taking.



    As for those around him, there's a different story: Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rove, Kristol etc. I don't know if these people are in themselves "evil" as such, in the way Saddam et al obviously are, but the global PNAC plan hatched some years ago by these people comes over as being decidedly sinister, to me at least anyway. The type of society envisaged for Americans (as a result of the global PNAC) by these folk is heavy on authoritarianism, as opposed to traditional libertarianism, aligned extremely far to the right, more so than any other nation, perhaps as far to the right as Soviet-style Communism was to the left. There will be a far greater role of big business and private, unelected bodies making vital national decisions, involvement in politics and say in the way peoples' lives pan out. Military spending will soar to levels far in excess, proportionately re. overall spending than today. There will be a more uneven distribution of wealth than today. Workers' rights and trade union power will be emasculated. Government, specially at the federal level will become more closed and unaccountable to the public. Media will become more centralized (if possible), and there will be greater power in the federal government, while States' Rights diminish. The Constitution and Bill of Rights will afford citizens less protection under the law and police will have greater powers of arrest, search and seizure. Many more aspects of life will be affected by "security consciousness".



    Some people like this type of concept, many don't, but the vast majority don't know, don't care, aren't interested, or think its some kind of conspiracy theory.It isn't, go read all about PNAC...the web is stacked with references. Look at http://www.newamericancentury.org/ ...all the language is nice and cozy, it looks on the surface patriotic and beneficial to the USA, but don't be fooled. If taken to its logical end, US society will become a "corporate feudal system". Perhaps Mussolini's definition of true fascism ... "the merger of state and corporate power" fits PNAC like a glove. (Although one has to be careful when using that 'F' word because of its emotionally sensitive connotations).



    Not wanting to sound conspiratorial (its easy to do so when talking about this), but without 9-11, this whole plan (as well as the upcoming invasion of Iraq) would be either dead in the water, or proceeding at a snails' pace.
  • Reply 17 of 34
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NoahJ



    Try a few posts from Bunge when he states that Bush is a bigger threat to world peace than Saddam.




    Put Saddam behind the arsenal that Bush has and he'd be a bigger threat. Compare Saddam's arsenal to Bush's and Bush is a bigger threat.



    No I don't think they're 'cut from the same cloth', but I'm not going to pretend that every president of the United States is good.



    EDIT: Again, didn't notice that BR had responded accurately already.
  • Reply 18 of 34
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    it looks on the surface patriotic and beneficial to the USA, but don't be fooled. If taken to its logical end, US society will become a "corporate feudal system". Perhaps Mussolini's definition of true fascism ... "the merger of state and corporate power" fits PNAC like a glove.



    I'll come out and say it. The US is in great danger of sliding into a state that looks, smells and feels fascist. All the elements are in place.



    I'm just praying that GWB's inept handling of the economy doesn't prove the trigger to a depression; then you'd have a rerun of inter-war Germany. Starvation, a grudge against the world (it'll be the liberals / OPEC / the French who were at fault) and a prevailing intellectual environment of frighteningly right-wing constraint. Only this time the state would have an utterly incredible army to "protect its interests." Might happen anyway when the oil runs out.



    Frankly, you lot need to wake up or good, honest people will find themselves doing and saying things their grandchildren won't believe were possible. Just like Nazi Germany. Yeh, I just said it, and no, I'm not saying it's that way now before you flame me. Yes it is possible. It's happened before. No, I'm not trolling.
  • Reply 19 of 34
    The corporazioni of Fascist Italy were organisations under state control which included both the empolyers and the employees, as a form of vertical organisations of labour (inspired by the guilds of the Middle Ages) which were themselves part of a national organisation: il Consiglio Nazionale delle Corporazioni. What is understood in English as ?corporations? were/are different things altogether, they were in Italy as in the USA, then as today, the privately owned companies (like say, Fiat or General Motors). So while they have a common etymological origin these two terms are separate and so shouldn't be confused each with the other.

    Just like ?statue? shouldn't be coinfused with ?statute?.



    For the time being Iraq is a quasi-fascist state, the USA is not, FYI.
  • Reply 20 of 34
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein





    For the time being Iraq is a quasi-fascist state, the USA is not, FYI.




    Yep, thanks for the heads-up, Immo.



    Looks like we're in agrement; for the time being Iraq is a quasi-fascist state; the USA is not.
Sign In or Register to comment.