[EMAIL PROTECTED] responded to: > I hope it doesn't happen, but I can't see Iraq or Somalia or some > Colombian warlord going too kindly on your guys in the near future. > > Brett > > You mean, after a legal debate in which we decided to give the terrorists > _more_ protections than they actually deserved under the laws of war, you > think that our soldiers will be retaliated against because we had that > debate? Well, the people we've fought in the past have not exactly been > paragons of civilization.
Um - I could be wrong - but that's not how I read Brett's response... You seem to have launched an assault on someone because he is saying that American's treatment of prisoners is better than that which your enemies are likely to use. I think it's a terrible burden for western civilisation to fight a war according to the rules against enemies that ignore the rules, and I suspect that is what Brett was also saying. I think you're being a bit harsh and reactionary suggesting this is an anti-US attack. Statements like: And why is so much of the world so <snip> obviously doesn't give a damn when it's our people who are denied the protections that they do deserve? aren't true for most of the western world, and the US hardly has a monopoly on this (as an example, far more Australian and British soldiers were tortured and worked to death by the Japanese than American soldiers) - the US has just been involved in conflicts since its very inception, so has a longer history of it. There are parts of the world that are anti-US, but it's not actually EVERYBODY outside North America.... Cheers Russell C.
