Most men are horrified at the idea of raping a woman. Maybe you could see deep within yourself how it might happen but you wouldn't dream of doing it, the same as you wouldn't dream of casually killing somebody who annoyed you. This is called civilization, and the vast majority of people who grow up in civilized societies just wouldn't do this sort of thing.

But in an inherently 'uncivilized' situation like war, where you DO have to kill people you don't know, maybe some of the other norms of civilization come under strain as well. And as Locutus pointed out, if recruiting standards have dropped so that some soldiers in Bush's army are borderline criminals anyway...

All of which is no excuse whatsoever for the abuse of women in the army and it's down to those in authority to make it crystal clear that it will not be tolerated and offenders will be severly punished - and then to be seen to do it.

Men and women in the army are trained to do things that go against their natures - put themselves in danger, kill other people, etc. And there are some things that training says you must NOT do - desert, disobey orders, etc. Regardless of how stressful and unusual the situation, there are some things that you must do and others you must not. This is drummed into you and is enforced all the way up the line with no sympathy for transgressors.

Then surely it is possible for men to have it drilled into them that they do NOT abuse their female comrades. If you do, then the roof falls in on your head. End of story.

It's not the time spent in the air that's so bad - that can even be quite fun - but all the paraphernalia surrounding it.

My experience is mostly from UK and European airports. The chances are that you have to get up at some uncivilized time in the morning to check in hours before your flight leaves. You queue for ages to check in. You then queue again to get through security and are searched. You then perch on a plastic chair (if you can find one) in an overheated and crowded airport until your flight is called. Then a long hike to the departure lounge and more waiting. Your plane is late. You eventually get on it. If it's a low cost carrier, you take pot luck on seats, your party has to split up. More waiting for clearance. Taxi to the runway. More waiting. You take off. Hooray!

You fly somewhere uneventfully.

You land, more waiting, customs, baggage reclaim, etc, etc, et bloody cetera. For a 2 hour flight, the whole process has taken 5 hours. And this is when things go well!

As a non-American, I can't tell you how bad this looks from outside the US. Here's an American citizen who's has been incarcerated for 3.5 years and tortured out of his mind by his own government, and now the evidence has 'gone missing'.

Then there are the hundreds (or is it thousands?) of non-US citizens in Guantanamo and various 'black' sites around the world who have also been imprisoned without charge and tortured. And then there's Abu Ghraib and extraordinary rendition.

Here's a country, founded on principles of freedom and liberty widely admired throughout the world, trashing its own principles in front of our eyes. When is this going to stop?

The problem is the relationship between scientists and government/business. The science on its own is never dangerous: it's the commercial and political uses to which it's put.

I agree with Stackie Onassis: you get the distinct impression that the science of GM technology is being rushed to suit the aims of business, and certainly not for the benefit of the consumer. The analogy with nuclear power is a good one: there's just too much we don't know about the long-term effects of GM, both on consumers and as a threat to the bio-diversity of the planet.

I think the people are ahead of the politicians on this one. In Europe, governments are having a very tough time foisting GM on the population. Many people are instinctively uneasy about this technology and they just don't believe the bland assurances of governments and the GM companies. And I think they're right to be cautious.

It's not my fight because I'm not American but what's disturbing to me is Hillary Clinton's attitude to the Iraq war.

Some letter writers here suggest that she acknowledges she wouldn't have voted for the war if she'd known the mess it would turn out to be, but that she still broadly approves of US policy in the region, if not the execution of that policy.

Please tell me that's not true, because if the US under Clinton were to go down the same foreign policy road as it is now, then that spells trouble for all of us, not just America.

Glenn, you've hit the nail slap bang on the head with this one. You've illustrated exactly why people round the world feel such dismay and foreboding when they look at US policy in the Middle East and the mentality that's driving it.

The King of Jordan is dead right: the US, with partners, needs to make a serious and even-handed attempt at fixing Israel/Palestine. Get that right, and evict the paranoid delusionists now in charge in the US, and we could be back on track.

I'm not falling for it. Some of these letters praising Camille Paglia can't be genuine... can they?

Just because she generates a large response doesn't mean she's 'relevant'. You could have Dick Cheney write an article and I bet he'd get a huge response as well.