The untenable situation that existed with the embargo and no-fly is true, combined with the thought that the two nutty sons would rule with access to increasing oil wealth does make a good case that something had to be done.

However, invasion and occupation I don't think was evaluated as to the risks involved with it.

Your idea to level villages that have uprising, after humanitarianly warning the citizens might have some effect, however I'm not sure in practice it would be possible to carry it out in a humanitarian way since the bad guys would probably force the civilian population to stay and be slaughtered by our gunships through force, coercion etc.  But, it would do something and such tactics are what have been used by other occupations.  The Romans, I have been told would - if even one Roman soldier was killed would burn the village, sow the fields with salt and execute every adult male (age 12+ ?) and sell the women and children into slavery.  Successful occupations are brutal and not really something i think most Americans want to be in the practice of.  

I've had to go round about with a few arguments both pro and con about leveling a city in such a fashion.  Its not an easy thing to consider and I'm not suggesting the idea in a off the cuff cavalier way, but it does get a point across.  Also I'm not saying that leveling a city in every instance of war is the move to make, but against Islamic Extremists who respect and respond to naked raw power, its something I think needs to be considered.

One of the problems I think exists with modern warfare (that is war after WWII), is that the countries who are striving to keep peace amongst civilizations have tried to bring civilization to war.  War by its definition is a most uncivilized practice.

Tyrants and dictators have become less and less afraid of becoming aggressors and brutal killers.  I think a lot of this is because they know the UN, and those nations which give the UN its muscle(as little as that is) won't fully prosecute a war to its most terrible conclusions.  They hide behind the very rules of war we(Europe and the US) formed after WWII to try and limit civilian casualties.  This puts civilians directly in the path of harm as they become human shields.

I sometimes wonder if more civilians would be spared if we just made it a point to all aggressors that if they violate the rules of war, then we toss them also, and show true unrestrained destruction upon them and their armies.  Problem right now is we keep our hands tied while they fire Anti-Aircraft guns beside homes, or take up sniper positions from inside family's houses, or launch rockets from beside a UN watchpost, or suicide bomb markets, and disco studios.

They know we will play by the rules even if they don't.  And in their minds us staying by the rules is not a sign of strength and humanitarian restraint(as we view it), it is viewed as weakness, and an exploit in our armor.  And they will keep picking out at that chink in our armor until they finally cause us to seriously bleed or die from it.

Also I'm not saying that leveling a city in every instance of war is the move to make, but against Islamic Extremists who respect and respond to naked raw power, its something I think needs to be considered.

Well, we've done it before in Dresden and Hiroshima. I didn't approve of those either. I do believe in the protective use of force however. Just not the current administration's interpretation of it.

They know we will play by the rules even if they don't.

Yeah. Like Abu Ghraib. Like Guantanamo. (both violations of the Geneva Convention). Like cluster bombs. Like Falujah. I wish we did play by the rules rather than pretending to.

I'll disagree with you on the use of force on Hiroshima and Dresden, but that is another ball game.

As for Abu Graib, the people who committed those acts are being punished.  The system works, and we kept ourselves accountable.  If they had been ignored, then I would say the US failed its obligations.

As for Guantanamo, that subject is being hashed out right now in the legislature and courts.  Again the system is in the process of working it out.  It may be slow, and it may be imperfect but at least we have processes and law that we at least try to follow.  I doubt the terrorists give a flying flip about law.

Cluster Bombs, I don't think are illegal.  They are disdained and there is now fresh criticism of their use because of the Isreali-Lebanon situation, but technically I don't think any laws broken.  If I'm wrong please feel free to point out the section in international law banning their use.  I'm always up for learning something new for the day.

Falujah?  Please elaborate what greivance you are trying to insinuate here.  Preferably back it up with a reference so I can read for myself and come to some conclusions.  Falujah is in the news a lot, so just stating the place doesn't specify an incident.

Anyhow I'm off to go chill out for the evening.  SQL and the poorly maintained database I was converting has fried me out.

"As for Abu Graib, the people who committed those acts are being punished.  The system works, and we kept ourselves accountable.  If they had been ignored, then I would say the US failed its obligations."

Oh Really?  Care to prove that point.

Other than some low level scapegoats, show us one senior ranking civilian that has been tried and convicted for war crimes relating to AG.

I'm sorry, Prole. The only thing this proves is either your ignorance about Abu Ghraib or overwhelming partisanship. At least that's what I think. If you want to have a start-from-scratch, real debate/conversation about this issue - then please - start right here.

I'll keep it exclusive. Just me and you. If you need some help, I'll let you have Angry Chimp and AlistairC. Trust me, you will need them, they are good. I'll take Jack Greene to fact-check me. Other than that, I think I can prove myself.

Here. Read Bing West's article in latest Altantic Monthly. (C'mon fishies, fall for the bait, fall for the bait).

So damned if we do, and damned if we don't?

Fail to prosecute those who made the infractions and we are the worst human rights violators in the world!

Prosecute them, and it turns out that they are just scapegoats for the super secret shadow government!

It would be inconceivable to think that maybe, just maybe, we happened to have a collection of psychotic bored off their ass nitwit MPs who thought it might be fun to put these prisoners through some good old fashion college hazing, and have a real life edition of Jackass using Iraqi prisoners.  And by the way before it gets misconstrued, thats not an excuse for their behavior, its an indictment of it, and of the idiocy the American Public has for watching sadistic morons on TV and thinking its "cool".

"The system works, and we kept ourselves accountable."

Good Lord man, put down the Kool Aid!  

Do a google search for "Jamestown Kool-Aid Massacre"

See anything familiar? C'mon let's start being friends again. It's so much easier that way. Otherwise, I'll just keep on pretending. I'm serious. Maybe we need Hezbollah to broker the cease fire.

wouldn't that be "Jonestown"?
Yes it would be. Forgive me. I can never get the two straight. Surprisingly one get's similar results in Google.
As for Abu Graib, the people who committed those acts are being punished. The system works, and we kept ourselves accountable.

It does not matter what YOU think (we kept ourselves accountable), what matters is what THEY think.
No "mind control" available to you in muslim countries, ol'Rupert doesn't own the MSM over there.

Don't forget to apply for the Nobel Prize!

All's fair in war.  We're deluding ourselves if we think otherwise.  

Before WWII, bombing civilian targets was seen as barbaric.  By the end of the war, both sides were doing it.  Topped off with our bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Eh? All's fair between me and you. (I think). WWII was a serious proving gound and mental exercise in this respect. WWI really didn't broach the subject.

Korea. Vietnam. Chechnya. Kosovo. Iraq 2003. (and especially) Lebanon 2006. Have really honed our(the world's) thinking on this one.

I guess my point is that "bombing civilian targets" has always been seen as barbaric. Just to what extent? And what does it mean about "us"(again, the world). I think these are more important issues.

What do the Chinese think?

The good thing about posters like T is he'll keep the kumbaya singing element of the peak oil "movement" off the board.