More from Chris Shays: "Abu Ghraib was not torture"

[dazzleman]

I don't give a s&$t about Abu Ghraib.

[dazzleman]

the hack must go.  I feel vindicated.  Every Republican member of congress (except for Orrin Hatch) should go.

.......right.....what are you smoking these days, Tweed?

[dazzleman]

I don't give a s&$t about Abu Ghraib.

Don't dodge the issue. Just because a congressman who you like made a stupid remark doesn't mean you can pretend it didn't happen.

As I said, I don't care.  I consider it a very minor issue.  Things like that are inevitable with a war.  Whatever happened at Abu Ghraib under us was a lot better than it was under Saddam Hussein.

[dazzleman]

I don't give a s&$t about Abu Ghraib.

Don't dodge the issue. Just because a congressman who you like made a stupid remark doesn't mean you can pretend it didn't happen.

As I said, I don't care.  I consider it a very minor issue.  Things like that are inevitable with a war.  Whatever happened at Abu Ghraib under us was a lot better than it was under Saddam Hussein.

I think "better than Saddam Hussein" isn't much of a moral standard. The US should aim much higher.

Not to mention that I'm not sure that the Iraqis are actually better off than under Saddam. There are estimates of over 100,000 Iraqis dead because of the US invasion.

We have lost all of our moral authority.

This war would have ended long ago, except that they've avoided using a draft. A lot of chickenhawk warmongers would be singing a different tune if suddenly it was their ass on the line.

So you're saying it would have been better to use greater force?

Interesting, coming from you.  And unexpected.  Finally, something you may be right about.

I'm surprised you didn't use the estimate of 655,000 Iraqis killed by our invasion that was floating around last week.  I'd say most of them were killed by other Iraqis.  Does anybody have any statistics on how many people Saddam was killing on an ongoing basis to stay in power?

I understand your point, though.  Just be careful not to argue the issue from both sides.  Our mistake was (a) not enough force at the outset of the occupation to keep things under control; and (b) assuming that Iraq was ready to handle freedom of some sort.  What we've learned largely is that people in the middle east are so consumed with hate that they'll use the freedom they get to kill each other, rather than build a positive society.  I don't think that we can be fully blamed for what they have chosen to do with their freedom, though there are many aspects of the situation we may have handled better.  The murderer is still responsible for his crime, even if the police bungled the investigation.

[dazzleman]

 Our mistake was (a) not enough force at the outset of the occupation to keep things under control; and (b) assuming that Iraq was ready to handle freedom of some sort.  What we've learned largely is that people in the middle east are so consumed with hate that they'll use the freedom they get to kill each other, rather than build a positive society.  I don't think that we can be fully blamed for what they have chosen to do with their freedom, though there are many aspects of the situation we may have handled better.

You seem surprised that a destabilized environment complete with roving death squads, daily sectarian violence, loss of basic services, etc. would result in what has happened in Iraq. You really shouldn't be. This isn't to be layed at the feet of people "filled with hate" - that's just as easy rationalization of the same caliber as "they hate us because of our freedom" - nor is what we have provided them with anything close to the kind of freedom needed to achieve a peaceful society. We have given them anarchy, and while some would call that the ultimate freedom - I doubt their are many folks in western democracies longing for anarchy.

Thus, it would be better to say - "I don't think that we can be fully blamed for what they have chosen to do with their anarchy" - which is true, we can only be blamed for some of it and for giving it to them to begin with.

Well, we seem to differ as to degree of blame.  You speak of roving death squads as if they are an inevitable part of life.  They wouldn't be if people didn't join them.  We have freedom here, without roving death squads or sectarian violence.  Why is that?

I think that people who join the death squads, or murder people simply because they belong to a different sect of the religion of peace, bear the primary blame for the situation, though we have some secondary blame for not getting the situation in hand.

Freedom is never given, only taken.  We created a situation where they could take freedom.  What they have done with it is their responsibility.

You say that I rationalize, but you seem all too eager to use a blame America first attitude to rationalize away ugly atrocities committed by middle eastern people.