I'm not quite sure if his point is that putting underwear on prisoners' heads is an essential part of being in war, or if he's just got no idea why people seem to expect more from the US army than from a bunch'a terrorists. He doesn't seem to clever either way... </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, he's got a very fair point -- that the embarrassing abuse of Iraqis garners more outcry in the first world that the killing of Americans. It really clues me in on how few friends the US really has. Our government may be able to jockey alliances and keep an even footing with the countries of Europe, but make no mistake -- those people do not like us. And, it is becoming ever more obvious every day. While we can hypothesize about the reasons behind this and opine as to how to fix it, we should remain open-eyed as to how much of the world is really not at all on our side. The central axiom of any foreign policy is that any nation at any time can be your enemy.

This idea that one tragedy got more "outcry" than the other is quite subjective and it's validity certainly questionable.

Sounds to me alot like playing the "victim" card in an attempt to move discussion away from the important central themes to sideshows of blame and namecalling.

The validity of that assertion is firm. Tell you what -- you go dig up articles telling us how evil the beheading or the burned contractors were and I'll go dig up articles telling us how evil the Abu Ghraib events are, and we'll compare -- betcha dollars to donuts I win.

But, to follow your cue, the whole "playing the victim" thin at Abu Ghraib only serves to move the discussion away from the important central themes -- that these are terrorists and deserve nothing other than hellfire and brimstone and a boot up the ass.

It's not a fair point. By his logic, what's going on in the Iraqi prisons now is worse than what was going on under Saddam. The reason why the abuse of Iraqis garners more outcry than the killing of Americans isn't that it's done to Iraqis, but that it's done by American soldiers. More is expected from American soldiers than from some terrorists.

How do you know ? Were you there ?

<font color=deepskyblue>No, <font color=orange>Donut</font>, apparantly you don't see the point Senator Miller is trying to make. He is upset that the condemnation over the "disgusting things" done to Iraqi prisoners was so much more widespread than the condemnation of the barbaric murder of an America soldier or the brutal desecration of innocent American contractors not even connected to the military.

BTW, the dragging, dismemberment and burning of the contractor corpses was done before cheering crowds of Iraqi's - yet the global media seems to imply that the Americans "deserved" this treatment and we should be "sympathetic" towards the opressed Iraqi's.

I wonder what the reaction in the media (and the rest of the world) would have been if the pictures and video from Abu Ghraib had been received with rounds of cheering and applause among the American audience. [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] Actually, I don't have to wonder at all, because we are being universally condemned for the relative handful of soldiers that committed these acts and facing accusations from several sources that "nothing is being done about the abuses", even though there is a great deal of evidence that the incidents were being investigated LONG before the media ever got hold of any pictures.

And that's the difference that is being overlooked here. The American military IS investigating the incidents that occurred and the charges HAVE been brought against those that participated in the acts. I haven't heard of any charges being brought against the Iraqi's that beheaded the soldier or the ones that burned the corpses of American contractors yet.

THAT is the point Senator Miller was making, <font color=orange>Donut</font>. If you care to read the speech again, you will note that Senator Miller specifically says that he does not condone the acts of the prison guards and that they should be dealt swift and sure punishment for their actions.</font>

How do you know ? Were you there ? </font>[/QUOTE]I do not know. I wasn't there. I assumed it was worse there under Saddam.

Under Saddam Abu Ghraib was a premiere torture and execution facility, where several thousand Iraqis simply disappeared. Just an FYI.

How do you know ? Were you there ? </font>[/QUOTE]I do not know. I wasn't there. I assumed it was worse there under Saddam. </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=deepskyblue>It was, <font color=coral>Gnarf</font>. And that makes the position of those who claim America should never have invaded Iraq a rather difficult one - because Saddam Hussein would still be committing human atrocities and thumbing his nose at the U.N. on a daily basis if we hadn't. But I think a lot of people forget that little fact.

And now it seems some WMD have been found. You know, maybe America wasn't all that wrong after all.</font>

Short memory.

You should read up on some of the abuses handed out by the British in the Port Arthur penal colony, India, South Africa, and of course Ireland. I would call starving masses of the Irish during the "potato blight" one of the most horrific abuses in human history. So are the clearances of the Scottish highlands by English aristocrats.

I find your protestations and holier than thou finger pointing at other nations laughable given what atrocities your own people have commited.

Yes the abuses in Iraq are disgusting and should not have occured, but lets leave out the ritualistic slagging off America seems to routinely recieve from you. As I have said repeatedly, due to your own peoples history you are in possibly the worst position to cry judgement. Were Britain still #1, I see no reason why the behaviour would be any different.