So, you’re saying that being chained to the floor in a fetal position without food or water for 18-24 hours while being subjected to excessive heat or cold and loud music it not “bad treatment”?

Nice strawman, can you put on a puppet show with it too? I didn't write anything saying it wasn't bad treatment. Is it something brutal and horrific I'd expect from the likes of some of the most horrendous mass murdering regimes? No, not even close.

You present yourself as an intelligent and thoughtful person. I do, however still disagree on some points. I'll try to be brief.

Durbin's comments are typical of the "Bush Bashing" left. While his exact words may not explicity say certain things, many are implied. There is no doubt in my mind that he was comparing our troops to the SS. The bold truth of the matter, is that even the worst complaints against us, the worst behavior by the baddest apples, does not come anywhere close to the comparison made. This is where the B.S. stops and reality begins. The Hitler/VietNam comparisons have grown tired, and have no positive influence on our country's future. Perhaps if Durbin had your dimplomatic approach to problem solving.

My next point: war is not crystal clear, it is cloudy as hell. Unprecedented media on the battlefield gives us some information, but not always the whole picture. Unfortunately, the whole picture, fabricated or not, sell papers. Most of the time, we get only one facet of the story. The "popular" angle is for that news to be negative towards the U.S. and the President. By association, it poorly reflects our military. Tragic, considering all of the good we do in the world, and at a very high price.

On the detainees, perhaps I am cold, but I don't give a rat's ass about them. We are at war. They ARE there for a reason. I am aware of the Bagram cab driver. He was not at Abu Ghraib or GITMO. Nowhere have I heard or seen the President or his administration direct or condone the mistreatment of prisoners. In fact, the opposite is true.

The Powell doctrine sounds great on paper, but war being what it is, you can never fully plan for every contingency. Shit happens. We have to be prepared for every eventuality, and then adjust and adapt, and stay the course to meet the mission. It all comes down to the mission. Public opinion is no way to run a war, or a country. That's why we have representative government, to make the decisions the mobs are incapable of.

The idea that Democrats would suggest attacking Iran or North Korea are typical of the stupid rhetoric and hypotheticals, used only to distract from the reall issue at hand. Sure they are perhaps greater threats. But each threat must be dealt with differently. One size does not fit all. Diplomacy is still an option in those countries, where Iraq had clearly failed. The people were starving; International corruption was profiting from the suffering of the Iraqis; The U.N. was made impotent by the influence of an evil dictator. Every intelligence source highlighted Saddam's thirst for WMDs, lack of cooperation with inspections, and repeated vioaltions of sanctions. Very serious implications for the security of the world, indeed. Also, Iraq HAS proven to be an integral part of the War on Terror. Again, people here choose to belive what they want, but there is no doubt that Iraq is the front line in the fight against Muslim Extremists, the basis for Al Qaeda and similar terror groups. I say fight them there rather than here.

My personal belief is that we absolutely should fight tyranny wherever it exists. I have peered into a mass grave, its occupants line up and machine-gunned for their beliefs. It goes against everything our country stands for. Those questioning GITMO should apply equal zeal to these questions. The responsibility of being the big kid on the block is to support what is right. Sadly, some of our citizens have become indifferent to the nightly news. They are only concerned with their own welfare. AS a soldier, it is very disheartening to stand for what you know is right, only to be criticized by those you protect. In general, the left is totally clueless about the dangers in the world.

It has been great conversing with you. Perhaps we'll agree to disagree. Again, I acknowledge some sensitivity to comments, because I take it personally. They affect me and my friends in Iraq. Free speech is a wonderful thing, when used responsibly. You can say what you want, but there are always repercussions. Durbin should have rephrased his meaning, apologized for any offense. Instead, he stuck to his guns at any cost. What an asshole. He does not have what it takes to represent the American people.

As far as foreign policy is concerned, I believe it is the current President's misguided policy which is lowering America's status (heck, if we're talking about "the world", I know that), which undermines the war on terror and puts troops in danger. The same would logically apply to those enabling him to continue this policy, but to be frank I have no interest in going there. Democracy and free speech and all that, and it really doesn't further the debate if each side claims, that the mere fact that the other side is voicing its disagreement is a bad and dangerous thing.
I and Dick Durbin (:-)) do believe the US is far better than Hitler and Saddam and we both support the US armed forces. Dick Durbin said so before, on the senate floor I did just now.

On the final point I still don't quite follow you. I'll try to go along and paraphrase, and you can correct me if I got it wrong, ok?
I agree the public in general both wants intervention and a miraculously clean war, the latter being unrealistic/impossible. As far as the correct time for leaving is concerned, I believe in the Powell doctrine of not going in without a good exit strategy. I also agree that politicans should be more open with the public about what can and can't be done with the military. There is AFAIK no way to guarantee that intervention won't be followed by dictaorship or civil war, though there are some thing to be done which decrease that likelihood (and some things to be avoided so as not to increase it).
Pointing to Iran, NK and Saudi Arabia as an alternative to Iraq was an objection raised (IIRC) in response to the claim that Iraq was central to the war on terror and/or to keeping America save. For the WOT Saudia Arabia continues to be the top target, for keeping American save by controlling nuclear weapons Iran and Nk are the top targets. In so far as the argument was in response to the specific claim that Iraq is the most important target, those making it can very well still oppose a war against any of the four countries. Their position would then simply be "I'm not convinced it is necessary and/or effective, but if you are, please chose the right target". So by pointing to I,NK, SA, they are not necessarily saying that the US should attack those countries. And from there we can have the usual debate on whether (a) a country is a threat and (b) whether that threat is best met by invasion, without anyone having held a contradictory position so far. And of course disagreeing on A or B in a particular case at a particular time in no way means that one can not have another opinion about A or B about a different place or the same place at a different time. For instance, when it became evident that the inspectors did not find any WMD, my position on the Iraq war changed.

