Our troops are dying in Iraq precisely because we have chosen a strategy that is largely humane and coherent of local populations. We dont have to let soldiers die, but if we want to keep food shipments going to fend off famine and disease, we will put our soldiers into harms way. We dont have to let our soldiers die in ones and twos, we can sit behind barbed wire enclosures and allow the local population to be ravaged by warlords and extortionists, we choose not to do this, because, its humane.

Our men are not dying because the enemy is effective, they are dying because we care about innocent civilians. It's important to remember that we have the means to kill and subjgate large numbers of people without so much as getting one of our mens uniforms even slightly dirty, but we choose not to use those weapons. its not that we cant do it, or that we havent in the past, its that we chose not to now, because its the humane thing to do.

Does anyone doubt that had we wanted to level falluja, it would not have taken more than an afternoon? And how many of you now calling for Rumsfelds head were also screaming for Bush to take action in falluja?

Somehow, and in some way that I cant quite figure out, the world has forgotten what a war is and what an army is for. Our troops have invaded, subjugated and occupied a large country with what was once the 5th largest army in the world. Our troops are not a large SWAT team engaged in a drug raid in a chicago project, our prisoners do not get a call to a laywer and access to a bail bondsmen.

We have a choice as to whether or not we take prisoners and how we treat them. Those of you 'deeply offended' by our treatment of these people need to ask yourself "who are these prisoners"? If this was 1945, having seen the opening of the camps and the genocide they held and you had heard of "atrocities" commited against SS troops, how many of you would cry for them as you do these Iraqis?

For you that say "oh, but frank ,those were nazis" , I'd like to remind you of two words:

"childrens prison"

Remember that? The Childrens prison that we liberated in the first days of the invasion last year? Can you even conceive of such a thing? Remember those people in Basra last year who for a week insisted that there was an undergound prison under a courtyard where they could hear the screams of their uncles and fathers, and they wanted help from the Americans digging up the courtyard?

I remember that. I will never forget it either.

Now, a bunch of godamnned jackasses pull some stunt and abuse some prisoners. Did they hang prisoners from piano wire? electrocute them? stick glass rods into their penises and break them off?

No. What did they do? They pulled their underwear down and made fun of them. humiliated them. Now, I would have thought having your country invaded and subjugated in just about 14 days was pretty damn humiliating, but apparently thats nothing by comparison to having your picture taken while you are nekkid with about the butt ugliest girl ever in a uniform, giving the camera the "thumbs up".

I can just see martin bormann and dr. mengele asking hitler about this in hell:

" boss, can you help me understand what this is supposed to be all about? I mean, to me this looks like a typical saturday night at herman goerings house"

Rumsfeld should not go anywhere. The man is fighting a big war in many, many places and hes done a fine job at it. He took appropriate steps to investigate the issue and has taken action to see that it doesnt occur again. Removing Rumsfeld does nothing to increase our ability to fight this war or increase our possibility of success. This should be the only criteria for his removal.

It's plain disgusting how some people try to rationalize murder and torture by referring to the victim's personalities. They deserved it - is that your answer?

TOE: What the fuck are you talking about? Who said anything about the victims?

I learned one important fact during my years as a bar musician: There's an asshole in every crowd. Put 140,000 American troops in a foreign country, and you're going to have your assholes there, too.

I don't like the argument that says, "Oh yeah? But look at what THOSE IRAQI PEOPLE DID!" Two wrongs don't make a right. We are better than that.

And we need to punish the assholes who abused those prisoners.

Meanwhile someone lights off a bomb at a school in Packistan.

National Day of Shame!!!! WAHHHA!

There's an asshole in every crowd.

Absolutely, And that just as true here in Steve's comments section as it is in Iraq.

Not pointing any fingers at any Europeans or anything.

The crypt door creaks...

And The Old European emerges, still wrapped in his shroud.

Just like Boris Karloff, except funnier.

Belmont Club has a post today that documents developments that occurred in past wars. It is worth reading; but don't just weep. It seems that each generation must learn that "such is the nature of war."

