And here I was thinking “What? He wants to sit around in his underwear eating Doritos all day?” Because I could get behing that.
Probably wouldn’t feel all that different to someone who was shot dead because his car got a flat tire right before curfew and he had to change it to move on. To a victim, I would imagine that a bullet to the head for being out at night doesn’t feel much different from a bullet to the head for disagreeing with your leader.
Ok, I see what you’re saying, but I still think that using methods similar to Saddam’s when part of the rationale was saving/liberating the Iraqi people is a contradiction; I do agree that even if this policy was used, it’s not as bad as a lot of things he did, but to my mind “liberation” suggests no methods such as these, not just their use sparingly or as long as they’re “less bad” than under Saddam.
Don’t worry, I got what you were arguing against. No broad-brushing from me! 
And that still wouldn’t establish an equivalency between the two regimes, if that’s what you’re implying. I never understand it when someone brings up that argument. Not to minimize the loss of life that would happen in your hypothetical, but so what if it doesn’t feel different to one individual?
I’m just popping in to ask, why does anyone give a shit what the Loofah Boy / Falafel King says anymore? If everyone stopped watching him, his ratings would plummet and he’d go bye bye.
Starve the beast and all that.
Because we like to marvel at the number of people stupid enough to still believe him and take him seriously.
I asked a regular O’Reilly viewer if he didn’t find a logical contradiction in a person saying Saddam should have been overthrown for running a country the way he did and then saying he considered those same methods effective and would use them if he was in the same situation. The viewer responded by saying, “Hey, I’m a regular O’Reilly viewer. I’m immune to logic.”
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss