Another reason to vote against republicans

[monsoon]

About the war. Bush and his cadre described it as a "cakewalk". Now 3+ years later we find this week that we are sending even more troops to Iraq to contain the violence. And Rhumsfield just signed an order this past thursday that broke the promose of the government by requiring only 1 year tours of duty. Now these poor solders can't come home after their tour is complete as these tours have been extended by another 1/3 or a year.

The idiotic promise of a Iraq as a shining example of American nation building in the middle east is not going to happen and instead has become a disaster.

[Charlotte_native]

Personally, I think that the government should say out of more things, take less of my money, and allow people to live a more free life. I also think that we should have good relations with other countries but not allow them to push us around. I also think that schools should teach instead of trying to be politically correct all the time, people should be able to say

[Clobber]

Clobber,

I tend to agree with you that central government should not have hte most power. Government is more efficient and more representative of the people when it is in local hands.

I just tend to be a lot more liberal than you

I tend to really hate authority and I don't want the government or businesses telling me what I can and cannot do as long as it doesn't infringe on others' rights... but I'm mostly like this on the individual level. When people in positions of authority start exploiting people lower down, my liberal side comes out.. and want nothing more than to quash the authority..

For example, I'm all for free enterprise when someone wants to start a business and run it.. but when that business is very successful and grows by leaps and bounds, responsibility comes with it. You start to systematically lower your wages to poverty levels and things like that, it's time for a swift kick in the @$$ to get things back on track.

I guess I'm either just too young and naive or I just have a non-traditional political view.

I just question whether government can do things better than private sectors, particularly from the non-profit side, but also from the capitalist side as well. The private sector tends to be far more humanitarian and compassionate than the government, and I would venture that many government programs are condescendingly feudalistic in motive and execution, and many "compassionate" politicians simply want to be lords over their little fiefdoms.

While businesses can abuse their authority, and I can understand the empathy that drives support for government regulation, it's the politicians that are proposing the legislation and bureaucrats that are executing the legislation that I have problems with. I don't trust that they can effectively oversee businesses with responsible restraint. Basically, the American voter needs to get a grip on the nutsack of government and the beltway consortium in general and give it a nice violent twist.

i never thought i could retire on social security alone... to think that is just asking for trouble.

as for the war, we need to pull out and we need a plan to do so... until the current administration is gone, we will not see that plan (or until congress decides to take power away from bush, which they have a right to do).

That's smart. No one should ever have a goal to become a government dependent. That's a pride-robbing concept right there.

[monsoon]

Social Security was never designed to be a substitute for planning for one's retirement. That is a misconception put forth by the Republicans. Social Security is not a savings plan. That is another misconception being implied by Bush.

Social Security is just that, an government social insurance plan that guarantees a sustinance income for people who work in America. It is not a retirement plan and it is not a savings plan.

Social Security is a pay as you go plan. People earn a benefit based on payments to the plan during their working lifetime. They are then paid that benefit at a certain age which is funded by the current workers at that time. There is no savings account associated with the individual. It is important to understand the difference. Nobody has ever suggested that people can retire on this entitlement. Until now.

Bush in his voodoo economics wants to create another government bureaucracy that would manage individual accounts for hundreds of millions of taxpayers in america. Forgetting that the government has a bad history of doing anything like this efficiently, this is a fundamental change to how Security Security is supposed to work. Instead of being an Insurance Plan, it has become a Retirement Plan and personally I don't think the government should be administering retirement plans.

Republicans and their supporters like to say their party is for smaller government, but here were are again with another Republican plan that would have grown government hugely. Since Bush has been in office the size of government has grown not gotten smaller. And we have 3 new government bureaucracies, Faith Based Initiatives, Home(less)land Security, and the Prescription Drug plan that seniors find incomprehensible and ineffective. (it was another big governmental give away to the insurance companies).

[michaelskis]

The current administration does none of what you say you want other than taking less money, but they still spend like mad. We certainly are not living "more free" now than 8 years ago - we spy on ourselves, we try to alter the constitution to control marriage, we have created new HUGE and inefficient government agencies.