Yes, such is the nature of war, but I can't ever forget this line from Billiards at Half Past Nine (forgive the paraphrase of a text translated from German):

Whenever I meet new people, I ask myself what it would be like to be turned over to them. I usually don't like the answer.

Y'know, I actually read Taguba's report yesterday (it's not too tough a read, especially if you're familiar with Army-speak). And the prisoner abuse is just one small part of an absolute, unmitigated, unacceptable clusterfuck. In fact, one of the major contributing factors to the entire situation was an ill-advised (and contrary to Army regs) order issued by LTG Sanchez himself, which completely murked up the chain of command for the prison system there.

But none of it really indicts Rumsfeld.

There's not a damn thing he could have done to prevent this, or realistically know about it before know. And I say thas as someone who would have to witness Rumsfeld engage in open pedophilia to have a much lower opinion of him.

Whether Rummy keeps his job or not has nothing to do with criminal acts of those soldiers, but everything to do with the politics of how we found out about it. Is that fair? Dunno. Is it part of his job? Prolly.

Europeans are halfway along the road to dhimmitude. You must listen to comments from that quarter with that realization in mind.
Clearly the military was already well along the road to disciplining the miscreant prison guards--several months before the media began its feeding frenzy.
Poor Joe Biden had his sense of importance bruised by not being kept in the loop. Joe needs to be bitch slapped a bit more often to keep his ego in check.

Those calling for Rummy's resignation would have a lot more credibility if they showed as much concern for the inmates within their own states prisions. And if and when similar abuses occured, they'd be demanding the resignation of the Dept of Corrections head and an apology from said governor.

Such hypocricy...

"Anglo-Franco-American victory in WWI was a terrible thing -- but a victory by the Second Reich would have been worse. "

I tend to doubt that. It would have prevented the rise of Hitler, for one thing. Also, the Kaiser, not the Soviets, would have been the lesser of two evils; if the Kaiser had come to blows with Stalin, we might have helped him crush the USSR once and for all before they got nukes.

And how much differences did Lincoln's domestic actions make on the battlefield? They weren't much of a secret, even during the war; would letting people publicly oppose the war have really depressed morale more than jailing them did?

But yes, shit happens in war. Sometimes, when things are getting bad enough anyway, it's worth taking your chances.

Rumsfeld has done more to reform the U.S. military than anyone since the 'end of the cold war'. The lefties can't stand his not bowing to their every demand, hence he must be destroyed. I was delighted when he put that corpulent gasbag Kennedy in his place, with civility, during todays ongoing witchhunt.

Yeah, war is heck and everything, or at least that's what Stephen Ambrose has told you, but let's see how you feel when the other pictures and videos come out. Check drudge if you don't believe me.

KB:

Other pictures? More videos?? How do I feel???

Ho-hum, so what's new...what's on the TV tonight?

That's how I feel.

The best way to win a war is to get it over and done with soon as possible, and for America, like football, means to apply decisive and overwhelming firepower at one or more points, take the enemy's teritory, and afterwards go back home to our women and families. The DemLibs repeatedly and consistently "forget" the "overwhelming firepower" and "quickly" part, espec when America is waging war against Lefties, andor Socialists like Saddam and his secular BAATHISTS. Incidents like ABU GHRAIB have happened in all of America's wars, or at least those since WW2, but in no way realitically compares to the methods of America's enemies - the reported "letters of reprimand" tells me the Army and USDOD is focusing more on reviewing that service's standards-protocols for interrigating Muslim prisoners, as a class or between ethnic groups or nations! Rummy this AM has effec told the Cmte hearing panel that there are still untold numbers of unauthenticated, unverified, or uninvestigated FAKE Net photos out there whose purpose can only be to gen denigrate Bush, the USA, and the American fighting man [read, elect a Dem in '04]!?

Anglo-Franco-American victory in WWI was a terrible thing

Stephen,

Please elaborate on this? Just how in the hell could the American victory in WWI be a terrible thing?

