I would definitely love to see your examples when you get them.
===================
Also, bear in mind, I am pro-USA, and proud of the good things that our country does and stands for. I just don't want to look the other way when we screw things up at home or behave badly in the world.
===================
Thats what I got from your posts. Its just we dissagree on what behaving badly in the world is. I think that in general, it depends on what or who you compare us to. If you compare us to our theoretical ideal, then yes we are doing badly. But here, you must remember that we allow ourselves to change and to become better. Which other country promotes this? If you compare our actions to pre 9-11 peace time, again, we are doing pretty bad. But if you compare what we are doing to what other countries do in war, then we are doing fairly well. What little rights our POWs have are far more than the rights our soldiers have faced upon being captive. Heck, the POWs we have in Iraq have more rights than they did under Saddam, before we came. ( except for the authorities who no longer have the right rape, torture and kill when they see fit. sort of ruins the whole prison like atmosphere ) Look at how far we have come in terms of civilian casualties. Yes they do happen, but we have become far more surgical than the carpet bombing runs used in the past. And at least we target military points, not whole cities. ( mistakes happen, but give credit for the effort made to limit them ) Most countries go to war and keep what they conquer. We are trying to help them set up a government as they choose.
The truth is that war is hell. I forget who said that, but it is very true. We as a country do not have the stomach for it. The media is making millions on our shock at what war looks like. The result is that politics come into play, in how we respond, which has at every turn cost more lives, than a quick and powerful crushing of the opposition. It happened in Korea, we could have easily won that, with far fewer casualties on both sides if there weren't any political concerns which led to rules. Same goes for Vietnam. Ever talked to a pilot who had to fly over enemy supply dumps they weren't allowed to bomb for political reasons, only to bomb an empty hill and lose their wingman? Here again we are doing the same thing. In fact, it is very easy to beat the US in war, and Saddam almost did win. Let the US in your country, put up a token fight. Hide most of your troops. Start picking off soldiers and bombing stuff. Make sure you get civilians in the way. The US media will send the pictures back to the people, who can't stomach it. The media makes millions, the people protest, the troops are given restricted rules of engagement and finally withdrawn. Then, you come out of hiding, having defeated the US. If we hadn't caught Saddam, he would be back as soon as Kerry is elected. The sad part is that it cost many more lives than if we went in, took over and did what we wanted. IN this case, to help the Iraqi people set up their own government, free of saddam. I am not advocating nuking anyone here. In Iraq, everytime someone shoots at a US soldier, they get a 105 mm M1 tank round right back immediately, they would soon stop shooting. There would be higher initial innocent casualties, which we don't like/can't stand. But, it would result in far fewer total innocent casualties in the end. Its hard to think rationally, in terms of numbers when all you see are suffereing people on the TV.