No countries were pushing us around (or if they were, please, what country was "pushing around" the US??) -- that is simply silly to imply -- we are the "pushers" all over the world and now with military violence. Trying to have good relations with other countries just won't happen until the trust our federal government and trust them not to use forced diplomacy to get what we want. Bush has opened the door to countries pushing at us now -- we are too spread thin in Iraq to really do much militarily anywhere else and we have alienated so much of the world they won't step in and help with our agenda any more. We now whine and beg the rest of the world to support sanctions for North Korea and Iran, they don't respond lilke we want -- ever. No single president has ever pissed off so much of the world along with 49% of his own people -- all the while never admitting fault. It is like an overgrown playground bully with the same intellect.

People can, and always have been, able to say "one nation under god" -- no one says they can't. You can pray in school until your knees hurt -- you just can't make me do it too and the principal no longers prays over the intercom -- thank god. But there are still Christian organizations and clubs in schools, kids can certainly allowed to pray on their own.

I for one am very happy about the separation of Church and State. How many wars are fought with the Bible, Koran, or other form of religion as their basis? Most of them. If it were not for religion the world would likely be a much more peaceful place. It is too easy for a leader to grab God or the Church to get easy followers to "save" their religion.

As for "liberals" or "nutcases" complaining about things that offend them? Gay marriage, mixed marriage, medical marijuana, womens rights...the list goes on for what your representatives are constantly offended by. Old, white, grey-hairs are constantly trying to preserve the grip on power --simple. Too simple for their voters to catch on. Being elected by hate and by offending is a Rove special.

Iraq plan? There was no "plan" after Vietnam, but they seem to be doing just fine since we left and quit killing them indiscriminately. We are not the saviours of the world like we think we are and people are not better off because it is our bullets killing them than their own. The Plan is leave, we are not wanted and we are not succeeding (no, the media didn't do it, the civil wars in this area have gone on since 1300 when two versions of Islam came about after Muhammed died -- we won't solve this with some new schools and letting women vote -- their conflict is older than our country by 6X). Once we leave, the anti-American forces in Iraq will no longer be able to recruit new "terrorists" and they can work out their differences without that one uniting factor -- fighting us. This plans is laughed away with the clever sound-bite of "cut and run" but smart people know when staying the course is simple and stupid stubborness. It is easy to relate to your manhood or macho-ness being called into question, that is the basis of the whole Iraq platform now...do you want to be labled a wuss, no? Then no cut and run -- fight it out -- forget that our president was wrong, now we have to "win".

I never said that this administration was perfect. He won because he was the lesser of two evils. Like I said in my post, he is not doing a good job at balancing the budget... he should not spend nearly as much as he does. As for gay marriage, I don

[monsoon]

People keep bringing up the war... if you have a better plan, please share with us. People keep mentioning Vietnam, and it is completely different. In Vietnam, we people whom we were fighting were residents of Vietnam and part of the government. The insurgency that we are now fighting are not part of the government. They are small group of rouge citizens along with a large number of foreign terrorist headed up by the same terrorist organization that flew planes into the twin towers and the pentagon. But people forget about that all too soon.

Huh? Iraq is very much like Vietnam.

The Vietnam war was about South Vietnam vs North Vietnam. A division brought on by the colonial powers which were not supported by the people. Just like modern day Iraq.

The people the USA were fighting were NOT part of South Vietnam. They were part of the communist country of North Vietnam. The USA had propped us the corrupt and in-effective government of "democratic" South Vietnam whose very existance depended upon our military. Just like Iraq.

It was a war of attrition. The communists developed very effective guerilla tactics to defeat the world's largest military power. Just like Iraq.

Hundreds of thousands died needlessly. Just like in Iraq today.

When the the USA finally gave up the government collapsed. That part has not happened yet in Iraq, but it will. The only thing left in this is how many more people must die needlessly.

The Democratic plan is to pull out of Iraq. Despite the cries of the War Hawks of the time, Vietnam did not represent a threat to us and they were forced to fix the nation on their own. It wasn't pretty, but at least the USA quit trying to force its solution on people and now that same government is on good relations with the USA. It's clear that if the Republicans stay in power, then we will have to endure more needless death and the real solution to Iraq will be delayed.

[runawayjim]

People keep bringing up the war... if you have a better plan, please share with us. People keep mentioning Vietnam, and it is completely different. In Vietnam, we people whom we were fighting were residents of Vietnam and part of the government. The insurgency that we are now fighting are not part of the government. They are small group of rouge citizens along with a large number of foreign terrorist headed up by the same terrorist organization that flew planes into the twin towers and the pentagon. But people forget about that all too soon.