Brian:

I wouldn't want to put words in Stephen's pen, but I took that to mean that the price of victory was brutality on both sides of the front.

TOE:

You have a serious reading comprehension problem.

"You have a serious reading comprehension problem."

Maybe. But I haven't got stuck with my head in the Iraqi sand, and am I not trying to imitate the three Monkeys ("Hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil").

What would be sufficient evidence for some people to mentally grasp the difference between systemic abuse and torture and "a few rotten apples"?

What gets me is how many Americans will die because of the hatred these scum-buckets have fanned. Its effect will be the same as selling military secrets, something these assholes would never consider because they "love" their country. Some patriots, these people.

In 1993 in Waco Texas I remember our government using loud rock music over the course of days to drive the Branch Davidians nuts. (Psi-Ops). Couldn't they have nailed Koresh at a time and place of their choosing, perhaps when he made the occasional walk out of his compound?

The sight of a tank busting into a wall, a building in flames, and nearly 100 americans dying in what looked to me like a botched attempt at a police action went by with much less of a rumble than this Iraqi scandal.

I see no reason why Rumsfeld should lose his job over this. Should the president of the United States be impeached when a postal worker "goes postal"? Should we be angry about this? Sure. Should we be demoralized as a people? Nope.

Some who participate in moral relavatism and hypocrisy by citing the actions of the former regime or other sad despots in the middle east..... do no good in painting this as a lesser offense by americans.

This is a just and moral war and shouldn't be railroaded by evil people who happen to be in uniform.

We Will Prevail.

You're all a bunch of sickos

Oh look, the child has wandered into the room.

"ring ring ring"

http://www.europundits.blogspot.com/2004_03_01_europundits_archive.html

WSLiP,

Yes, perhaos it was the great cost at the front. But, what would the cost have been if we didn't win? I know the old history, that Hitler used the anger over the Versailles Treaty to gain support over the years, but I just can never see how us winning could ever be a bad thing. If we had lost, maybe Hitler would not have come to power. Or, he may have come through other means. Thankfully, we'll never know.

"But none of it really indicts Rumsfeld."

No nothing, yet, directly indicts him but he's still where the buck stops in the military. He is, however, ultimately responsible for the conduct of the armed forces. He's responsible for every battle they win, every battle they lose, and every damned rule they break. That's his job. He's obviously not capable of doing his job. He's botched the occupation in a myriad of ways, Abu is just the most recent and most obvious.

"do we fire the police chief just because crime still happens?"

No but we do fire the police chief if his department is running a rape camp under his nose.

The great thing about my answer is that it applies to whatever moronic analogy you want to use.

Do we fire the ice cream man if the the jimmies aren't fresh?
Do we fire the dog catcher if there's still poop on my driveway?
Do we fire the 7-Eleven clerk if the slurpee machine is tilted?

There is almost certainly an established logical fallacy that your analogy is guilty of but since I've never taken a formal logic course I'll have to settle for pointing out that you're guilty of being an absurd shill.

"The DemLibs repeatedly and consistently "forget" the "overwhelming firepower" and "quickly" part"

Joesph have you even been paying attention to the last 2 years?

War games designed to simulate an invasion of Iraq showed that it would require 400,000 troops to defeate and then pacify Iraq.

Why do we only have 130,000 troops in Iraq? Rumsfeld's an idiot.

The NSC recommended 500,000 troops in a memo that we know Condi saw.

General Eric Shinseki told congress that several hundred thousand men would be required. He was the freaking Vice Chief of Staff of the Army(I think and am too lazy to google it) and he was dismissed as a Clintonista for daring to disagree with Rumsfeld.

Thomas White the secretary of the Army agreed with Shinseki's appraisal and was eventually fired for doing so.

So we had professional soldiers, members of the best trained and educated army on earth, telling this Administration what was need to do the job and the administration, Rumsfeld in particular, simply ignored them. Why? They had their own opinions on the subject. What was Rumsfeld's opinion based on? We'll never know for sure but I bet liquor was involved.

