>Wow... If you believe that, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

its the truth, we question them we do not interrogate them, there is a significant non symantical difference.

>
Putting those labels on these people does not alter the fact that they are human beings. The US is very keen to be seen as the protector of human rights.
<

are the tortured, sick, starving, thirsty, beaten? no!

they are extremely well treated for what they've done, we do this so that we can interrogate them, ok, so that more terrorist attacks dont happen.

>
One persons terrorist is another persons hero, consider, there are Iraqi's fighting against the official Iraqi army units in Basra. By doing so, they are, effectively, traitors to their government, terrorists no less.
<

they are not terrorists they are traitors or "Revolutionaries", theres a difference.

>Should the US incarcerate these people or clap them on the back.

they are not traitors to us, we are not their governments ally...

>
The former Serbian president is being tried at The Hague as we "speak". He is not the first, and will not be the last.
<

look, i don't agree with a lot of policys around the world, though i admit the need for an entity capable of trying international criminals, i do not trust the intentions against americans since most of the UN is strictly anti-american.

>Finally, shouting and insulting people is likely to get your posts edited or deleted. Debate rationally.

I aplogize, i'll try to post when im less ........ed next time.

>
What I mean is that he's a $$$hole right? We knew that before we went in, in fact it's partly why we went in. So it comes as absolutely no surprise if he's an $$$hole to our troops too. He has never played by the book or followed any rules of any kind. For example, in Desert Storm he didn't abide by the Geneva Convention so I don't see what is different now.
<

point taken and understood, but people keep trying to say the U.S. is not and that why should he if we don't WHEN HES EXECUTION OUR SOLDIERS!, maybe when he starts executing brits you people will give a $$$$.

>I never argued that he didn't have them.

yet you seem to give him the benefit of the doubt, why? does he deserve it? no!!

>
I confess, if someone came into my home armed to the teeth and intent on murdering my family and destoying everything I have, I would happily spray him with all the chemical agents I could get from my kitchen. I think anyone would.
<

We offered him many many ways out, its his fault.

I would not unless there was no other way, and even then i would have to consider who and why. I dont think you comprehend just how terrible chem and bio weapons really are.

to your last point:



i never expected anything different!!

im just amazed at the level of vileness his fid ayin(fed ayeen, whatever), have stooped to, and im also very worried that people will mistake his "guized" troops for really being us.

it just some people insist on turning anything he does around into something we've done or trying to say everything is our fault, and giving every evil S.O.B. who we go after the benifit of the doubt, im tired of it.

What did we ever do to cmpare to Saddam or Al Queda?
Why should he/they get the benefit of the doubt and not us?

the truth is i could go on for hours but im gonna spare you.