Oh the Irony. Abu Graib Prisoners want Americans back

[Guest91408]

I know I risk opening a can of worms, but I think certain things have to be said.
I was taught as a child that to kill one person is like to kill all of humanity. Every country has a right to protect their citizens, but to wage a war of reasons and information that was fake or incorrect is a major crime against humanity in my opinion. Civilians die in wars, and thats what happened in Viatnam, and again now in Iraq, and for what? Oil? Influence in the Middle East? Finishing what daddy Bush didn't? Now before anyone claims that I'm saying that the soldiers are murderers, I'm not, I'm saying that the people in control are definitly not innocent. Does unjustyingly killing less people make one country better over another?

Quite so, couldnt agree more with you and I don't believe I was lending any credence to the necessity for war in Iraq...that, in my opinion is an utterly different debate. I was responding to Asia's post not defending the monstrosity that is the Iraq conflict. Saddams time was limited, he was ill, his despotic family loathed, given another 2-5 years it is entirely possible and likely the Iraqi people (in some form or another) would have risen and swept the lot from power.

"one country better over another" ...I often find the characterisation of peoples by their rulers quite perplexing. Do the actions of Saddam mean all Iraqis are evil, Do the decisions of the US President make all Americans liable...no...so why do we persist in thinking of nations as living breathing entities when in fact they are merely temporary social constructs of the powerful? A different debate perhaps.

The British did a lot in terms of economical/education progress for the world, but to say that India would be a couple of dozen warring statelets without Britains involvment is quite presumptious.

Yes, presumptious perhaps, but not necessairly wrong. In fact my position has a long historical support. Negate Britains entry into the subcontinent and it would have been carved up between the French, Dutch, Portuguese, Russians and local principalities. So the choice would have been French domination (and independence MUCH later with a lot less development and probably more violent ending) or fragmentation. I stand by that supposition, even if it cannot ever be proven.

Listening to the stories from my grandparents, a British ruled India was not a good India for them. Britain colonized India not to influence the locals in the 'British' way of non-slavery (which was abolished over a century after India was colonized), or democracy, they came to become richer, straight and simple.

Again, I find myself agreeing with some of what you say. Of course Britain came to make profit. Empires (and not just European ones!) are always driven by power and profit. Am I saying this is wrong or right? Neither. I did not say Britain came on some humanitarian mission with halos glowing above our soliders heads. Exploitation came with any benefits I've outlined, I recognise that certainly. None the less, India was a strong, 'modern' country once it was free...despite raging poverty and inequality in actual rights (if not legal rights) it still represents a glowing example of multiculturalism and democracy that others would do well to emulate. The horrors and crimes against humanity committed during the Uprisings by the British weighs heavily against us, but still the balance of our overal influence is in the positive.

And on back to the discussion of the whole torture business, it's completely pathetic to see humanity still at a stage were torture is still something that's common, not only in Iraq and US, but most nations of this world

On this, sadly, you have my utter and complete agreement. As a humanist, someone who believes in the power of humanity set free, I find torture abhorrent and its prevalence disturbing.