So please stop with your childish assertions that the "demlibs" don't know how to fight a war because they don't understand overwhelming force. It's an absurd point and it merely proves you don't know what you're talking about.

You're team screwed the pooch on this one and you're too slavishly loyal to admit it.

"No but we do fire the police chief if his department is running a rape camp under his nose."

Where are these reports of a rape camp coming from? This is the first I've heard of this.

Sources?

Right now I honestly have to say Rumsfeld is between a rock and a hard place. #1 if he admits the Clinton drawdowns were too much and we are unable to fight this war because what we have is not enough he is a partisan political hack and just trying to pass the buck to the previous adminstration and does not deserve to be SecDef. If he says everything is fine he has these photos showing different which means he is a partisan political hack and that while true these atrocities are nothing compared to what came out during "Winter Soldier" during Vietnam he has no control and therefore does not deserve to be Sec Def. Nice bit of manuvering by the Dem Libs or LibDems

1.) SecDef is a political office. By definition. Sort of a fuse to protect the Pentagon in many ways. And the President in the other direction. It's part of his job to foresee political consequences if things go badly and prepare to forestall, mitigate, etc.

EG, if "unfortunate incidents" are inevitable in war (and they are) than planning must take them into account, and possible responses should be well-thought out and canned. That's essential staff work.

If certain easily-foreseen problems can be forestalled simply by having the right people in the right place at the right time, that's also part of the planning process.

One would ordinarily expect concerted effort to protect civilian infrastructure, securing vital records and preserving national treasures - or "loot," if you will.

It's particularly foolish to assume that you can go in "on the cheap." At worse, you lose the forces committed - at best, they are insufficient to fully secure the objective without immediate commitment of reserves. Absent other considerations, I'd expect normal procedure to be to send the largest force supportable by the available supply lines.

2.) It's part of his job to translate military into civilian and vice-versa. A degree of constructive pessimism and a healthy respect for Murphy are significant qualifications. I don't see much to indicate Rummy ever listened to military cautions, or ever considered that "no plan of action survives contact with the enemy." Certainly the public was unprepared by him for that eventuality.

3.) No military force in the world is capable of undertaking every possible military role. Aside from political considerations, no army is big enough, not even ours. Institutional experience counts for a great deal as well. American forces are not peacemakers or peacekeepers. They are what happens if those efforts fail.

Whether or not they "should" have that capability is far more a political than an institutional question, integral to foreign policy concerns. But the fact is, US forces don't have that capability, and are in part relying on very expensive "civilian contractors" to take up the slack - with the sort of mixed result one would expect from mercenaries. (Superior to appalling)

The US army is not structured, trained, experienced or suited for an occupation role. Thus the learning curve will be expensive. This was foreseeable, and was, I'm sure, foreseen. And a political decision was made.

One reason we have (or had) alliances was to profit from institutional experiences developed by other nations. But alas, the remaining "willing" coalition members are not the sort that can field 10 or 20 thousand troops without significant effort.

If you know you are gonna need to drive nails, you get a proper hammer; you don't bet that you will be able to find a suitable rock on the way to the jobsite.

Finally, history is littered with the political corpses of those who bet on a "swift, victorious war" as a solution to their domestic problems. You'd think politicians would have learned by now, but it seems that our primary system selects in favor of short-term thinking compulsive gamblers.

(Thinking on that, it seems like it applies to all presidents in my life's memory - and with a vengeance to their inability to foresee problems on the horizon due to their attempts at long-term solutions, foreign and domestic.)

One thing is for sure; this, like all wars, has the sort of unforeseen disasters that serve as the turning point for all wars. Sometimes these disasters are engineered by the enemy, but all too often they are the result of command inflexibility and adherence to doctrines that do not fit the current situation.

Finally, I would say that if victory conditions depend absolutely on a co-operative civilian population, it would seem to me that a good deal more effort would have to go into just not casually pissing them off and expecting them to understand the old "omelets and eggs" analogy, at least past a point that seems to have passed some time back.

