vimothy
yurp
That is only true if you accept a moral equivalence between the MNF and the (child-murdering, revenge raping, strategic-torturing) "resistance", which I don't.
Occupying the Moral High Ground
- Thread starter vimothy
- Start date
That is only true if you accept a moral equivalence between the MNF and the (child-murdering, revenge raping, strategic-torturing) "resistance", which I don't.
Gavin
booty bass intellectual
Oh come on, I expect better from you than this cable-news-style sentimentality. Clearly "both" (the resistance is made up of many different groups with different agendas and different tactics, which you know) sides have murdered children, raped in revenge, tortured strategically, killed innocent civilians, and neglected to wash their hands after taking a shit.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Yes, but in one case it's a relatively small (though of course totally unacceptable) number of individuals who are disobeying orders from their superiors and who, I sincerely hope, have been/will be punished for their crimes, while in the other you've got an assortment of people intent on creating holy terror. Just saying "oh, some American soldiers have done terrible things, therefore the entire coallition force is morally equivalent to the terrorists" is a complete cop-out. Tell me on thing: if, as some would have us believe, the resurgence is happening primarily to kick out the imperialist occupiers, why are the vast majority of its victims other Iraqis?
vimothy
yurp
No, sorry, on this issue I think that the "cable-news-style sentimentality" is infinitely better than any number of intellectual responses that "understand" torturing murderers. There is a difference: when US troops do these things, it's a mistake (in the sense that it's individuals making their own choices in theatre); when the "resistance" (see, scare quotes because I know it's not a monolith) do it, it's a policy choice - it's (tactical but more importantly) strategic.
Of course, the "resistance" are also fighting to establish chauvanistic tyrannies and to ethnically clense their own regions of Iraq, so there is that rather huge point against them as well.
Gavin
booty bass intellectual
Rumsfeld ordered torture! Come on, you're really going to let atrocities off the hook with some bureaucratic slight of hand -- "the buck stops at the highest ranking noncommissioned officer."
Yes, invaders have bad apples whereas the Arabs rape because they're bloodthirsty villains. Who will save these huns from-- well, from themselves I guess?
Yes, too bad they aren't fighting for democracy like our brave troops (bad apples notwithstanding of course). We'll teach them a thing or two about moral civilization though!
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Yeah, fair enough, there has been a lot of terrible stuff going on under official sanction.
vimothy
yurp
Yeah, but it's not drill bits in the head, is it? It's stress positions and making people wear the Israeli flag.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Oh come on Vimothy, I expect better of you than to defend torture on the grounds that it's "not as bad as other torture". I'd like to see what your opinion of 'stress positions' is after you'd been kept in one for a few hours.
And let's not forget the guys who've been beaten to death while under 'interrogation'.
vimothy
yurp
I wasn't defending it, I was trying to point out that it is of a different quality.
It is of a different quality.
Or, to put it another, I would much rather be captured by Americans than by Iraqis, and I'd rather be caputred by Iraqis than by foreign jihadists.
crackerjack
Well-known member
It's worse than just been made to stand up all day,
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR510022005
But really, there is no moral equivalence between Gitmo and jihadis, or between Abu Ghraib now and Abu Ghraib then, no matter how hard some pretend there is.
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR510022005
But really, there is no moral equivalence between Gitmo and jihadis, or between Abu Ghraib now and Abu Ghraib then, no matter how hard some pretend there is.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
But this brings us back to something we've touched on before: the jihadis, al Qa'eda, Taliban etc. etc. are a bunch of mediaeval-minded psychopaths - but everyone (who's not an idiot) knows that. But America is supposedly this big benevolent champion of Freem an' Moxy. So I think much of the outrage against America comes not merely from its actions but in the gulf between what it professes and what it actually does. You can accuse murderous terrorists of being murderous terrorists, but not of being hypocrites.
Atrocities like Abu Ghraib were meant to stop once Saddam had been toppled, not get 'somewhat less bad'. At least under Saddam the poor bastards incarcerated their could hope that one day the Americans would come to there rescue. You see what I mean?
