Saddam was human...so why is it so 'foreign' to suggest Bush can not be capable of similar atrocities?

Question

Strikes me as being hypocritical to suggest one human is capable of something and another is not. Hussein did what he did to maintain power in a piddly little place called Iraq...Bush does what he does for much bigger stakes yet people simply refuse to believe or even look at the capabilities of human beings when they have an agenda. Any thoughts?
And no, I'm not pointing fingers, just read the question please.

All you have to do is READ a question.
Humans are capable of anything when they have an agenda....and, thankfully, he is your president, not mine. Thirdly, I am not liberal, democrat, or anything else, I am simply living on the planet peacefully in amongst all this sh1te.

Answer 1

You've generated quite a discussion! I'm getting here too late in a way, but that has advantages as well - I can see what it's developed into. We all feel like we know Bush, or at least know enough about him to assess his character, and the opinions here are largely based on that. But because we all get our news from different sources, and filter it through our own beliefs, we all see him differently. I think Bush is fully capable of atrocities, based on the following:
His agenda is clearly aimed at serving the wealthy and a handful of special interests, not the general public.
He does not believe in open government, and has continually worked to keep his actions from the American people.
He has retained people like Cheney, Rumsfeld and Gonzales long after their public image was damaged beyond their ability to function effectively.
He has mocked our system of government, in words and actions, even before he became President, and certainly after.
His contempt for the environment, reflected in so many actions, reveals a man out-of-touch with the times and lacking any reverence for creation.
He publicly ridiculed a woman on death row, who begged for her life when he was governor of Texas. A small matter, perhaps, but a telling one.
He made a joke of his lie about WMDs, looking high and low for them, as if it didn't matter one whit that his lie had caused so much destruction and grief.
I could go on all day, but the gist is that I perceive a man who fits the profile of a bestial dictator - power-hungry, cruel, and blind to his many faults. Nothing that might eventually be learned about him will surprise me.

Answer 2

Wow... another person equating the President to a dictator like Saddam.... it's not hypocritical at all. There are people who just don't think or act like a terrorist... in fact, millions of them... Do you see yourself capable of raping a child or killing innocent people that did nothing to you? People with an agenda (or goals) will sacrifice or do a great many things to accomplish their goals... sometimes they will do things that are not good... it happens all the time. However, most people, especially those with integrity, will not stoop to certain levels that others will. We have the best military in the word and we are a nuclear power. If we wanted to we could take almost any country we chose to. Notice we still only have 50 states.

We also have different skill sets. No, I will never be capable of doing what Bret Favre does on the Football Field. I don't have that talent. I am not capable of harnessing plutonium and never will be for many reasons... so... no... not hypocritical in the least.

Answer 3

There's no doubt in my mind Saddam Hussein was a bloody tyrant and that he deserved to be brought to justice for his crimes. However, the decision to try him by an Iraqi court while the war was ongoing sets a very bad precedent. If you want to instill values of democracy, justice, transparency, due process, etc..., etc..., this is not the way to do this. It smacks of the kinds of regimes South Americans came to loathe and detest. But of course, the Bush administration only pretends to care about democratic values, just like it lied about everything else. If the idea was to ensure fairness, justice and the international rule of law, Saddam Hussein would have been handed over to the International Human Rights Tribunal in Brussels. There could have been little doubt of the legitimacy of the proceedings there. We have a principle in well-established democracies that says it's not just conflicts of interests which must be prevented, but the appearance of conflicts of interest as well. That goes double for democracies that are not yet established.

Answer 4

You will find that anything that disagrees with people in power who are afraid of losing it is "bad" or "wrong". Obiously, it wasn't "wrong" to implant Saddam as Iraq's leader when the US put him there 20 years ago. Running some pathetic "weapons of mass destruction" gambit was completely transparent, but as soon as the Iraqi army started defending itself, Americans were behind kicking their asses to death. Then, when Bush ADMITTED there were no weapons of any kind of mass destruction, the war continued, their leader tried and executed in a kangaroo coutr run byt the US itself, without handing him over to international authorities as was proper.

Does anyone remember WHY the army was called? Those two planes that smacked into your precious centres of business were NOT sent by Saddam, yet somehow it's turned out this way. You started a war for a *vaguely* legitimate reason, and immidiately moved your attentions elsewhere when it became painfully, embarassingly clear that you'd failed to address the original problem. So you make up some reason to invade someone who wasn't really doing anything beyond their norm, under some stupid pretense, and decide that 15 years AFTER Saddam started his dictatorship it was a good idea to remove him. "Oh look. We saved the Iraqi people."

God help you if anyone ever helps YOU in a similar manner.

War crime is war crime. Unfortunately, the UN has no spine and politics determines the movements of the behemoth nightmare monsters called countries. Like in school, like in your country, international politics is about fear and power. People fear (rightfully so) the bully nation with the big muscles, insatiable apetite and foul temper. But one day your war criminal president will meet a country that will not put upwith being bullied.

Then a *real* war will start. And America will pull its hair and cry out, "Why?"

Answer 5

Being "human" does not make everyone capable of atrocities.
For instance, I could not commit a cold blooded murder - or rape a child - or mug some poor victim for his wallet - yet there are people who commit these crimes all the time. Some people are just simply devoid of a conscience, consideration for others or simply mentally deranged - most, thank goodness, are not.
Simply stated, it is not hypocritical to suggest that one human is capable of something and another is not.

Answer 6

We may all be capable as you say, but Saddam was beyond impeachment while he ruled, and members of his police and military who didn't obey his orders or who "blew the whistle" on him took a higher risk than those who defy Bush's orders or reveal any secret orders.

That did make it more convenient for Saddam to commit atrocities, and more likely that he did.

Of course, pacifists think any use of lethal weapons is an atrocity, and from the perspective of the targets of those weapons and from the perspective of "collateral damage" they are right.

Unfortunately, pacifists don't stop people like Saddam from committing atrocities. The only way to stop atrocities without causing other atrocities is to develop nonlethal weapons to use in stopping the killing.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nonlethalalternatives

Answer 7

It's not foreign in the least. Many Americans are suggesting that Bush is to blame for every problem under the sun. Suggestions, however, don't equal facts, and it's apparent that many people don't bother distinguishing between the two.

Answer 8

Ah! And we get the point I've been making all along about Iraq. Saddam was nothing but a drop in the bucket. Really the man was less than nothing when it comes to power against U.S. So the bigger question why do we bother trying to prop up a government and a people so avowed to kill each other, our troops and us? Why don't we just level all of Iraq with about 10,000 bunker busters and call it a day? Oh yeah something about not decimating our enemies. I think that's a liberal thought.

Answer 9

Well in Iraq did they have a Senate and House creating the laws or did Saddam make them?

Answer 10

True. Bush uses all his international aides to win his ridiculuous fight for Iraq soil. He talks highly on liberalisation and diplomacy but in fact, its an invasion. He's a living tyrant and should be tried for genocide!