Are you confused?

I have once been told that everything in America is a controversy. Even though this is a consequence of the free use of the First Amendment, it does create some confusion. \nFor example, I don't really understand how schools can freely expel children from class for sporting anti-war or anti-Bush T-shirts, but it takes a long debate to the Supreme Court to finally outlaw the public burning of crosses, that creepy KKK threat. \nAnother thing that confuses me: It has been stated that critics of the war shouldn't criticize military who are fighting to "protect" the critics' very right to criticize; therefore, soldiers are fighting for a right that shouldn't be used. Then why fight in first place? \nWouldn't it make more sense that if there is a need to fight for a right, this very right be used to make the fight worthwhile?\nAnother confusion that bothers me is the claim that people from other countries should not protest against the wars waged by the United States, as they allegedly ensure global security. True, the existence of the U.S. military power keeps many rogue states at bay, ensuring peace in many countries around the globe. The fear of the United States causes countries to refrain from initiating aggressive campaigns against other countries. \nNevertheless, many countries cannot defend themselves because the United States, along with other militarily-advanced countries, will not let them develop weapons. That may not be a bad thing per se, but to demand gratitude for an imposed condition is too far of a stretch. \nI also don't understand the confusion about the Geneva Conventions: some U.S. leaders seemed to be very keen om the Geneva Conventions when using them to prevent the images of the U.S. POWs from being broadcasted. These same leaders completely ignored the fact that, under the fourth Geneva Convention, the occupying power has the obligation to ensure things such as the supply of medicines and any other health supplies, maintain medical services and hospitals and public services and prevent destruction of patrimony (except, of course, in the case of military operations). \nMost soldiers are not trained as police officers or to enforce quotidian order, but this is not a valid excuse for not maintaining civil order. The attack on Iraq was initiated by the United States out of sheer impatience. If the U.S. strategists had no plans to control the situation besides their brilliant smash and grab strategy, it is not Iraq's fault.\nConfusion on the top usually trickles all the way down the command chain and arrives as misconception in the lowest layers. \nThere have been open displays of the American flag, but this war was supposed to be pre-emptive and liberating, not meant to annex Iraq's territory. Other coalition soldiers puff their cigarettes while observing the looting, ignoring the chaos of the desperate, newly-liberated people. \nThose things are bad in themselves, but they have even worse consequences. According to an article posted on the U.N. News Services Web site April 9, with the breakdown of law and order -- which, for the good or for the bad, existed when Saddam was in power -- all humanitarian help ceased and hospitals were rendered useless.\nFortunately there is an international community pointing out the irresponsibility of this attack, and since there is not much left to be looted in Iraq anyway, little by little humanitarian help is starting to arrive again, to help the desperately freed Iraqi people. \nOf all my confusions, the greatest one is related to the new idea of promoting a preemptive cleansing of the globe. The ideas of chastising Syria are quite disturbing to me. Talk about rogue states …