"Well, sorry, but I'm not outraged."

"The worst is that anyone who comments on it has to preface whatever he/she says by stressing how outraged he/she is. This became the politically correct position," writes Roger L. Simon:

Well, sorry, but I'm not outraged. Outrage presupposes surprise, shock. One can be surprised or shocked only by what's unexpected. What took place wasn't exactly unexpected, was it? It happens everywhere, all the time. And it is, has been and will always be an integral part of warfare.

Comments

[OF Jay]

Amen sister.

[maha]

[Expletive deleted]. The United States didn't treat Germans taken prisoner in WWII like that. Not even close.

Long ago, brutality toward prisoners was identified as a war crime, and not something that was either excusable or necessary to a war effort. And as we see (or, maybe, you will see eventually) this particular brutality is not only NOT integral to a war, but is COUNTERPRODUCTIVE to the war. We can now kiss off whatever notions we had about Iraq becoming democratic and pro-American. Even though we prevail as a military power, our political objectives for waging war are now unobtainable.

That being said, I agree that in warfare atrocities are probably unavoidable, if not excusable. That's one reason why wise people don't rush into war, and good leaders don't send soldiers to war for light or transient causes (e.g., Iraq).

Sometimes war is necessary. Invading Iraq was not necessary.

BTW, who's not facing up to evil now?

[Sissy Willis]

In answer to your question, maha, it appears that you continue to not face up to evil.

[steve]

My money’s on Maha.Abu Ghraib has destroyed the final justification for this war.It wasn't about the WMD or links to evil doers or putting an end to Sadam's brutality or bringing democracy to Iraq so therefore was it about the oil after all? With soldiers dying every day what new excuses will this administration come up with. What possible justification can they now use to "stay the course”?

[Sissy Willis]

How sad that you are stuck in the same old groove...Take a look at Libya, for starters..Ghaddafi has decided to call it quits with nukes, and now they're talking about human rights for -- gasp -- women.

[grendhal]

I think it's funny when someone brings up Libya. The work that pushed Libya to come clean (if you can call it that) has been going on for 10 years. Of course Bush takes all the credit for the good, and none for the bad...again. Oh, but wait, Muommar just stated he wouldn't rule out going back to terrorism again. Yeah, Libya is headed in the right direction, no doubt! They are playing us, plain and simple.

And if 16-year-old boys being raped on video doesn't upset you, you are a sad excuse for a human. To hell with the Geneva convention, that's just sick. Besides, that shit doesn't win wars and it sure as hell doesn't win the "hearts and minds" of Iraqis as Bush said he would like to do and I sincerely hope we can do.

Okay Sissy Willis, go ahead and reply to my post, defending your position without even an attempt to view it from the other side. Imagine if you were "one of them brown skinned Iraqis" and that was your little 16-year-old brother that was picked up in a sweep and was no more an insurgent than you or I (I'm not saying 16 year olds can't be insurgents). Or maybe it was your 12-year-old sister that was stripped naked and beaten to break her brother. Would you support American troops or our cause then? Or would you take the next weapon someone handed you and take revenge. I would take choice two, what about you?

Both cases, by the way, are documented by the US military. But, as Rush says, what's a little frat prank between friends...

[Sissy Willis]

Please go back and reread my post before setting up a straw horse and then proceeding to beat it. I am not in any way endorsing detainee abuse by our troops. I am merely agreeing with Roger L. Simon's observation that such behaviors on the part of some "will always be an integral part of warfare."

[grendhal]

The torture of others at the hands of their captors will always be an "integral part of warfare" as long as people like you, and Roger Simon, exist. Tell me if you condone the abuses listed in my last post and quit hiding behind what Simon says (sound familiar?).

[Sissy Willis]

No, I do not condone the abuses, and a more careful reading of my post will reveal that I never said anything to that effect. If you are interested, check out my latest post for further clarification of my viewpoint:

http://sisu.typepad.com/sisu/2004/05/dr_philip_g_zim_1.html

[Guav]

So what you're saying is that if these were pictures of American POWs being treated like this, you wouldn't be OUTRAGED?

Lie.

[Rick The Lawyer]

This issue has been so thoroughly beaten to a pulp that it is now officially unrecognizable.

A handful of bored jackoffs humiliate a handful of prisoners, and all of a sudden "we can now kiss off whatever notions we had about Iraq becoming democratic," the war was "all about the oil after all," "we have no moral authority," "the SecDef should resign," etc.

Look, a handful of bad people did some bad things. Good people found out. The good people are actively investigating the bad people and the things they did. They are prosecuting the bad people under the law.

What more can we ask for? Line them up, shoot them, and then try them?

As for Maha's next-to-last inane comment in his long string of inane comments, it shows he was against the war from the beginning. He loves this. It justifies his moral preening.

Get a grip. Find some proportion.

[Sissy Willis]

Thanks, Rick. Now I don't have to waste any more time trying to speak to ears that will not hear.

[Rick The Lawyer]

Hi, Sissy:

"trying to speak to ears that will not hear."

And "trying to speak to minds that will not reason."

I have never seen such handwringing, bedwetting, and faux morality in my life. And I came of age during Watergate, so that's saying something.

Thank G-d dud, cruds, and assorted ragbags like Maha weren't around in the early 1940s or I would have started this post "Gutten tag, Sissy" or "Konnichi-wa, Sissy." If they ever have their way, 10 years from now, my posts will begin, "Infidel whore!"

You have a great site. Thanks for your efforts.

[Kevin Hayden]

>>I am merely agreeing with Roger L. Simon's observation that such behaviors on the part of some "will always be an integral part of warfare."<<<

I also agree with Simon. Just as Rumsfeld neglected to do squat when the second worst holocaust of the century took place on his watch, shook hands with Saddam two months after reports came in that Saddam was using poison gas and botched the call on the number of troops, the search for WMDs, the growing resistance and the cost of the war, I'm certain every war has its fumblers, incompetents, propagandists, apologists and nincompoops. These are integral to warfare and the multi-talented Rumsfeld has mastered them all.

Knowledge that such things take place means I'm not surprised, but I'm outraged. Every time. When such stuff occurs on either side.

Others may be 'comfortably numb' to it all. I consider the Abu Ghraib war crimes to be vile and despicable.