Reading Current Events

A rant written by a friend of a friend:

Well, it has been a while, no?

A cartoon in today's newsday shows Saddam Hussein reading a newspaper whose headline concerns the torture revelations at the Abu Ghraib prison. The caption has him saying" News of torture and degradation in Baghdad make me sick... Homesick."

Forget, for a minute, the moral high ground, the Al Qeada recruitment poster, the mess in Iraq or the absolutely unimaginable travesty of using private "contractors" -- i.e. mercenaries -- to conduct interrogations of Iraqis we have captured  (Remember, however, that right after 9-11 our wonderful, freedom-loving administration stated a policy of turning certain suspects over for interrogation by allied governments who could engage in methods of "questioning" that the United States was (at least theoretically) precluded from undertaking, and the idea of using private contractors to conduct torture and thereby give the chickenhawks in Washington "plausible deniability" is not so far-fetched.)

Forget all that for a second -- these guys running our government were suppossed tobe, if nothing else, "competent". They ran as the gorwn-ups to clean up the world left messy by the kids in the Clinton administration. Instead, it seems they have no competence at all. They werer wrong about the WMD. They were wrong to listen to that convicted fraud Chalabi about the welcome our "liberators" would receive (CNN reported yesterday that over 70% of Iraqis view the Americans as occupiers while only 19% view us as liberators). Cheney even said recently that he was surprised by how much residual anger was left over from our abandonment of the anti-Saddam iraqis after daddy's gulf war. OK, so thay ain't competent, They are stupid, ideologically-driven, factually bereft, dumb-ass motherfuckers. O,K, granted. But this is beyond even that...

How tone deaf do you have to be to use the very prison where Saddam tortured his people -- where the rape rooms our president keeps talking about used to be -- as the location where we detain iraqis and interrogate them?  How incredibly incompetent, stupid and, lets face it, blind, do you have to be not see that as a mistake --  a grievous symbolic error of the greatest magnitude in our battle for "hearts and minds" (something this country is so damned good at, right? just look at all the love we get from the vietnamese -- the last folks whose hearts and minds we sought to win over with ordnance)? I mean, impressions matter. Even without the torture, how dumb is using that building? What message does that send out to the folks in iraq -- especially the ones with family members detained, tortured and humiliated therein?

Was this about saving money? 100 billion dollars and counting in Iraq and we're too cheap to build a new prison, torture chamber and rape room? Hell, Hallliburton owes the government a few million bucks in refunds for "overcharges" (yeah -- like Enron overcharged California. When my clients engage in similar behavior on a far lesser scale, it has a different name. And they don't just get to pay back the money. And Halliburton doesn't even have to cough up the interest it earned on the millions it stole. And Cheney got over 170,000 in pay from Halliburton last year!!!) Let them build a state of the art torture chamber.

Imagine the outrage, BTW, in the Muslim world to have these men stripped naked and interrogated -- and touched!!! -- by a smiling, heathen woman. Remember, these guys aren't even suppossed to shake hands with a woman outside their family. And now some dumb American bimbo is playing with one of their genitals. What's next, pork rinds and ham steaks for dinner? with a beer chaser? How stupid are we?

As to the pretense that this was an isolated incident from some disobedient soldiers (and notice how the one to take the hit was the woman, reservist general -- clearly not part of the good old boy pentagon network): A soldier who tortures a prisoner in his care is unlikely to take photographs of himself or herself doing so unless he or she clarly beleived that this conduct was sanctioned by the powers that be. In general (and I must say, I have had clients who disprove this rule), when one commits a crime, one does not simultaneously make a recording of same to be used as evidence at a later proceeding. These soldiers in these pictures were smiling as if they were at Disneyland, and taking photos to send home to mom. Clearly they were not concerned about ramifications if someone discovered they had engaged in the conduct in question.

And, like Lt. Calley 40 years ago (ring a bell, youngsters and cousins? If not, e-mail me and I'll fill in the historical blanks left out of the average american education), these soldiers, who deserve to be punished, are now going to be the fall guys. And the true perps, and the full extent of the conduct, will never be revealed.