Can the situation be retrieved? Sure. Given some "out of the box" thinking and some intelligent re-definition of acceptable results.

But that would require a sense of accountability and situational awareness that is rare enough in any politically-motivated war and seems completely absent in this administration.

Note that when I say "Politically-Motivated" I'm not saying that's a bad or good thing. Some form of armed response was a political NECESSITY post 9/11. The only question was where. But anyone who thinks that it was avoidable is a total naif.

And indeed, Afghanistan was met with very little world outrage. It was both culpable and a boil on the ass of the world. It was a high-value symbolic target, and frankly little could happen there that would make things any worse.

More than one war has failed because a leader thought that if one front was popular, two would be twice as popular. And more than one has failed because a leader was told only what he wanted to hear.

But most importantly, many wars fail because of completely surprising developments. The pictures in the news are evidence of that. You may or may not choose to see it as lefty sabotage of the war; it could well be characterized as that - but it's also as easily characterized as a failure generated by the right, choosing to believe that their form of patriotism will take fire in the left once our forces go into harm's way. In other words, a failure of anticipation, aside from the sheer stupidity of allowing such a command failure to occur in the first place.

Given the needs to placate the civilian population, control terror and crime, AND generate useful intelligence, these efforts should have been very, very high priority. Instead, as usual, they were staffed by those who clearly were "unsuited for other duties." Or, at least, in part. And it doesn't have to be a large part to compromise such a mission, obviously.

For a better understanding of this topic, I recommend reading Stephen Ambrose's "Citizen Soldiers". In particular, there's a chapter entitled "jerks, sad sacks, profiteers and Jim Crow". It's about the asshole element that we deployed in WWII.

Too bad the asshole element in this war lives in and works out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

The only thing those soldiers did wrong was get caught. The techniques being used at Abu Gharib — the same ones employed against John Walker Lindh in Afghanistan — have proven extremely effective in eliciting information from Muslim interrogation subjects, and probably saved many American lives.

The real tragedy in all this is that an effective tool has been removed from the intelligence arsenal. That's what Rumsfeld should be held accountable for.

"Where are these reports of a rape camp coming from? This is the first I've heard of this."

The Taguba report itself mentions rape or women, men, and boys. On friday congress found out that there was even "inappropriate" acts commited against a corpse. Who knows what that means.

There was also general sexaul humiliation, group nudity, broom handles up the ass, the pictures showing Iraqi men being forced to simulate oral sex, etc.

It's wasn't a recreational rape camp like some countries had in WWII (and since), but rape and threats of rape were one of the forms of torture that were used against the Iraqis.

"One reason we have (or had) alliances was to profit from institutional experiences developed by other nations. But alas, the remaining "willing" coalition members are not the sort that can field 10 or 20 thousand troops without significant effort."

I find it noteworthy to remember the Korean War, a "UN approved" War in which Ethiopia contributed more troops than the French. ...somewhere along the lines of1654 Ethiopian troops to 1200 from France.

"Note that when I say "Politically-Motivated" I'm not saying that's a bad or good thing. Some form of armed response was a political NECESSITY post 9/11. The only question was where. But anyone who thinks that it was avoidable is a total naif."

I really don't know why people get into arguments and laundry lists of reasons for Gulf War II. It's really simple:

1) Gulf War I ended with a cease-fire.

2) One of the conditions of the cease-fire was that Iraq would allow unfettered access by UN weapons inspectors.

3) Iraq threw the weapons inspectors out. At that point, the cease-fire was violated and the war was automatically back on. No reasons needed, no approval had to be sought. By Iraq's choice, the state of war resumed.

That's the argument I've always used. nevermind WMD, nevermind terrorist ties, it's all irrelevant. Iraq broke the cease-fire.

