Quem dá Kudos: (1) ~*L!$@*~ (1) Shana (1) Bonne Nuit .. (1) Rebecca (1) Janice (1) Sille (1) Carey Lenehan (1) Kerstin (1) ZMT (1) Elizabeth (1) (1) Eve Hallows.. (1) liane (1) Stacey (1) April67 (1) Mel SSVR (1) inmate (1) Taayyllorr (1) Eileen-Rita (1) Angela (1) BEVERLY (1) Maria-Xtila (1) (1) SAVAGE SCIE.. (1) Liz (1) Tonya Ayers (1) Lisarae (1) Stratus Blue (1) SpuffyLoveF.. (1) (1) ~.:Nicole:.~ (1) Ayame (1)

	~*L!$@*~ Lisa Melzo	Seems to me, we got lots of promises to change this "war" situation in our country just to appease the voters. I am also disappointed by this situation.   Postado por ~*L!$@*~ em 19 set 09 sábado - 3:46 [Responder Comentário]

	David Vidal	There's a bit of a double standard, of course. It's all politics, all the time. From both sides. You also have Democrats who were adamantly against the Iraq war, yet all for the Afghanistan war. I'm a broken record on this one. So get your tomatoes ready to throw. We can't afford these wars, plain and simple. These wars are bankrupting the nation, financially and morally. When you stay in a war too long with no well-defined goal and no real viable way to get out at least somewhat gracefully, the country begins to turn ugly and unruly. I grew up in one of those eras. I recognize the signs, down to the wardrobes. Everything cycles.   Postado por David Vidal em 19 set 09 sábado - 3:47 [Responder Comentário]

	Brenda Duff	And it is a mistake to think that America will "get out and stay out of Iraq".  Go to ..www.iraq.usembassy.gov.. and you will see the site of the new $592 million dollar US Embassy in Baghdad that just opened recently - Is the U.S. government interested in Iraq? - you bet - read the articles and how we will have presence over there for some time to come.  Are other nations interested in Iraq? I'm thinking...yeah Here's the buz I'm getting...commerce will grow in the middle east - not because of money that comes from oil, etc. but TOURISM...stay tuned...already things are shaping up for it...i.e. Israel and Mongolia have agreed to open up desert area for tourism.  Also check out the story about Babylon on the embassy website and our part in restoring ancient sites. Not saying its a bad thing - I think its great to be able in the future to go visit more sites than are allowable now.  It may be motivated by money in some cases - but would be good for us to be able to see other parts of our world that have been forbidded to us in the past.   Postado por Brenda Duff em 19 set 09 sábado - 5:46 [Responder Comentário]

	David Vidal	Oh of course we're never leaving. We bought it, we own it. Let me get this right.... we're justified in invading Iraq because it gives us a cool new tourist destination?   Postado por David Vidal em 20 set 09 domingo - 12:13 [Responder Comentário]

	ZMT	Brenda, I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but what would a political debate be without some Bible thrown in ;o)? The Antichrist, when he comes to power, is going to set up a palace(perhaps Nebuchadnezzar's?...yeesh, thank God for spell-check on that one!!). Do you know where it will be? BABYLON. It looks "exciting"...new areas for tourism, rebuilding ancient cities and ruins, a new industry in the middle east....and it's ALL PROPHECY FULFILLMENT. We are here, just doing the things and making the choices that God knew we would. That's all Revelation is...God showing John the "future", like a big movie with all of mankind's actions weaved together, and telling him to write down what he saw.   Just thought I'd add a little excitement to your boring day, Charlie. I'll have that "worst nightmare" tombstone engraved tomorrow :-).   Postado por ZMT em 20 set 09 domingo - 12:11 [Responder Comentário]

	Rebecca	..Besides all the major wars throughout history, this one has been the longest, yet at the same time the no-show war.  Why are we there?  Why are many, many citizens losing their family members?  While we are trying to restore peace with the rest of the world, the last administration proved to us once again that they believe "we are all powerful, no one can say no to us".  No country is more powerful than the next.  We have gotten alot of help from other countries, and how do we pay them back?  By killing thousands of innocent lives for oil.  Once oil is gone, there will be alot of sad, sad people here in America.  Oil is killing our whole planet.  Yea, that is a pathetic way of "proving" we are "all-powerful".   The government is like a crowded store during Christmas.  At first everything is exciting, people are happy.  But, once one item is out of stock, everyone goes haywire and starts fighting.   Calling each other names, pushing each other, etc.  I don't know, Charlie.  These topics are getting to me, also.  If only there could be national vacation plan for Americans!  Everyone gets a two free, all-expenses trips anywhere in the world.  That would make alot of people happy.  And that is a topic EVERYONE can agree on, regardless of political beliefs!..   Postado por Rebecca em 19 set 09 sábado - 3:47 [Responder Comentário]