(In this respect, check out Amnesty Internation, as cited by move-on.org., regarding widespread reports of torture abuse and even murder at that prison. A headline in today's paper viewed in passing also alluded to at least two deaths of prisoners at the abughraib center.)

I ranted about this before, in connection with Halliburton and the lack of adequate water and supplies for our troops in the field, but now that news of "contractors" seems to be permiating the media, its time to again touch on the subject: YOU DO NOT PRIVATIZE WAR!!!! WAR IS A GOVERNMENT FUNCTION!!! THERE SHOULD BE NO PROFIT MOTIVE IN A WAR!!!

I understand that this administration has a belief -- as based in fact as its conclusions regarding nukes in Iraq, WMD, Chalabi, etc. -- that the private sector is inevitably better than government at just about everything. Personally, I don't see how building a profit into something makes it somehow cheaper or more efficient to run. But it seems beyond dispute that there are certain things that can NOT be privatized -- and the army and war has to be number one on the list. Law enforcement and prisons should be number two, but we have private companies running jails all over this country. (And given that they make a profit, it seems clear that the onyl way for them to be cheaper is for them to cut bakc on security, on food and activities for the inmates and salaries and training for the staff)
WAR IS PUBLIC BUSINESS, and we should not be in the business of hiring mercenaries to do what our soldiers should be doing.
(Not to say there aren't times when it behooves any government to go "off the shelf". But the occupation of a country we invaded is clearly not that sort of circumstance)

We have become Alice on the other side of the looking glass:

The guy who took five deferments and avoided VietNam, famously declaraing that he had other priorities at the time  (I bet those 700 dead soldiers in Iraq, not to mention the tens of thousands of dead iraqis, [robably had other priorities, too) is able to impugn the patriotism and integrity of the guy who went and fought, and was wounded three times, and got medals for bravery and valor.

Now the right wing attack machine is impugning Kerry, claiming he didn't deserve one of the purple hearts he got -- saying the injury wasn't that severe or that Kerry shot a mortar at a rock and took shrapnel.
GOOD MORNING. YOU DO NOT ASK FOR A PURPLE HEART. The Navy, in Kerry's case, gives it to you if it thinks you earned it. (It's true that in times of failed warfare, like Nam was, the military tends to try to award a whole lot of medals for PR purposes, but that is not really relevant to this discussion.) Whether or not that medal was earned, IT WAS AWARDED TO HIM. So, all those guys who are trying to dis Kerry regarding his Purple Heart are actually IMPUGNING THE NAVY WHICH AWARDED SAME!!!!!!!
And that, of course, is the question that should be asked of these people at every occasion: Are you saying that the Navy wrobngfully awarded this medal to Lt. Kerry?
Are you doubting the honesty and competence of our armed forces?

(Can you imagine the brouhaha if some left-wing politician questioned some military honor or medal awarded to his republican opponent?)

Finally, is the president allowed to merely divery nearly three quarters of a billion dollars which had been allocated by Congress for a specific purpose, to one of his pet projects, without even informing Congress?

That's enough.

Peace,
Danny

Ewige Blumenkraft!

This post was edited by mclaincausey on May 14, 2004.

Nice rant. Seems a bit one sided though, especially in reference to the interrogation of Iraqi POWs. When they capture us, the men get a car battery hooked to their genitals, or a quart of castor oil down their throats. The women get beaten and raped by the same men who aren't supposed to even shake hands with women outside their families.

We pull fraternity pranks. Yeah, shame on us.

And in retaliation for our interrogation methods, what happens? Some guy from Pennsylvania, who for some ungodly reason is in the middle east, gets beheaded by some terrorists. And it's not a guillotine they use or anything. It's not one quick chop with a good sized axe or sword. It's sawed off for about 20 long seconds while he screams in agony.

If it were up to me, I'd castrate any high rank POW and leave them to bleed do death in a cold concrete cell.