If you have a better solution, PLEASE share that. Tell you what, I will call my congressman, give him your phone number and have you explain it to him.

do you truly believe that if we stay in iraq, we will someday be able to leave and the government we put in place will remain in power without our continued support?

my opinion is that if a government cannot hold its own, it should not be in place to begin with.

[Snowguy716]

1. Get everyone electricity

2. Get everyone running water

3. Make sure everyone can use a toilet in their house

4. Make sure they have roads to drive on.

5. Make sure the houses we destroyed are rebuilt for the families

6. Make sure there are schools in place for students

7. Maintain a peacekeeping force of their own along with other countries involved

If that doesn't work, get the hell out and let them duke it out. If it does work, good.

This is what democrats want. Republicans would rather dilly dally around and claim that their weapon is bigger than the next guy while billions of taxpayers' dollars go to no-bid contracts and pockets of execs at defense corporations...

We are failing in Iraq... which is why I get pissed off every time I hear some ill-informed Republican tell me that we need to stay the course.. if they mean we should stay the course towards failure then I guess they're right... or nuts..

[Charlotte_native]

If you have a better solution, PLEASE share that. Tell you what, I will call my congressman, give him your phone number and have you explain it to him.

Re-read the thread, I did put forth a plan -- get out of a country that does not want us. Too simple to have caught i guess. Don't throw out "support the troops" -- I do, they should not be there therefore I support them coming home -- the rest of The Plan is just as simple. As for whether we are fighting home-grown or outside fighters, we are fighting both and the Iraqis are fighting each other. There are also plenty of Iraqis fighting us as well. It is a complete and utter mess. But if we were not there how many foreign fighters do you think there would be? They are only there to fight us. They won't ever quit. They, including Iraqi nationals, will never accept us as a viable part of their country and/or government. This will now be labled as "cut and run" but who cares, those responsible will use that to no end and make someone after their administration work us out of this mess...

[Clobber]

so yes, it is more contradictory for someone to be pro-life and pro-war and pro-death penalty than for someone to be pro-choice and anti-death penalty.

I respectfully disagree. You've defended the pro-choice/anti-death stance (which I will address later -- essentially, you use the term "contraception" as a semantical argument, but didn't deny that it's still the snuffing of a life of someone who has committed no crimes, you apply conditions to support implying that those conditions eliminate the contradiction(? correct me if I'm wrong)), but you did not make any argument about pro-life/pro-death (and I don't think you can argue that anyone is "pro-war," some just believe that circumstances rise to where war is necessary sooner than others).

Any argument that blurs the distinction between someone who has killed and someone who hasn't and implies that the convicted murderer hasn't done any more to deserve death than an unborn fetus/baby is disingenous at best (to put it mildly). Based on actions, the unborn is more undeserving of death than the convicted murderer [edit: this can be confusing, so I mean "the unborn deserves death penalty less than the convicted murderer"]. What's contradictory about that? The argument isn't even that all murderers deserve the death penalty, although even that would not be contradictory. The argument isn't even that all criminals deserve the death penalty (that would be a stretch). The unborn have undeniably done nothing. The murderers have undergone an extensive, lengthy process (appeals and waiting way beyond a 9-month gestational waiting period (I'll shy away from the metaphor "clemency")) that is at least as involved if not far more intensive and reflective than the conditions you attach to your stated stance.

It's obvious that you're bright, and you've reflected on this issue extensively, and I respect that, even if I do not agree with the logic and conclusion. I don't think the label of "contraception" negates the effect of the procedure. And I still don't understand your point of view that pro-death penalty and pro-life are inconsistent. Please enlighten me.

[Clobber]

Social Security was never designed to be a substitute for planning for one's retirement. That is a misconception put forth by the Republicans. Social Security is not a savings plan. That is another misconception being implied by Bush.

Social Security is just that, an government social insurance plan that guarantees a sustinance income for people who work in America. It is not a retirement plan and it is not a savings plan.

Social Security is a pay as you go plan. People earn a benefit based on payments to the plan during their working lifetime. They are then paid that benefit at a certain age which is funded by the current workers at that time. There is no savings account associated with the individual. It is important to understand the difference. Nobody has ever suggested that people can retire on this entitlement. Until now.

Bush in his voodoo economics wants to create another government bureaucracy that would manage individual accounts for hundreds of millions of taxpayers in america. Forgetting that the government has a bad history of doing anything like this efficiently, this is a fundamental change to how Security Security is supposed to work. Instead of being an Insurance Plan, it has become a Retirement Plan and personally I don't think the government should be administering retirement plans.

