[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

You just don't get it do you? We all know Saddam was one of the most horrible creatures to ever exist. What he did to his own people was one of the primary justifications for taking him out.

But showing that his torture is worse than our torture is just plain ludicrous.

Saying we did bad, but Saddam did worse is a morally corrupt position. Two wrongs don't make a right and neither does one really wrong and one not-quite-as-bad wrong.

If your point is Saddam was a horrible person and we are glad he is gone I think only a few wackos would disagree. If the point is that American torture is better than Saddam's torture because it isn't as extreme then I think you are losing your moral perspective.

[reagan_fanatic]

First off, Saddam was indeed a monster who delighted in the suffering and killing of others, and I certainly agree the excesses our troops engaged in was morally and ethically wrong. Happy?

But showing that his torture is worse than our torture is just plain ludicrous.

What a ridiculous statement. How does your 'moral' position allow you to equate dipping people still alive and concious into vats of acid to forcing someone to pose naked or stand on a box with fake electrodes attached to their hands?? The extremes our troops engaged in should be addressed and mechanisms put in place so that actions such as these do not happen again.

My previous post was intended to point out the vast difference between what Saddam did and what American troops did. If you could not understand my previous post, then maybe you don't get it.