I'm really very fed up with that whole part of the world and how some people in our country feel sorry for them. I'm not usually one to say things like this, because I do acknowledge that there are good people that live there. Innocent people. But I say nuke them all and have a nice big campfire where they used to be. If they want to do this back-and-forth shit trying to top each other, let's just go straight to the end, because that IS the end. You can't retaliate to a 400 megaton blast when you're blind and your skin is melting off.

Ask em how that Nuclear Genocide tastes with a side of Rot in Hell.

I'm sure I'll mellow out later, but it just pisses me off when people feel sorry for the poor Iraqi soldiers. Why don't you ask that one female soldier (can't remember her name, wish I hadn't even heard the story) who was captured what she think's of the Iraqi soldiers. You know, the ones that shot her, stabbed her, and raped her. Think she'll feel the same way you do?

(Yeah, I know it's a friend of a friend. Maybe show him this for me.)

"What you don't understand you can make mean anything." - Misty Wilmot

If it were up to me, I'd castrate any high rank POW and leave them to bleed do death in a cold concrete cell.

That makes you no better than a terrorist.

We can no longer pretend to hold the moral high ground when our soldiers act like terrorists. All does is make the terrorists right. They can now say "See? I told you so. The Americans are evil."

By the way, having a German Sheperd rip out your innards is beyond "fraternity pranks."

As for "feeling sorry" for people, you are completely missing the point. America is turning its back on basic ideals of the supposedly civilized West. Ideals that at least on the surface for SOME people make it seem OK for us to invade sovereign nations, the "barbarian hordes" of the east and south. Ideals that might make us appear to be liberators instead of conquerors to some people, most importantly the Iraqis. When those ideals are proven to be false, the entire operation is compromised. Our soldiers and Iraqi civilians are in more jeopardy, and the entire region is destabilized yet further.

Saddam might have been a bad man, but the world was a better place with him in power than it is now. The occupying power has destabilized the country and apparently is engaging in similar treatment of their captors: what has changed for the better? I heard a civilian put it poignantly: "If this is fre3edom, I'll take Saddam."

Ewige Blumenkraft!

This post was edited by mclaincausey on May 14, 2004.

That makes you no better than a terrorist.

I disagree. Although it's on the same level of violence they use, motivation is what seperates me from them. They would kill me because I'm American. I would kill them because they've killed innocent people and won't stop killing innocent people until they themselves are dead.

I have no problem with dispensing pain and agony to the ones who are deserving. I'm sure you could say that they think the same thing, and that they have their own "reasons" but if their reasons are just as good as mine, then join em. I'm sure after you explained that you understand their anger, they'd happily let you live.

Or they'd drag you through the street, bludgeon you to shit, and set you on fire like they did American workers. (I believe the beheaded gentleman had a job raising cell phone towers, and he wasn't the first with that kind of job there to be executed.)

I didn't hear about the German Shepard, and if you could confirm that information, I'd be grateful, but do you honestly think that our soldiers would do things like that (or be permitted to for that matter) if the enemies they were fighting weren't so barbaric to begin with?

Fuck high moral ground. They rape and torture, we grin and bare it? If it were your sister? Your wife? Your brother? They're making this as personal as possible. I say we get personal.

"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our
hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover
impotence." - Mahatma Gandhi

"What you don't understand you can make mean anything." - Misty Wilmot

Although it's on the same level of violence they use, motivation is what seperates me from them. They would kill me because I'm American. I would kill them because they've killed innocent people and won't stop killing innocent people until they themselves are dead.

I'm assuming you're ignoring all the innocent people the americans have bombed to pieces in Afghanistan and Iraq because those were "accidents". Sorry, but the people on the receiving end don't make that distinction.