	Palapala	do you ride a horse to work, I am sure you use oil just like the next person. Oil is not killing our planet, people are. How many thousands of innocent lives did the terrorists kill, or did everyone forget about that.   Postado por Palapala em 20 set 09 domingo - 11:02 [Responder Comentário]

	Palapala	your right, this war is the longest, hundreds and hundreds of years it has been going on. Last place I would want to go is a place where they want us all dead no matter how much our president talks about peace. Whether we are there or not, they want to kill us and will try. For them it is not about oil or power, it is religious.   Postado por Palapala em 20 set 09 domingo - 11:02 [Responder Comentário]

	lisa lisa todd	Hi Rebecca!! Could you please explain to me how these wars are about oil?  Could anybody explain to me???   Postado por lisa em 20 set 09 domingo - 10:59 [Responder Comentário]

	David Vidal	Quite simply, either the second or third largest oil reservoir on the planet is in Iraq. To have control over that is to have control over a lot of revenue. Afghanistan is a more complex issue (I'm boldly going forward with an explanation you asked for, so if I sound like a bit of a dufus, so be it.. it wouldn't be the first time). I know Afghanistan historically has geographical strategic value. Otherwise, the Russians wouldn't have been there before us. Etc. I believe pipelines were to be built through there from on of the Stan countries (my knowledge on this is overwhelming, I know) and also it has obvious strategic value being next to Pakistan, which is where bin Laden and co. are holed up, and which is a nuclear power. So there is a desire, I believe, to keep the balance of power in the region... like race, oil is a factor, that's all.   Postado por David Vidal em 21 set 09 segunda-feira - 4:31 [Responder Comentário]

	Elizabeth	As usual, Charlie, you hit the nail right on the head! I am so sick of all the criticism President Obama is getting when he is trying so hard to help everyone (even those criticizing him). I was a Republican all my life UNTIL last year when I finally realized that they are only for the rich fatcats (which I definitely am NOT) and I am proud to say I voted for Obama.  He is the most intelligent and sincere president since John F Kennedy and I think he is doing a great job in spite of all those opposing almost everything he tries to do. If he hadn't saved the auto industry by his actions, it would have already collapsed.  I wish him all the luck in the world--he needs it against all the fatcats and lobbyists in Washington, DC.   Postado por Elizabeth em 19 set 09 sábado - 3:47 [Responder Comentário]

	lisa lisa todd	"I wish him all the luck in the world--he needs it against all the fatcats and lobbyists in Washington, DC."  It would help if he were against the fatcats and lobbyists.  Like I said before, a lot of fatcat businessmen made a lot of money off of President Bush, too bad we can say the same thing about President Obama.   Postado por lisa em 20 set 09 domingo - 2:05 [Responder Comentário]

	David Vidal	Are you maybe holding him up to a higher standard than you did Bush? Presidents can only deal with the world as it is, not as they (or we) would like it to be.     Postado por David Vidal em 21 set 09 segunda-feira - 5:44 [Responder Comentário]

	ZMT	It is Obama who put himself on this pedestal...two YEARS of listening to his armchair general-ing of military intel he knew nothing about, talking about how he was going to bring in all new faces and names, no lobbyists, change the way business was done. MILLIONS voted for him because of that and truly believed he was "different", despite past behavior that clearly proved otherwise. And still...people believe that Obama is innocent and it's the "fat cats" who are making life hard for him. He knew what Washington was like, how it worked...and promised he would keep his hands clean. Yeah right. He didn't campaign on "the world as it is", he promised to change the world. So, if he is being slammed for making deals with the Washington power brokers, whose fault is that?     Postado por ZMT em 21 set 09 segunda-feira - 4:21 [Responder Comentário]

	David Vidal	I don't think that's reasonable. It honestly sounds a bit like sour grapes. Every politician makes grandiose claims of what they're going to do. Bush was the 'compassionate conservative' who was gonna bring us all together, blah blah. Clinton was The Man From Hope. Etc. It just seems that people are coming with both guns blazing very early in Obama's presidency. Believe me, I'm not happy about some of his position changes. But I think there is a huge overreaction so far. I suspect that the country was giddy when he was elected, and now to balance it out there's a good deal of anger and disappointment. But I still think we put the right man in office, and he will steady the ship of state as he goes.     Postado por David Vidal em 21 set 09 segunda-feira - 5:48 [Responder Comentário]

	lisa lisa todd	Acutally, I am holding President Obama to a higher standard, he is the one that got out there, set himself to a higher standard and made all those promises, some that he has already broke. I did hold President Bush accountable as well.  We could go all day on the sins of Presidents Bush and President Clinton. I didn't vote for them either, and yeah I voted.  Back to the subject at hand, President Obama challenged us to hold him accountable, so that I shall do.   Postado por lisa em 21 set 09 segunda-feira - 4:21 [Responder Comentário]