Republicans and their supporters like to say their party is for smaller government, but here were are again with another Republican plan that would have grown government hugely. Since Bush has been in office the size of government has grown not gotten smaller. And we have 3 new government bureaucracies, Faith Based Initiatives, Home(less)land Security, and the Prescription Drug plan that seniors find incomprehensible and ineffective. (it was another big governmental give away to the insurance companies).

But SS as originally constructed is undeniably unsustainable given the demographic changes of the next 20 or so years, no? I agree we shouldn't have more government bureaucracies, and I disagree with the GOP when they go liberal on that. I think the premises behind the "retirement plan" argument were pushed by the media, when they started the scare tactics of the impending SS mess. They scared the populace into demanding a preventive response from government. I am not as informed on SS as I would like to be, but I haven't seen anything that leads me to extrapolate that the Bush administration is *the* source of the motivation behind the SS overhaul. They may be at the dealerships selling it, but they didn't manufacture it (to use an auto plant analogy, there's some holes in there but I'm trying to change things up here with the metaphors).

[runawayjim]

I respectfully disagree. You've defended the pro-choice/anti-death stance (which I will address later -- essentially, you use the term "contraception" as a semantical argument, but didn't deny that it's still the snuffing of a life of someone who has committed no crimes, you apply conditions to support implying that those conditions eliminate the contradiction(? correct me if I'm wrong)), but you did not make any argument about pro-life/pro-death (and I don't think you can argue that anyone is "pro-war," some just believe that circumstances rise to where war is necessary sooner than others).

Any argument that blurs the distinction between someone who has killed and someone who hasn't and implies that the convicted murderer hasn't done any more to deserve death than an unborn fetus/baby is disingenous at best (to put it mildly). Based on actions, the unborn is more undeserving of death than the convicted murderer [edit: this can be confusing, so I mean "the unborn deserves death penalty less than the convicted murderer"]. What's contradictory about that? The argument isn't even that all murderers deserve the death penalty, although even that would not be contradictory. The argument isn't even that all criminals deserve the death penalty (that would be a stretch). The unborn have undeniably done nothing. The murderers have undergone an extensive, lengthy process (appeals and waiting way beyond a 9-month gestational waiting period (I'll shy away from the metaphor "clemency")) that is at least as involved if not far more intensive and reflective than the conditions you attach to your stated stance.

It's obvious that you're bright, and you've reflected on this issue extensively, and I respect that, even if I do not agree with the logic and conclusion. I don't think the label of "contraception" negates the effect of the procedure. And I still don't understand your point of view that pro-death penalty and pro-life are inconsistent. Please enlighten me.

there is no unborn if conception never occurs, which is what contraception prevents. i actually learned more about the emergency contraceptive today as it's possibly becoming non-prescription for those over 18. it works in the same way the birth control pill does, only it's a higher dose of it taken at once. it works in 2 ways, either preventing fertilization or preventing implantation. the latter is where the blurred lines occur. it depends on your definition of pregnancy. for some, it's the moment of fertilization, but for others it's the implantation of the fertilized egg in the lining of the uterus. because i believe that a baby cannot be born without implantation (which is medically accurate), it's still contraception and not abortion. RU-486 (the abortion pill) works differently from the emergency contraceptive (aka, the morning after pill or plan b). RU-486 actually ends a pregnancy after fertilization and implantation have occurred. so no, the emergency contraceptive is not ending the life of an unborn child.

now, onto why i believe pro-death penalty and pro-life are inconsistent beliefs... it's mainly a beef i have with conservative christians. they say they believe in jesus and what he taught, but if you read what he taught, he taught non-violence. in fact, i believe he was the one who said "if someone hits you on one cheek turn and give him the other". it's completely contrary to the old testament's "eye for an eye", which is exactly what the death penalty is. i also believe you're pro-life, for all life, or you shoudl not be calling yourself pro-life at all. but when the death penalty comes into play, it's not so much taking the life of a murder vs the life of an innocent unborn child. it's more taking away a life, any life. in jesus' eyes, we're all equal, including murders. i am not a religious person, however, yet i do feel that way. everyone is equal. besides, it's more punishment to rot in prison for the rest of your life thinking about what you did, making license plates for the state rather than be killed off. however, having a lot of people spending life in prison is not consistent with the abilities of the prison system when we lock up non-violent offenders, another beef i have with the republican party... the war on drugs.