In your previous post you mention the idea of nuking Iraq. Well all those cold war leftovers gotta find a use somewhere I guess. But how about this: just leave. Abandon Iraq, pull out of Afghanistan, forget about the whole Middle East Interference thing altogether. It really hasn't gone all that well, for no lack of trying over the last 50 years. Like you say, they're caught up in that back-and-forth thing, so lets let them finish it on their own, and save ourselves a bunch of trouble.

the beheaded gentleman had a job raising cell phone towers

This set me along to wondering why someone would be setting up cell phone towers in Iraq. Then the obvious answer dawned on me: So the average Iraqi can finally call someone about where all their relatives, or at least their relatives bodies, are, and why they still don't have clean water, food, power, and once that shell hits, a place to live.

The towers are, of course, for the Americans in Iraq. I think that military communications are a little more secure than your average cell phone, so it was probably for the American civilians, who are in Iraq; contractors and such. They are there to gain econmically from the occupation. So, if they chose to enter a war zone, unwanted, for entirely their own purposes, knowing the risks, and proceed without military protection, it seems a little, well, thick.

The point is, the reason that Americans keep going back to the middle east is not for world peace, or to bring freedom, but it is primarily for the purposes of profit, corporate agendas, and economic dominence. Are these justifications for occupation of a nation, and the escalating loss of life?

"History is more or less bunk." - Henry Ford

This post was edited by Bunk on May 15, 2004.

I'm assuming you're ignoring all the innocent people the americans have bombed to pieces in Afghanistan and Iraq because those were "accidents". Sorry, but the people on the receiving end don't make that distinction.

I'm not ignoring it. I thought it was idiotic. Surgical bombing my ass. Notice the fact that I was speaking on a very personal level with my statement that you quoted. I wasn't the one who bombed those people, and if it were my decision, I WOULDN'T have bombed those people.

Believe it or not, I DO feel for the Iraqi civilians. When it comes to being delicate with the Iraqi people, the Bush Administration(s) suck(s).

"What you don't understand you can make mean anything." - Misty Wilmot

I would kill them because they've killed innocent people and won't stop killing innocent people until they themselves are dead.

Lame and easily shot down argument. What makes a society civilized in the legal realm is due process and the principle of innocence until proven guilt. As long as the suspects are incarcerated, they are no danger to anyone, and if they have killed "innocent people" (as opposed to people whom they view as unwelcome conquerors) then they should be treated as suspected murderers. Are suspected murderers humiliated and tortured in our prison system? Not systematically, though I'm sure it happens, because we are, supposedly, an advanced, ethically sound society.

I have no problem with dispensing pain and agony to the ones who are deserving.

Well, unfortunately for you, that isn't your place, nor is it the place of our soldiers. International law, our own military statutes, and domestic law, as well as the teachings of almost every world religion (including Islam), forbid such beavior.

I didn't hear about the German Shepard, and if you could confirm that information, I'd be grateful, but do you honestly think that our soldiers would do things like that (or be permitted to for that matter) if the enemies they were fighting weren't so barbaric to begin with?

This is a matter of public record, you can look it up yourself. It is in General Taguba's report among other places. I'm actually not sure it's a German Shepherd, but I know it did happen and that the military has admitted to having photographs of the incident, which they do not want to release.

It doesn't matter how barbaric the rebels may be. Repaying them in kind is stupid for a number of reasons: for one thing, it undermines the battle for Iraqi hearts and minds, which is the most important battle of all. (We cannot afford to keep a standing army in Iraq indefinitely, nor can we annihilate the population and let Halliburton move in). For another, it lends momoentum to the resistance and gives them another cause to rally around. The third and most important problem with it in my view is that it undermines this country's legitimacy in the eyes of the world and damages its image irreparably. It makes us an even bigger target for terrorism than we already were and it convinces the whole world that we are a hypocritical, dishonest, and morally bankrupt nation. Any Islamic people who were on the fence as to whether the US is "the Great Satan" now likely believe that we are.

Fuck high moral ground. They rape and torture, we grin and bare it? If it were your sister? Your wife? Your brother? They're making this as personal as possible. I say we get personal.

We don't "grin and bear it," we attempt to find and either kill in combat or prosecute in trial the people responsible for these acts.

