The biggest problem with your article is that its basic premise is flawed.

You completely rely on the "torture" issue in Iraq as the basis for your argument.  Abuse of POWs happens in every war. Regardless of where, why, who, it always happens. The question is a matter of how much, not whether there is torture.  I wouldn't be surprised if real torture (i.e. physical torture) occurred in Iraq, by Americans, that we don't know about.  What we do know, however, is that this "torture" was essentially pre-interrogation intimidation. The POWs weren't physically tortured in any conventional sense. But even if they were, trying to use a single incident as the basis for why the US isn't benign is not reasonable.

I think we can all agree that war is bad. But I also think that you really should look into history a little more.  For example, the fact that you use Vietnam as an example of the US doing a "Bad" thing is telling. Do you know what the Vietnam war was about? Do you know what happened in Vietnam and the region after the United States left? Do you not think the people of a given terriitory have the right to decide for themselves who would rule them?

In Iraq, for example, I would be perfectly happy to let the Iraqi people hold a referendum after June 30 (date of the turnover) and if they want the US out, the US should then leave. But it should be up to the people of the country to decide that.

And despite your flawed thesis, you didn't even prove your point. All you did was say the USA is bad as others. You also, again, have a serious blind spot for history. Germany has been in a bit more than a "colonisalist" war.  Russia has done a bit more than just crack down on Tibet.  China has done a bit more than just crack down on Tibet.  And in none of those cases could they be considered "liberating" those countries.  The people in Iraq have overwhelmingly said they are glad Saddam is gone. We can debate all day whether Iraq has been liberated or not (I think it's pretty obvious that the US was a liberating power - unless you're going to argue that the US is planning to say annex Iraq).

Any leading world power is going to be like a bull in a china shop. The qeustion is whether that power is relatively well behaved or not. And relatively speaking, since that is the only comparison we can do, the US has been pretty benign. Nothing you've written says differently.

Again: Unless you can demonstrate that prisoners who come into US custody are disproportionately in danger versus falling into the hands of any other major power then it is a futile argument.

Using the incidents in Iraq do not prove one way or the otehr whether the US is relatively benign or not.

If you want to start an article saying that the abuse of Iraqi POWs is bad then go right ahead, we're all in agreement on that.

The British have Iraqi's in custody too and have their own abusing problems.

Again: If you have enough POWs with enough people, statistically, some are going to be abused.

Now, my 2 cents on the issue as succinct as possible: I think the US has totally blown it in Iraq. I think the whole situation has been mishandled right from the start from where Bremer get appointed. 

What I don't like is the lack of perspective being shown on this issue - we're only weeks since innocent Americans were brtually murdered by being set on fire, had their bodies dragged through the streets and then hung from a bridge. You have to keep that backdrop in mind. If the world showed even a remotely equal amount of outcry at the misdeeds of others then I think we could have a more reasonable discussion.  But the people shrieking about this POW incident in Iraq are the same people who keep mum about the atrocities commited against Americans. 

I mean really, it's pretty ironic for say the Egyptian papers to cry about US treatment of some POWs (and just a handful here) when its secret police commits all kinds of horrific atrocities against its own people. Same in Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc.  I mean hell, ever heard the term "wouldn't want to get stuck in a Turkish prison"?  These are all Iraq's neighbors. Relatively speaking, this is nothing. 

It is STILL terrible because the US needs to be behaving at a higher standard and especially because it has made itself out as this personification of liberty, justice, and human rights. I think the US will have a hard time recovering from this incident in that area.  But again, relatively speaking, the US is very benign and that is the whole thing.

There is always competition, not necessarily equal competition.

But, for instance, what contending super power would you prefer to be in the US's position? Your options are:

A) China

B)Russia

Maybe in 50 years you'll have more choices (India for instance).

So which of those options would you prefer to super-size it. Do you believe their international behavior would be better than the US's?  Do you think that had the USSR won the cold war we would be better off?