	Carey Lenehan	It's called racism and it's even more rampant and destructive than the swine flu. American is facing a watershed moment in its history. The saddest thing of all is, both Bush and Obama are basically the same.... all that potential, subverted by a bunch of bankers...   Postado por Carey Lenehan em 19 set 09 sábado - 3:47 [Responder Comentário]

	ZMT	Well, it's kind of like when  those who slammed Bush for things like the Patriot Act are suddenly deaf mutes when Obama does it. Or when Hillary said ""We should stand up and say 'we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration' " but now it's not unpatriotic AND racist to do so with Obama's policies. It's human nature to see the "obvious" problems in the other side and any rational person would agree and see it too....but see the "good" in our side and not understand how anyone could not "get it".   I will say(and I'm not a Bush fan, per se)...some of this is apples and oranges. The protests against Bush were over the war...and we have JUST been through horrific attacks. The fact that Obama has kept the Patriot Act tells me that perhaps the military intel available only to the big shots had some merit. The protests against Bush(while understandable and well within the rights of those protesting) were about war issues where we(the people) did not have all of the intelligence, and still don't. The protests against Obama are about his policies and his radical, tax-cheating advisers...which are open and available. Either way, Cheney and Rumsfeld were wrong to criticize the protesters the way they did...but I can understand their frustration at dealing with people who were being "armchair generals".  They should have just said that they understood the peoples' anger but that decisions were made based on military intelligence at the time, and that can not be shared with the public. Now, I'm going to put on my flame-proof jumpsuit and wait for the backlash. Just remember that the Democrats in Congress(along with the Republicans..shame on them all) broke the Constitution and gave the power over Iraq to the Executive Branch and gave Bush a standing ovation when he made the decision. It wasn't until the war became unpopular that they slammed him, conveniently forgetting that they were the ones who gave him the power to do so and abdicated their responsibility to the people.   Postado por ZMT em 19 set 09 sábado - 3:49 [Responder Comentário]

	*~Sunshine~*	.. Hi there, I believe that they did have weapons for mass destruction there in Iraq. I've spoken to some of the guys that came back from there, and I asked them. They said that they knew there was weapons like that, but they had been moved out  of that country before the military got there. So its understandable why we went there, and did what we did. I do believe that Sadam would have used them sooner or later on us. I went to a speech given by Sadam's first in command. A wonderful man, I cant think of his name at the moment, and he told of the stories that we didn't hear about. And how Sadam came very close to sending them over this way. And how that didn't happen. It was very interesting. I have a problem with how that war was run. And Rumsfeld, should have been fired long before he was let go. They went in there without a clear plan, and they gave way to much notice to Sadam, so he had more than enough time to move everything he had. I was for the war at the time. I am not sure how I feel now. I do think we were lied to from Bush. I think we've been lied to before Bush and after Bush. The reasons for the 912 protest, mostly besides taxes, and health care, was about the people being sick to death at being lied to all the time. The American people can handle the truth, if it was every given to them. ..   Postado por *~Sunshine~* em 21 set 09 segunda-feira - 5:39 [Responder Comentário]

	lora	well said.   Postado por lora em 20 set 09 domingo - 12:13 [Responder Comentário]

	David Vidal	We shouldn't forget, it was bogus "military intelligence" that was used to get us into Iraq in the first place. I heard the same argument then, that they knew stuff we don't, which I'm sure, and certainly hope, is true. However, the Bush administration blatantly and repeatedly lied in order to get public support for the invasion of Iraq.    Postado por David Vidal em 20 set 09 domingo - 12:11 [Responder Comentário]

	ZMT	David, we suspect that NOW. I don't like the lies either, but still think that history may be kinder to George Bush than we are right now. I know *you* know this, but it is Congress' job to do the investigations before invading a country/declaring war!!! They were more concerned about keeping their job then DOING it. They violated the Constitution by transferring the power to the Executive Branch in 2002...because they didn't want to be responsible if we got attacked again or for any losses in battle. Win-win...they got to let Bush and Co. do their dirty work AND complain when it went bad. I'd bet big money, if it had been a big success(ie: we found WMDs or Bin Laden)..they'd be strutting like roosters over how they "knew" it was the right thing to do. The Dems in Congress also believed that Saddam was a problem...and once again, I'll show you http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp .    *IF* the intel was a lie(and it was probably part lie/part truth)...whose job was it to check that out? CONGRESS. Why did Congress believe it? Because they knew that Saddam was a madman and knew he'd had WMDs in the past. Why hasn't this Dem. Congress pursued hearings against the Bush Administration for this? Because they are in it up to their eyeballs and don't want that Pandora's Box opened. Not only is Congress guilty of abdicating their role, but I'm sure it wouldnt' take long to find many of them involved in the "false intelligence". Look how quickly the waterboarding "issue" went away when we found out Nancy was there.     Can't we just fire them all and start over? Can we dig up Eisenhower and maybe Teddy Roosevelt and make a clone? Please?   Postado por ZMT em 20 set 09 domingo - 11:01 [Responder Comentário]