In 1936 France and Britain entered into a Non_Intervention (in spanish civil war) treaty. Germany and Italy were sending arms to Franco. They signed the treaty with France and England as they continued to send arms. England and France stopped sending arms to the Spanish government even as they knew(from their ambassadors) that Italy and Germany were violating the treaty as they signed it.
Why did they?? The same reasons as the opposition makes believe that Saddam wanted "peace".And some of the same countries involved. It was and is a stupid game. Iraq makes a declaration. Inspectors find more stuff. Iraq amends declaration. Inspectors find more stuff. And the diplomats play the game of blindness because they don't want to face up to the consequences. If the coalition didn't remove Saddam after his repeated violations of the truce, these same diplomats would have removed sanctions and the inevitable catastrophe would have happened in 4 or 5 years. And, as in the 1930's and now, they would have called for more conferences. They never learn

Since WMD and terrorist links have factually failed to be a justification for the war, the moral imperative was all we had. (Those who cling to WMD or terrorist links, note that the Administration itself has stopped those talking points, moving to the "mass graves and rape rooms" mantra.)

That is now gone. Is it fair for the people of the Middle East to consider those photos as fairly representative of our wishes and efforts? Of course not.

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration pushed through this war by fanning our hatreds, from the "evil" rhetoric on down. So, we should understand the creation of irrational, overarching hatred for an entire country's citizens based on the terrible actions of a few of them (or, even more unfairly, a few from the region).

Current proof that, despite all the "bringing them democracy" talk, that we still don't see the Iraqis as people like us: the most common concern from both media and politicians this week has not been how damaged the prisoners in the photos must be, but how damaging the photos might be to our standing in the world.

Another part of the nature of war is a loss of humanity. We shouldn't walk away from our humanity so easily.

It will be interesting to see the trials from these incidents. What ever are they going to convict these soldiers of?

Humiliating a prisoner is not a crime. Indicative of being an asshole, surely, but not a crime.

As for some of the more serious charges being bandied about, how well they will stick depends on where the prisoners came from.

A lot of people are raging about violations of the Geneva Convention (actually the Hague Convention, but I won't quibble). The Conventions are quite clear in what rights they designate.

If these prisoners were members of the uniformed Iraqi Army, carrying their weapons openly, then yes, we do have a war crime here.

If, on the other hand, they are guerillas, engaging in warlike activities WITHOUT being in uniform, or as part of the military arm of a State, then they pretty much have NO protection under the Conventions.

Indeed, it would be quite legal to take them into the woods and summarily shoot them, without trial.

To restate: I personally maintain that the entire concept of "Intermational Law" is a joke. However, the conventions of combat between nation-states have been pretty well codified since the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648. The status of lawful combatant is VERY narrowly defined -- and actions by the (much vaunted) U.N. in the last couple of decades have been even MORE specific in who has the rights of a lawful combatant (Granted, those actions were taken to limit/eliminate any Geneva/Hague Convention protections for mercenaries operating in Africa, but what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, no?). International law is QUITE clear that individuals who engage in armed conflict outside of the status of a lawful combatant basically have NO rights, whatsoever.

So, where is the crime here? (Other than the old rocks-and-shoals bugaboo, "conduct unbecoming" etc. If I could legally summarily kill an individual for their actions, without trial, why would any OTHER activity necesesarily be illegal? (I suppose this is rhetorical -- what IS a fate worse than death -- under 'international law', anyway?).

Screw 'em. The fuckers/fuckees are goddamn lucky we let them live in the first place.

http://www.itv.com/news/623337.html

It wasn't just criminals and insurgents that were being detained. There were many innocent people, and bad things were done to them. This guy's story is about children being beaten in front of their family. I got it from Drudge.

3) Iraq threw the weapons inspectors out. At that point, the cease-fire was violated and the war was automatically back on. No reasons needed, no approval had to be sought. By Iraq's choice, the state of war resumed.

That's the argument I've always used. nevermind WMD, nevermind terrorist ties, it's all irrelevant. Iraq broke the cease-fire.

Bzzzzt! Sorry Mbarek,

Hans Blick and the other dude were in Iraq doing inspections when the U.S. went to the UN. France and Germany wanted more time for the inspectors to work. The U.S. didn't. The inspectors left Iraq as the U.S. launched this war.