The US used to be viewed by much of the world as a beacon of freedom, opportunity, and civility. If this country is going to continue foreign interventions, it is important to maintain that image. In one presidential term, that image has been tarnished beyond repair. It severely undermines our effectiveness as the world's sole superpower. It impinges upon our country's ability to do good in the world (though anyone who has read many of my posts knows how skeptically I regard our forgeign interventions anyway!)

Moral high ground is what separates humans from beasts. I am a human and I want the people who represent me to behave like humans, no matter what kinds of beasts they are pitted against in battle. Moral rectitude isn't a matter of convenience, and revenge should never compromise one's ideals.

Taking the moral high road is more difficult than sinking into the morass of evil. That's what makes it the high road: it's harder, but it's a sacrifice that a good person is willing to make. That's what makes him/her a good person.

Being a good person means operating under the restraint of a moral code in all circumstances, no matter how difficult it may be to do so. This is called integrity, and we as a people should insist that our law enforcement personnel, our judges, our leaders, and our soldiers operate with integrity at all times. In these times of moral decay, integrity is becoming a lost attribute. But of all places, one would hope to find it in our military.

Ewige Blumenkraft!

Lame and easily shot down argument. What makes a society civilized in the legal realm is due process and the principle of innocence until proven guilt. As long as the suspects are incarcerated, they are no danger to anyone, and if they have killed "innocent people" (as opposed to people whom they view as unwelcome conquerors) then they should be treated as suspected murderers. Are suspected murderers humiliated and tortured in our prison system? Not systematically, though I'm sure it happens, because we are, supposedly, an advanced, ethically sound society.

And who are we, according to your argument, to define a society as "Civilized" in our "supposedly ethically sound society"? By doing such a thing, we turn into the old colonial British, convinced of total superiority. You want to know what mankinds impediment that makes "ethically sound societys" a fantasy? Itself. As long as we are human and not gods, there will be no "ethically sound society". There will be the lesser of evils. You can name a moral high ground, that much is common throughout the world, but beginning to use civlized and it's opposite, barbaric, that begins to make some problems.

We don't "grin and bear it," we attempt to find and either kill in combat or prosecute in trial the people responsible for these acts.

Oh, right, sooooo... where's the concluding news story about the US femal POW and her rapers brought to justice... oh wait, we forgot about her. What about the man who had his throat slit? Havn't heard anything on the drivel box (its late, I just came up with a word :D I'm talking about the TV for those with poor context-reading abilities), sorry.

In one presidential term, that image has been tarnished beyond repair.

No, the image was lost before it could be tarnished, thanks to U.S. Grant (the most corrupt president) and Richard Nixon (who is not a crook :P).

Being a good person means operating under the restraint of a moral code in all circumstances, no matter how difficult it may be to do so. This is called integrity, and we as a people should insist that our law enforcement personnel, our judges, our leaders, and our soldiers operate with integrity at all times. In these times of moral decay, integrity is becoming a lost attribute. But of all places, one would hope to find it in our military.

And yet integrity is found in the military, unfortunately, nitpicking the military provides better headlines for CNN.

Moral high ground is what separates humans from beasts. I am a human and I want the people who represent me to behave like humans, no matter what kinds of beasts they are pitted against in battle. Moral rectitude isn't a matter of convenience, and revenge should never compromise one's ideals.

All sarcasm and such away, I couldn't have said this better myself (and I'm serious).

Poor mclaincausey, I don't think your opponent is making much of a challenge for you. I must retreat to being bitter and thinking "Gee, thanks Mom, Dad, and all you baby boomers, for tossing this pile of shit into my future. Great graduation present."

Fond memories

Sorry, I'd have replied more but I was gone for the weekend with no computer (Aaaahhhhh).

(This part is about Iraq)

Do I think we should've gone to Iraq in the first place? Nope, I'm all for us minding our own business unless it's absolutely necessary to do otherwise. Do I think it's a bad thing that Saddam is out of power? Hah, no. Things are bad there now? No shit. It takes time to rebuild a government. As in years, not months.

