Re: Bush is not the moral equivelent of Hussien -- ExUBF's Parlor

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 11:47:25 10/09/04 Sat
Author: Mike K.
Subject: Re: Bush is not the moral equivelent of Hussien
In reply to: UBFree 's message, "Bush is not the moral equivelent of Hussien" on 11:47:04 10/08/04 Fri

You also make Bush the moral equivelant of Saddam Hussein.

Again, this is not what I'm saying, even though I have said "What is the difference between two people if they use the same methods?" And if by this you imply that Bush is the moral equivalent to Hussein, you are only affirming the point: yes, if both use the same means, then there is no difference.

There are huge moral differences between Bush and Hussein, this I admit: for instance, Bush desires to be a religious leader in addition to a political leader by constantly harping the Christian sound, whereas Hussein never gave a hoot about religion, muslims at least should be happy that he did let them practice their religion. Hussein suppressed religion, Bush supports it.

Another difference is that Hussein openly used executions and torture as a means of ensuring obedience, whereas Bush authorized these things "but in a different context" (for Afghanistan, not for Iraq - but does it matter WHOM you torture?) and claimed to "know nothing about this".

Another difference is that Bush has to at least find a reason for his actions, whereever it may come from, whereas Hussein as a dictator just did what he pleased, only to execute those who would contradict him. Bush has to be persuasive, Hussein just could use bruteforce.

But aside from all this, polls are not necessarily representative about what people think - if I hold a gun to your face and ask you if you like me, would you tell me no? I don't know with which kind of surveys were made, but I do know for a fact that many Iraqis still remember the sound of bombs dropping in on their homes, homes which they at least still had under Saddam's regime of terror.
Though values of freedom are starting to become more prevalent in the Iraq, which definitely is a good sign.

We all hope and pray that these people will come to learn to value and appreciate freedom and that the minds of these people might be opened so they can see they were and some still are being controlled by deceptive political and religious leaders, but we must know that for every Muslim being killed or desacrated, these very people and bin Laden are gaining power each and every day.
As such, America is walking on a very steep slope: they must show them what freedom means, and that little flower is very quickly destroyed in an attempt to overthrow a handful of fanatics.

But using the same means as these people do and/or did, will never help the Iraqi populace see the difference between American or Saddams control.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]