Your only "argument I've always used" is false. Thus everything else you say is suspect.

"If these prisoners were members of the uniformed Iraqi Army, carrying their weapons openly, then yes, we do have a war crime here.

If, on the other hand, they are guerillas, engaging in warlike activities WITHOUT being in uniform, or as part of the military arm of a State, then they pretty much have NO protection under the Conventions."

THIS is the most important statement that not enough people have brought into the discussion. If you aren't in a uniform and you fire apon someone in uniform you are toast, no rights accorded you via the Geneva Convention.

"Unfortunately, the Bush Administration pushed through this war by fanning our hatreds, from the "evil" rhetoric on down. So, we should understand the creation of irrational, overarching hatred for an entire country's citizens based on the terrible actions of a few of them (or, even more unfairly, a few from the region)."

Perhaps you could rattle off the list of the few? I mean, they must just be so few that you could list them or at least post some data or news stories that back up such a bogus statement.

Fracas_futile, could you answer some of these questions?

1. Do you believe that a confrontation with Saddam Hussein’s regime was inevitable or not?

2. Do you believe that a confrontation with an Uday/Qusay regime would have been better?

3. Do you know that Saddam’s envoys were trying to buy a weapons production line off the shelf from North Korea (vide the Kay report) as late as last March?

4. Why do you think Saddam offered "succor" (Mr.Richard Clarke’s word) to the man most wanted in the 1993 bombings in New York?

5. Would you have been in favor of lifting the "no fly zones" over northern and southern Iraq; a 10-year prolongation of the original "Gulf War"?

6. Were you content to have Kurdish and Shiite resistance fighters do all the fighting for us?

7. Do you think that the timing of a confrontation should have been left, as it was in the past, for Baghdad to choose?

Mbarek,

Why use the Geneva Convention as your only guide to moral behavor? Why not strive for something higher? Where is the great American compassion? We are a too angry nation ready to "toast" anyone.

Also, why is it a conclusion in most posts that the US wants to see a free and unoccupied Iraq? This is where your arguments fails. You assume the Bush administration is telling the truth. We all know this is not as common as we would like.

"Also, why is it a conclusion in most posts that the US wants to see a free and unoccupied Iraq?"

Why is your conclusion otherwise?

Could you elaborate on this and ease up on the hyperbole?

Those fringe-dwelling leftist moonbats at the military trade papers need to adjust their tinfoil hats!

What a bunch of maroons!

Clearly calling for the resignation of the "police chief" over the actions of a few "bad apples" is idiocy.

Listen, in the main argument posted above the writer never commits himself to exscusing what our soldiers did nor did he say it was the right thing to do. What he did do was open the eyes of the public to realize that we're not the only ones doing this and our actions towards the prisoners pale in comparison to what the iraqi's have done to THERE OWN PEOPLE. hat our soldiers have done is absolutely inexscusable however those that live in glass houses shant throw stones? why? Because it will all come crumbling down around them. Child prison camps, POW camps, saddamns torture rooms. all Viable examples of what the enemy has done to his rivals. Go ahead, bash America for letting a few of their soldiers get out of hand, but please, please don't use that same shit as justification to feel bad for our iraqui enemy. THey kill, and torture far more innocent civilian than we do and they treat their own prisoners like shit.

Mbarek-

"The terrible actions of a few" was meant to refer to the participants of 9/11, not the Iraqi insurgents. I'd hope one would note a moral difference between those who committed 9/11 and those involved in the current violence.

Bush's rhetoric set the conditions which has:

-A majority of Americans still believing that "Saddam Hussain was personally responsible for 9/11", according to a recent poll. Many get a chunk of the responsibility for this sad fact, including the media and we citizens. Bush gets the biggest chunk; it's his administration that made the leader of Iraq a grave threat to U.S. citizens.

-Made it possible to attack a country which had not attacked us, had not attacked any other country for many years, and which had none of its citizens participate in 9/11.