[michaelskis]

Re-read the thread, I did put forth a plan -- get out of a country that does not want us. Too simple to have caught i guess. Don't throw out "support the troops" -- I do, they should not be there therefore I support them coming home -- the rest of The Plan is just as simple. As for whether we are fighting home-grown or outside fighters, we are fighting both and the Iraqis are fighting each other. There are also plenty of Iraqis fighting us as well. It is a complete and utter mess. But if we were not there how many foreign fighters do you think there would be? They are only there to fight us. They won't ever quit. They, including Iraqi nationals, will never accept us as a viable part of their country and/or government. This will now be labled as "cut and run" but who cares, those responsible will use that to no end and make someone after their administration work us out of this mess...

No, I asked for a better plan. I think that the majority of people on both sides will agree that just pulling out is not an option. That would make the problem 10 times worse. How do you explain to a young girl whom has been able to go to school for the first time ever, that we may have come in and removed the evil oppressive dictator, but it is time for us to go now, and that she should expect the country to be overrun by terrorizing insurgents from Afghanistan who will make the days of Saddam look like the

[monsoon]

But SS as originally constructed is undeniably unsustainable given the demographic changes of the next 20 or so years, no? ....

Nobody, let alone the Bush administration, has produced any detailed studies on what is going on with the SS trust fund. As usual this Administration is big on words, very very scant on details. Conservatives have been predicting the death of SS almost since the day FDR signed it into law, it yet here we are many decades later and that has not happened. And consider this. The Bush Plan if implemented would take more than 26 years to implement for most people. Meanwhile hundreds of millions of tax dollars would be headed to the corporations of America. It is corporate welfare at its worst.

I am not as informed on SS as I would like to be, ....

Well I think that says it all. The Bush Administration counts on this fact. It is a known fact, you can search for it if you like, that the Bush plan came directly from Karl Rove.

[runawayjim]

No, I asked for a better plan. I think that the majority of people on both sides will agree that just pulling out is not an option. That would make the problem 10 times worse. How do you explain to a young girl whom has been able to go to school for the first time ever, that we may have come in and removed the evil oppressive dictator, but it is time for us to go now, and that she should expect the country to be overrun by terrorizing insurgents from Afghanistan who will make the days of Saddam look like the

[monsoon]

How do you explain to a young girl whom has been able to go to school for the first time ever, that we may have come in and removed the evil oppressive dictator, but it is time for us to go now, and that she should expect the country to be overrun by terrorizing insurgents from Afghanistan who will make the days of Saddam look like the

[Charlotte_native]

No, I asked for a better plan. I think that the majority of people on both sides will agree that just pulling out is not an option. That would make the problem 10 times worse. How do you explain to a young girl whom has been able to go to school for the first time ever, that we may have come in and removed the evil oppressive dictator, but it is time for us to go now, and that she should expect the country to be overrun by terrorizing insurgents from Afghanistan who will make the days of Saddam look like the

[Charlotte_native]

Do we remember the Afgans fighting the Soviets for, I don't know how many, years? The Soviets finally pulled out -- it is impossible to make a people succomb to the will of an outside country. They fought the same kind of war the Iraqis are fighting. Was anyone in this administration paying attention? Do they know this history of self-preservation that these "terrorists" have when their country is invaded and occupied? We can avoid the word occupation, but the reality in the streets of Iraq shows their people something different whether we like it or not. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, its a duck. We are currently occupying their country and, strangely, building a massive "embassy" complete with an airstrip in the middle of Baghdad -- why would we do that if we weren't going to stay for a long time? That is what they see and fight against, we aren't even smart enough to not send those very clear signals...

[michaelskis]

We started this with no plan other than expecting roses to be thrown at our feet. Since Plan A did not happen we realized that Plan B had never been considered. There was and is no Plan B with this administration. We are just trying to hold on, build fortresses (Green Zones) where we can sustain our feeble attempt to force a way of governing on a people that does not understand it and can't quit fighting themselves and us. Pulling out IS an option, whether you like it or not, and with the centuries of fighting that has and will go on in the Middle East, it is simply a question of sooner or later. We won't eradicate over a 1000 years of war by any action we are capable of.