As far as what should be done, I think it's best to just relate my position. I'm in favour of humanitarian intervention, provided they can be done quick and muscular and there is a clear exist strategy.
I'm of course in favour of defensive war and support aggressive war under a series of preconditions, though obviously some corner or other will likely have to be cut in any concrete case. There must be a good reason and all sides should be heared. It should be last resort. The goal must be clear and fully transparent, and once it is achieved, the war is over and the troops go home. The war must conform to international law except in emergencies. In all other cases, international law needs to be modified first (basically the self defense exception). Uhm yeah, probably forgot something, but that's about it.

Somehow, we always end up back at Abu Ghraib, where the perpetrators have been punished, where we have found untrained and unsupervised troops were given authority over prisoners. It's water under the bridge. Get over it. (Not to mention, even this one, terrible and highly visible event in no way even approached the brutality of the Russians, Nazis, or Saddam Hussein).

Second, these are not "atrocities". These are isolated incidents where the perpetrators have, in public view, been punished by the military, as they should have been. These acts in no way represent policy, or the way our troops are trained to behave. As a member of the Armed Forces, I get extremely pissed at any allegation that they might be, especially by those who only experience with the military has been dodging the recruiter at their high school.

Finally, while many of these individuals may not be "terrorists" per se, they ARE there for a reason. They took arms up against the U.S. (or conspired to do so) and were captured. As such, they are not entitled to a trial. They were entitled to be killed on the spot. They are still drawing breath because of our desire to acquire valuable information to prevent further acts of terror.

It's time for every one in this country to make up their mind what ideas they support. This rabid criticism, while directed at the President, very adversely affects our status in the world, and even more importantly, our success in the War on Terror. It puts our troops, even outside the Middle East, in extreme danger.

So, do you believe that as a matter of policy, the U.S. is as bad as Hitler or Saddam Hussein? Or do you support the troops? You can't have it both ways.

My final comment, which suggested isolationist foreign policy, is presented to offer some perpective. Public opinion wants us (U.S. military) to help those who need it (Lebanon, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Sudan), yet does not have the stomach for what it takes to accomplish the mission. So we get involved just enough to F things all up, then leave, so the Dictator of the day can have his way with those who oppose him. Ironically, as an argument against Iraq, they say we SHOULD be in Iran or North Korea, when they have no intention of fighting a battle there either! So it seems the only acceptable alternative to keep every one happy is to say F the world, secure our borders, and let shit happen.
Understand?

From a retired combat aviator from the Vietnam War.

Finally, could you explain how the only alternative to atrocities committed in the name of the US is "helping no one". I mean, to me that sounds like the only way to stop adultery is by staying at home, and I have a hard time understanding the underlying argument, for on the face of it, it does not make any sense to me.

I truely think that the Justice Department should consider Treason Charges against Durbin.

Perhaps we would not be in this position had the soldiers who captured these "detainees" simply shot them on the battlefield. Of course, we would also have zero intelligence to capture their buddies with.

The question here is: what is torture? Being made uncomfortable, made to stay awake, led to believe things that are untrue? All acceptable interrogation techniques. As was clearly stated before, much worse occurs in fraternities and U.S. prisons; FAR worse in foreign prisons (ironically those who criticize us). I'm o.k. with all of this. What SHOULD we do, bake them a falafel cake and sing cumbayah until they befriend us and confess their ways?

The lack of perspective on the left is based often based in the projection of ONE comment by ONE individual (likely BY a "detainee" or politically motivated democratic traitor) onto official U.S. policy. You automatically assume that this guy was chained to the floor and shitting on himself as some sort of interrogation technique. What was the prisoner's behavior that led to this? Did he pose a danger to himself and those around him? Did he flush his Koran in protest, only to incapacitate his "facility"? You don't know. Did he rip his own hair out, or did we rip it out of him? You don't know shit. You have half a story. You err on the side of the terrorist, and endanger our trooops everywhere by emboldening the enemy. You are showing them that we don't have what it takes to survive.

It's time to stop the Hitler references because they're extremely lame. WTF do you know about WWII? WTF do you know about serving in the military NOW? I thought so- nothing.

Some burned out hippies love to invoke the VietNam comparison too. We F'ed up VietNam exactly because of this peace and love bullshit going on at home. We are showing the world, repeatedly, that all they have to do is spill some American blood and we'll pull out. That endangers our troops in Iraq, and everywhere.

The only plausible alternative for U.S. foreign policy is to help no one, in no other country. Then don't come crying about "atrocities" and "ethnic cleansing", because we're off-duty. All the left cares about is their rich lives in America- smoking some shit and talking trash about the evil Empire. Give me a break.

The White House is unhappy with Dick Durbin's comments:

The White House said today that Illinois Senator Dick Durbin's comparison of American interrogators at Guantanamo Bay to Nazis, Soviet gulags and Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot was reprehensible ...

Hitler: throw Jews into cold water to see how long it takes someone to die of hypothermia. Might be some variation between individuals so repeat until you get lots of data.