-A great number of Americans ready to accept any level of humiliation and violence put upon Iraqis. Your search for a defense of us treating Iraqis outside the bounds of the Geneva Convention is revealing. The law is hardly the point when confronting the horrible acts committed by us.

I'll repeat from the earlier post: the moral imperative had become the only major card the U.S. could play, and that is now gone. Legalisms don't get us around that.

Besides, the Taguba and Red Cross reports estimate between 60% and 90% of those in Abu Ghareb had done nothing wrong. Consider that when joining the Administration in looking for creative, extralegal defenses for the tortures we've executed.

We've done terrific damage to our standing in both Iraq and the world. The current path is disastrous.

"The terrible actions of a few" was meant to refer to the participants of 9/11, not the Iraqi insurgents. I'd hope one would note a moral difference between those who committed 9/11 and those involved in the current violence.

>Here is a quote from a guy who just got back from the region......" It should be pointed out that the prisoners at Abu Ghraib are not Boy Scouts rounded up for jaywalking. These are bad guys who either blew up or shot a coalition member; or were caught assembling an explosive device; or were caught in a place where the makings of explosive devices were found; or were caught with a cache of weapons. See the pattern here?
* In short they were trying to kill me and others like me. And if they succeeded in doing that, they were going to come over here and try to kill you.
* Ugly thought? You bet. But that is the kind of prisoner being held in the terrorist section at Abu Ghraib. "

Bush's rhetoric set the conditions which has:

-A majority of Americans still believing that "Saddam Hussain was personally responsible for 9/11", according to a recent poll. Many get a chunk of the responsibility for this sad fact, including the media and we citizens. Bush gets the biggest chunk; it's his administration that made the leader of Iraq a grave threat to U.S. citizens.

>So what? A majority of americans also believe that angels exist. Those who believe that Saddam was personally involved in the attacks misunderstand the case for the war and it was never argued on that very premise that you push. The Saddam threat was deemed a "gathering threat", one that I'm very glad this administration had the courage of conviction to vanquish now, not in 5 more years when that threat may have become too close to home. Some, like yourself find comfort in smug damnations of "we citizens" being culpable for who Saddam was.

-Made it possible to attack a country which had not attacked us, had not attacked any other country for many years, and which had none of its citizens participate in 9/11.

> It was never incumbent on the world community to prove that Iraq had dismantled its WMD program before the war. It was incumbent on Saddam to show otherwise. He refused - either because he was being lied to and wanted to conceal weapons that did not exist, or because such an admission of impotence would have been terribly damaging to the dictator's reputation, both internally and with regard to Iran, or because he was slowly going nuts and his regime was collapsing from within. But what matters is that he refused. The responsibility for the war therefore lies squarely with the dictator. Moreover, we know that if Saddam had been left in power and sanctions lifted, he would have attempted to restart such programs - and indeed Kay has found a vast apparatus of components, scientists and plans to achieve exactly such a result. Kay also said that Saddam was working on a ricin-based biological weapon right up to the eve of the invasion. We know now something else: his tyranny was worse, more depraved and more brutal than we believed to be the case before. The moral and strategic case for his removal appears stronger now than ever. We also have a chance to move one part of the Arab world toward some kind of open, pluralist society. Since the appeal of Islamo-fascism is deeply connected to the backwardness and tyranny of so much of the Arab world, this is a fundamental and critical part of the response to 9/11. Iraq was and is a critical component of the war on terror. It's an attempt to deal with the issue at its very roots. I believe the victims of 9/11 deserve nothing less.

Does CenterfieldDJ really believe that the common criminals at Abu Ghraib were the ones being interrogated/abused? Obviously, those who were being questioned were those who were participating in violence against Iraqis and Coalition fighters--Baathist terrorists. They knew things we wanted to know. I'm not happy with what was going on, but I know sometimes the process of getting information isn't pretty.

"Bush Lied"

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA),Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV),Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA),Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV),Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA),Oct. 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL),Dec. 8, 2002

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger,Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA),Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton's Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of an elicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI),Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY),Oct 10, 2002

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraqis a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998