The Iraqi military has been ignoring any kind of humanity in their interrogations for years. The punishment should fit the crime. You gonna feed them and keep em comfy while you go investigate and see who exactly stuck electrodes and knives into our people AND their people, sometimes for no other reason than they could?

Now as for the rest of Iraq, you think we should just leave them like that? I don't think we should keep our army just sitting there, but we have to set SOMETHING up in Saddam's place. And not something half-assed, but something with a solid foundation.

Oh yeah, Newsflash:

We never had moral highground. We never will. But neither will they. All we have going for us is that we're generally less evil, and we can (though we sometimes don't) rebuild a country after we bomb the fuck out of it.

(This part is about Terrorists)

Leaving Iraq isn't going to stop the batshit insane Muslims (Yes, I know the difference between good Muslims and batshit insane Muslims, so NO I'm not calling all Muslims batshit insane!!) from trying to kill us as much as humanly possible. Y'know since we're so evil with our Satellite TV and our Microwave ovens and our Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen movies. (... ok so that last part is evil, but still.)

It's my theory most of them hate us because we're not stuck in the 17th Century like they are. Well that's fine, hate us. But they better try a helluva lot harder to hate us a little more quietly and above ALL ELSE non-violently or sooner or later we're gonna get fed up and turn their sand trap into a fucking crater.

(This part is about our Morality)

Moral rectitude isn't a matter of convenience, and revenge should never compromise one's ideals.

I don't claim to be a good person, I doubt you could quote me as saying I am. I'm just venting my feelings on this particular subject. Who knows what I would actually do if someone made it my choice what would happen to the POWs? For all I know, I'd get a sudden wave of compassion and wait for all that due process shit. I doubt it, but it could happen.

At least I'm more honest about it than some of the people in our government. I absolutely agree that one shouldn't let revenge compromise one's ideals. Sorry, but revenge IS one of my ideals, so that isn't really helping your arguement. You can keep morality when it comes to things like this. I'll gladly take the low road.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm glad that you have your opinion. If there were more people talking like me, I'd probably be talking more like you. I suppose you could say I try to keep a balance.

"What you don't understand you can make mean anything." - Misty Wilmot

(This part is about Iraq)

Do I think we should've gone to Iraq in the first place? Nope, I'm all for us minding our own business unless it's absolutely necessary to do otherwise. Do I think it's a bad thing that Saddam is out of power? Hah, no. Things are bad there now? No shit. It takes time to rebuild a government. As in years, not months.

Saddam wasn't a good person, but the situation was contained and there was no evidence he pas harboring or abetting terrorists. In fact, Saddam really wasn't a fan of terrorists outside his own secret police and military.

So in some respects it IS a bad thing that Saddam has been overthrown, and I'm sure a large number of Iraqis would prefer his iron fisted rule to the chaos engulfing the country now.

If Saddam were to be ousted by Western forces, the time to do it was over a decade ago when Bush I stood up the rebels at the altar. The die was already cast at that time and the US was a little more trusted in the Arab world.

Or, of course, we could have gone multilaterally with it and had the rest of the world help bear this huge burden. But then we wouldn't be able to give all those no-bid contracts to friends in high places.

The Iraqi military has been ignoring any kind of humanity in their interrogations for years. The punishment should fit the crime. You gonna feed them and keep em comfy while you go investigate and see who exactly stuck electrodes and knives into our people AND their people, sometimes for no other reason than they could?

So? That's what makes the Iraqi military a lawless bunch of barbarous thugs. I don't want our military to be a lawless bunch of barbarous thugs. No one with any sense does.

You don't have to keep them comfortable, but you are not permitted to torture, humiliate, and debase them by basic human decency (not to mention international treaty), regardless of what their military has done. You are suggesting paying avenging the actions of the Iraqi military by taking it out on these prisoners, who likely weren't even involved in those interrogations. Even if they were, it is a basic tenet of our legal system that revenge has nothing to do with prosecution and punishment.

