Did we exchange Saddam’s rape rooms for Bush’s rape rooms?

[KansDem]

One of the “reasons” the US invaded Iraq was because we were told that Saddam was evil, and to illustrate this, many pro-war types described the “rape rooms” as proof:

Al-Suwaij knows firsthand how even young girls were imprisoned for what seem to be trivial offenses. Al-Suwaij says she had a 16-year-old cousin who was beaten and tortured with electrical shocks for having written something against the government in her school notebook.

And if a man is a dissident or if a man writes a letter or makes a joke about Saddam, these women said, authorities would rape his wife or female relatives in front of him.

"Rape is used as a tool to humiliate the woman, but to also bring men into submission," Hussain said. To compound the humiliation, authorities would videotape the torture and rape and send the tape to family members.

Saddam's contempt for human rights extended to his well-documented use of poison gas against his own people. The horror of one of those chemical attacks still haunts Michael 16 years later.

More…
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/World/iraq030321_women.html

Now we have been shown pictures and written descriptions of torture of the Iraqi POWs at the hand of American/British that involved rape/demeaning sexual escapades, electric shocks, etc.

We were told that Saddam and his ilk were evil; we are now being told that the Americans/British involved in the inhumane treatment of Iraqi prisoners are exceptions-- that the prison guards were stressed and angry at how Iraqis treated coalition forces; that the rest of us don’t understand what it’s really like in war…
The last time I checked, WE invaded THEIR country based on Bush’s lies; WE bombed THEIR cities; WE killed THEIR citizens—yet we are the ones who’re stressed?

What are we to gather from all this?

1. That Saddam was evil but George is good, even though they both engaged in the same type of practices regarding the treatment of political prisoners? (perhaps the difference is in the number of instances: Saddam tortured countless numbers of prisoners; where Bush only did a small number compared to Saddam).
2. That the ends justify the means? If we got rid of Saddam by employing his techniques, then we should revel in the result, not the process?
3. That Iraqis under Saddam are bad because they tortured methodically and free from emotion, whereas American/British prison camp guards are good kids put into bad situations and whose behavior is a result of those bad situations?
4. That Bush laid the foundation for such inhumane treatment of POWs with his arrogant and bullying personality? After all, Bush has little regard for life that he doesn’t approve of: he blew up frogs with firecrackers as a childhood activity; he mimicked Carla Faye Tucker who he put to death in Texas; he publicly humiliates people he doesn’t like and thumbed his nose at Europe… So through his actions and persona, did he “encourage” the behavior of those guards now under investigation for inhumane treatment of POWs he doesn’t approve of?

Bush Sr. lied about Iraqi soldiers “ripping” Kuwaiti babies from incubators further persuading Americans to support the US involvement in Oil War I; should we really believe Bush Jr. when he has fantastic anti-Iraqi stories to rally Americans for US involvement in Oil War II?

[CatWoman]

1. and Saddam's mass graves for our mass graves?

[wtmusic]

2. Sometimes a thread title says it all

We can thank Pinto for this eloquence:

"They hate us for our rape rooms"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1516411

[tom_paine]

3. Yes.

And there's nothing more to be said.