If you're going to be drawing parallels between the things saddams people did to americans as compared to what bush's people are doing to iraqis,then what was the point of this whole war?Saddam was ananimal,and that's why it was necessary to remove him.Because the acts he commited were vile.But for you to feel cheated that people didn't complain about iraqis torturing people but they complain when americans torture people,you're shocking me.So now that the international community didn't much for rwanda in 94,that means we should allow the **** that's going down in Sudan to go on,since,after all,we didn't intervene in rwanda,why intervene here?
There's a question of standards here,which is why while in america a cop arresting you will read you your rights(I'm assuming the movies depict what happens on the ground),in kenya a cop will beat the **** out you before bundling you into the patrol car's boot,not the backseat.Reason?Standards.

I also don't suppose torture is allowed for in any rules of engagement governing wars or treties or what have you.

And if american soldiers will be able to commit acts that are not part of their military mandate,what's to make me not think that the "civil" adinstrators won't commit acts that aren't part of their civil mandate.In other words,how can the rest of the world trust that america will do things right in iraq,regarding anything,not just military stuff.

And i thought in america you're innocent until proven guilty,not the other way round,and when you go ahead and torture someone,that mantra isn't in application.

I gotta get back to work now.

I'll pick up from there.