Atrocities like Abu Ghraib were meant to stop once Saddam had been toppled, not get 'somewhat less bad'. At least under Saddam the poor bastards incarcerated their could hope that one day the Americans would come to there rescue. You see what I mean?
Last edited:
crackerjack
Well-known member
LOL
i'm not excusing or downplaying American human rights violations - and of course nations which claim democratic legitamacy should be held to higher standards (cf Israel). But there is a track record of them being played UP, if not to claim outright equivalence, then to at least blur the distinction and encourage a 'they're all as bad as each other' attitude. Amnesty (sadly) comparing Gitmo to the gulags is one such.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Yeah, 'they're all as bad as each other' is clearly not true, but it'd be nice if one side was actively Good, rather than just Less Bad, right? 
Sorry for using such childish terminology, but I think you see what I mean. Things can be less bad than gulags without being 'OK'.
Sorry for using such childish terminology, but I think you see what I mean. Things can be less bad than gulags without being 'OK'.
vimothy
yurp
Yes - the Amnesty "gulag" thing was very unfortunate, and I have a lot of trouble taking them seriously now.
Pavel Litvinov, a Soviet dissident who was imprisoned in the gulag, wrote a good article on the affair:
There is ample reason for Amnesty to be critical of certain U.S. actions. But by using hyperbole and muddling the difference between repressive regimes and the imperfections of democracy, Amnesty's spokesmen put its authority at risk. U.S. human rights violations seem almost trifling in comparison with those committed by Cuba, South Korea, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.
The most effective way to criticize U.S. behavior is to frankly acknowledge that this country should be held to a higher standard based on its own Constitution, laws and traditions. We cannot fulfill our responsibilities as the world's only superpower without being perceived as a moral authority. Despite the risks posed by terrorism, the United States cannot indefinitely detain people considered dangerous without appropriate safeguards for their conditions of detention and periodic review of their status.
Words are important. When Amnesty spokesmen use the word "gulag" to describe U.S. human rights violations, they allow the Bush administration to dismiss justified criticism and undermine Amnesty's credibility. Amnesty International is too valuable to let it be hijacked by politically biased leaders.
The most effective way to criticize U.S. behavior is to frankly acknowledge that this country should be held to a higher standard based on its own Constitution, laws and traditions. We cannot fulfill our responsibilities as the world's only superpower without being perceived as a moral authority. Despite the risks posed by terrorism, the United States cannot indefinitely detain people considered dangerous without appropriate safeguards for their conditions of detention and periodic review of their status.
Words are important. When Amnesty spokesmen use the word "gulag" to describe U.S. human rights violations, they allow the Bush administration to dismiss justified criticism and undermine Amnesty's credibility. Amnesty International is too valuable to let it be hijacked by politically biased leaders.
crackerjack
Well-known member
Yeah, Litvinov has it in a nutshell there, esp the 2nd para.
borderpolice
Well-known member
All the human rights violations in Cuba, South Korea, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia in the last decade combined don't add up to the probably 7 figure dead the Iraq war will have cost when ends in a few years.
vimothy
yurp
Oil and water - the high death toll in Iraq is hardly the sole responsibility of the MNF.
I don't think there's much sense in trying to compare the two, though I will say that in North Korea alone, the death toll from human rights violations, slavery in the "revolutionising zones" (i.e. the gulag) and the famine will probably (exact numbers are naturally quite hard to come by) greatly exceed the number of deaths in Iraq following the fall of Saddam. And that's without factoring the number killed in the Korean War.
Dunno about the other three - seems very difficult to measure and compare sensibly.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
On the one hand, the majority of those deaths have been caused by so-called resurgence/'resistance' fighters and bombers, not US/UK forces...
...but on the other hand, nothing like this level of violence would be going on now if the invasion had never taken place...
...just the business-as-usual levels of violence that went on throughout Saddam's reign. :slanted:
borderpolice
Well-known member
Yes it it. Without the pointless invasion, there would -- as far as we can tell --not be a civil war in iraq.
Neither you nor I have any reliable numbers about North Korea. If you want to factor in the Korean war you also need to add all the other pointless wars/dictators the US has sponsored, e.g. the attack on Iran.
Well if think it is difficult to compare them, why did you do so in the post I responded to.