How do you tell a girl she can't go to school anymore? How do you tell her you just murdered members of her family? Or someone else did? Or one of our soldiers raped her? How can you be certain those that would take control would end education? Every country where we have propped up goverments has failed unless they asked for it (Japan after World War II wanted our help, took it, weaned away from us, and now has a democracy and great society -- but they WANTED our help to rebuild). The Shah of Iran was propped up by us and the swing in retaliation for us meddling was a more hard-core government than ever. We placed Noriega in Panama then had to take him out. WE supplied Saddam. We are not good at this and never have been.

You say that pulling out would result in innocent deaths...we are doing that now. On a grand scale. How do you know it would get worse? The "terrorists" are there to kill us and to make sure we don't remain in Iraq. Once we are gone you have removed the splinter and the healing can begin. Yes, they will duke it out to find out who runs the country, inevitable whether we stay for a few more years or not. The problem with the administration and their followers is refusing to face this reality. Study Middle East history -- the picture is clear as it can be.

Plan B is to get the people of Iraq to elect their own government, establish their own constitution based on their own beliefs while we provide protection and training until they can establish their own military. Bin Ladin is working to prevent any of this from happening so he can establish control in the dictator

[runawayjim]

Plan B is to get the people of Iraq to elect their own government, establish their own constitution based on their own beliefs while we provide protection and training until they can establish their own military. Bin Ladin is working to prevent any of this from happening so he can establish control in the dictator

[michaelskis]

raping of innocent civilians, torture of captives, and missed targets killing innocent civilians are not slip ups or "some problems". the fact that you think this way scares me.

do you truly believe that we will be able to leave iraq in a couple years and their government will flourish?

Compared to leveling an entire city with a nuke, dropping bombs indiscriminately over populated areas or destroying entire villages... as was customary in most wars, it is a major step in the right direction. As for the rape and torture... I think that those people should be brought up on charges, and if convicted, should be sentenced accordingly, but at least we know about it. Does it make it right, no, but how many of these types of things have happened in other major combat situations that the public was not made aware of?

Additionally, what do you think that the insurgence would or are doing right now? They don

[monsoon]

There have been some slip ups, but there are casualties of war, and thus far many less innocent people have been killed by American forces than in any other major military operation of this duration in history. We don

[runawayjim]

Compared to leveling an entire city with a nuke, dropping bombs indiscriminately over populated areas or destroying entire villages... as was customary in most wars, it is a major step in the right direction. As for the rape and torture... I think that those people should be brought up on charges, and if convicted, should be sentenced accordingly, but at least we know about it. Does it make it right, no, but how many of these types of things have happened in other major combat situations that the public was not made aware of?

Additionally, what do you think that the insurgence would or are doing right now? They don

[Gusterfell]

having said that, what do you think that the insurgency will do if we just pull our troops out?

The insurgency? It would be over the instant we pull out. Its sole purpose is to fight the American presence in the Middle East. Sure, Sunni vs. Shia violence would continue until one side achieves dominance, but that is inevitable in the absence of a Saddam-style secular dictatorship quashing the extremists. A large proportion of the "mass violence" the Republicans attribute to Saddam were tactics meant to keep these groups from starting the civil war we now see, and if one wasn't a religous extremist, life was actually much, much better under Saddam than under the US occupation. Poll after poll of the Iraqi people has verified that.

I hate to disrupt this continued

[Charlotte_native]

the insurgents are only there because we are there.

Period, no question about it. If we pulled out there would be a battle to control the country for sure -- this will happen no matter when we leave.

When did MY country become the one to start wars. I grew up indoctrinated about the evil big bear of Russia who imposed their will upon others behind the "iron curtain" and invaded countries they wished to control (Afganistan), spyed on their own people (KGB), imprisoned those that fought them for idealogical beliefs (Gulags), tortured political enemies, and held their coutry in fear of a nuclear war.

Parallels today:

Afganistan - well, Afganistan and Iraq

KGB -- NSA, CIA

Gulags -- Gitmo and various "secret" prisons around the world

torture -- we don't do it "much" but "some" and get others like Jordan and Eqypt to do the rest

I don't think our soldiers are the bad guys, but I do think the idiots that sent them there are. The soldiers are in an impossible situation and our administration USES them with "support the troops" and "don't let their mission be in vain" -- it isn't their fault the mission is in vain, it is the men who never went to war that are using them as pawns.

Wake up.