When someone gets caught shoplifting, we don't cut off their hands: We don't live by Hammurabi's Code.

If these moral tenets become flexible in the prosecution of our enemies, then they become meaningless to all those they were written to protect, including us.

Now as for the rest of Iraq, you think we should just leave them like that? I don't think we should keep our army just sitting there, but we have to set SOMETHING up in Saddam's place. And not something half-assed, but something with a solid foundation.

Why?

We never had moral highground. We never will. But neither will they. All we have going for us is that we're generally less evil, and we can (though we sometimes don't) rebuild a country after we bomb the fuck out of it.

I agree that we don't have moral high grounds in many regards, and I've written at length about this in other forums on NaO so I won't revisit that here. That makes it all the MORE important that we maintain high standards in those areas where we DO have more advanced principles guiding us, and one of those areas is and has always been in the way we try and treat suspicted criminals.

But by saying we're "generally less evil" you undermine your claim that we don't have the moral high ground. It's difficult for me to debate you if you shoot yourself down.

As for the "rebuild a country" part, you sound as though you think we do that out of some sense of altruism. We don't. We do that strictly for our own interests, which include the construction of buildings and infrastructure and the high interest loans to secure those lucrative contracts. It also involves us building facilities and infrastructure to let US firms more efficiently rape those countries for resources.

So believe me, I know how morally bankrupt our country is. That's why it's all the more important that we protect ourselves and the rest of the world from our immorality, and that's why we should stick to the laws in place that facilitate this protection.

Leaving Iraq isn't going to stop the batshit insane Muslims

It's my theory most of them hate us because we're not stuck in the 17th Century like they are. Well that's fine, hate us. But they better try a helluva lot harder to hate us a little more quietly and above ALL ELSE non-violently or sooner or later we're gonna get fed up and turn their sand trap into a fucking crater.

The reason that the Muslim world hates us is that they believe we are mortal sinners, moral degenerates, and irredeemably evil conquerors. They see us bomb countries in retribution for terrorist attacks, and then they see us aiding and abetting Israel when they engage in terrorist activities against Palestinians. They think that we want to wipe Islam off the face of the earth, and it one can see why this appears so to them: The US is the only reason Israel, a grievous human rights abuser, continues to exist in the Middle East.

Also, the Arab world sees the economic conquest that the United States is perpetually engaged in and they suffer as a result. They see the population of Iraq starved to death and her children denied medical supplies just because we don't like their dictator, though we didn't dislike him enough to help his people remove him when we had the chance.

In summary, the Arab people see a greedy, hypocritical culture that exploits the third world and appears to have an anti-Islam agenda. They see a state that perpetrates terror on a much larger level than al-Qaeda ever could, against much more people. A lot of what you see as anti-US action is in fact anti-US RE-action. They're tired of people whom they view as debased heathens stealing from them.

someone made it my choice what would happen to the POWs? For all I know, I'd get a sudden wave of compassion and wait for all that due process shit. I doubt it, but it could happen.

You still don't get it. This isn't about mercy or compassion. This is about acting civilized. This is about abiding by guiding principles, some of the few left, seemingly, that dictate who we are as people. The reason we can't relate to people who saw some contractors head off is because of principles like these. If we start turning our back on them, then we become nothing more than hairless apes. It's a slippery slope into the barbarism of the Inquisition and ancient Rome. I believe we've made some progess since those times, and there's no reason to return to them.

At least I'm more honest about it than some of the people in our government. I absolutely agree that one shouldn't let revenge compromise one's ideals. Sorry, but revenge IS one of my ideals, so that isn't really helping your arguement. You can keep morality when it comes to things like this. I'll gladly take the low road.

Of course it helps my argument, what difference does it make what your moral standards are? You aren't the military, or the legal system. I don't care if you let revenge and hatred guide you. I just hope that if our government ever starts adopting those same base principles that you never find yourself on the wrong side of a jury.

If you look at the pictures, the smiling soldiers don't look angry, which would be typical of people seeking revenge. They look happy.

Ewige Blumenkraft!