Should we be better than this

[Joe]

I think it had to be done. I don't agree with the method. Shock and Awe was just the blowing up of unoccupied government buildings. Going door-to-door clearing neighborhoods was very costly.
I think it comes down to what we can do, and what we shouldn't do. We could have bombed to a much greater extent. We elected not to, and instead engaged the enemy in such a way as to reduce civilian casualties, and then engaged in a protracted occupation which left a teetering democracy in its wake.
We could have gotten away with inflicting significantly more collateral civilian casualties and preserved our honor, rather than rely on torture. Torture inflicted upon a few is less honorable than collateral death imposed on many.
Iraq is little more than lines on a map drawn by colonial powers of the last century. The Iraqi people do not posses a national identity like the USA does. People are more aligned along tribal and religious lines. We should have let the Kurds have self-determination and their own country. If the Shia and the Sunnis can't live in peace together, then they should not live together. We should not have been so insistent on imposing a national unity that never existed of its own volition, but only under the iron rule of a dictatorship.
There had to have been a better way. Let's hope we can find it before the next occupation becomes necessary.

[ecduzitgood]

Torture leaving no permanent damage as in fear of dogs snarling at them, placement of panties on their heads, loud music, sleep deprivation, making them stand for long periods of time, and water boarding. All acceptable to me to me if it keeps civilians in this country safe and they don't find themselves trapped in a building getting burned from fires caused by jet fuel or having to jump to their deaths, or get crushed when the building collapses.

Wouldn't you think the victims of 9/11 would prefer water boarding compared to what they went through? Keep in mind we are talking about civilians and first responders here, they did not deserve what happen to them, thats what I consider torture not what you make reference to were we are talking about enemy combatants not civilians. To me it makes a difference when people who are not involved in the war suffer and those that are involved are supposed to be treated well, yeah that will teach them...time out.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Joe

I think it had to be done. I don't agree with the method. Shock and Awe was just the blowing up of unoccupied government buildings. Going door-to-door clearing neighborhoods was very costly.
I think it comes down to what we can do, and what we shouldn't do. We could have bombed to a much greater extent. We elected not to, and instead engaged the enemy in such a way as to reduce civilian casualties, and then engaged in a protracted occupation which left a teetering democracy in its wake.
We could have gotten away with inflicting significantly more collateral civilian casualties and preserved our honor, rather than rely on torture. Torture inflicted upon a few is less honorable than collateral death imposed on many.
Iraq is little more than lines on a map drawn by colonial powers of the last century. The Iraqi people do not posses a national identity like the USA does. People are more aligned along tribal and religious lines. We should have let the Kurds have self-determination and their own country. If the Shia and the Sunnis can't live in peace together, then they should not live together. We should not have been so insistent on imposing a national unity that never existed of its own volition, but only under the iron rule of a dictatorship.
There had to have been a better way. Let's hope we can find it before the next occupation becomes necessary.

"preserved our honor, rather than rely on torture. Torture inflicted upon a few is less honorable than collateral death imposed on many."

First of all, I was in Iraq, and I assume you were not.

Second, in what way did we "rely on torture"? Do you mean the whopping 3 terrorists who were waterboarded? Are are you referring to Abu Ghraib? If you are referring to Abu Ghraib, we were not "relying" on what went on there, those were the actions of a miniscule minority of our troops. Unfortunately, liberals with an anti-Bush agenda made it seem like that was commonplace, and some simple-minded anti-Bush fanatics boughth into it.

Third, you say torture of a few is less honorable than collateral death of many? Oh, that's precious. So if Bush carpet-bombed the whole country, the liberals would have celebrated that, by saying "well, massive carpet bombing is better than forcing prisoners to have dogs bark at them".

Some people who have absolutely no clue what they are talking about, will blindly accept any liberal criticism of George Bush. Those people are deranged with hatred for Bush, and have no grasp of reality or common sense.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"preserved our honor, rather than rely on torture. Torture inflicted upon a few is less honorable than collateral death imposed on many."


Some people who have absolutely no clue what they are talking about, will blindly accept any liberal criticism of George Bush. Those people are deranged with hatred for Bush, and have no grasp of reality or common sense.

Jim, my take is that Joe was not coming at this from a liberal criticism of George Bush. I think his take was actually much more typical with a conservative view of war. I could be wrong, but you might want to look back at his original point.