	David Vidal	..Suspect ..it ..now..? Again, we are apparently living in parallel universes...   Postado por David Vidal em 21 set 09 segunda-feira - 2:13 [Responder Comentário]

	lisa lisa todd	Was Iraq an imminent threat? Were those UN reports throughout the Clinton Administration saying there were WMD components bogus? Was the other American Intel  that prompted President Clinton to bomb strategic factories in Iraq bogus?  Because those same people that provided those intel reports to President Bush are the same ones that provided them to President Clinton. Did the President lie to Congress? If those reports were bogus, then those sitting on the Intel committees in Congress perpetuated the lie, and we all know Pelosi wouldn't lie would she.;-)  Now the issue of WMD's, because we didn't find them the first day, the public went into a fit, and they haven't stopped.  Common sense was thrown out the window and that wonderful mentality of "i know what i know and you aren't going to change my mind regardless of the evidence" takes hold. NOBODY has shown me the facts that President Bush lied, but many of us have shown the facts that support his actions.   Postado por lisa em 20 set 09 domingo - 10:59 [Responder Comentário]

	David Vidal	Parallel universe...   Postado por David Vidal em 21 set 09 segunda-feira - 2:13 [Responder Comentário]

	ZMT	What parallel universe? Lisa was THERE, on the ground, in Iraq, probably has forgotten more info about the situation than we will ever know! The Clinton Administration felt Saddam was a threat, we'd attacked before, the Dems in Congress are on record as saying he was dangerous, they gave Bush the power and didn't do their job, and then applauded him! By the time it was obvious that there had been lies and half-truths presented, it was too late to stop it and Bush was on his way out. The Dems took over Congress in 2006 as a "protest" to what had happened...and immediately Queen Nancy announced that impeachment was off the table(now we know why...she was complicit), the Hillary/Obama race started, and our attention was now on 2009 and what we were going to do about it all. The 2006 Congressional "spanking" was how America responded to Bush(and rightfully so)...and those elected for the "day of reckoning" didn't do a damned thing about it.   Postado por ZMT em 22 set 09 terça-feira - 5:37 [Responder Comentário]

	Janice Janice Terrell	Well - I would venture to say it depends on which side of the fence they are on.  Either side can find reasons to justify why their cause is "rightous" and to explain their behavior.  There are many reasons for bad behavior - some can be controlled with medication and some are just bad behavior.   Postado por Janice em 19 set 09 sábado - 3:49 [Responder Comentário]

	*♥Debbie♥* Debbie Keown	..My son was in Iraq for 13 mon's and i don't ever want to be that scared again,He turned 20 there and is now 25 and has a baby girl 5 year's now.And my son work's for Homeland and is still in the Army ,He is my HERO and i pray he don't ever go to war again.So i HOPE Obama don't mess up I voted for him.oxo Debbie Keown... ...... ..   Postado por *♥Debbie♥* em 19 set 09 sábado - 3:49 [Responder Comentário]

	lisa lisa todd	Now what I get out of your blog is criticizing President Bush was wrong, criticizing President Obama for the same thing is patriotic? Is that what you meant?   Postado por lisa em 19 set 09 sábado - 3:50 [Responder Comentário]

	Charles Shaughnessy Charles Shaughnessy	That's certainly what I'M hearing. Just because the war isn't all over the news, as it was in 2002, doesn't mean it isn't just as real. Can you imagine Americans marching on DC with signs talking about justifiable rebellion against the Govt. in 2002? Don't YOU think they would have been called "unpatriotic" or worse. So how come it's OK now? We are still a nation at war, and these people are giving comfort to the enemy.   Postado por Charles Shaughnessy em 19 set 09 sábado - 6:10 [Responder Comentário]

	lisa lisa todd	So, somebody is saying that the only reason President Obama hasn't pulled out our troops is because he is in it for the oil???  I must have missed something, generally I don't listen to stupidity, so that could be why this is news to me.  So I had to google it.  So far what I found on your topic applies to Congress dissenting.  And supports the opposite of what you claim. Odd how Congress gave power to President Bush, then bashed him for every decision he made concerning the war, pubilically and very vocally. Tell me how the enemy would look at that?  Now anytime somebody in Congress speaks out against President Obama...well we know what happens there.  As far as President Bush is concerned, if you believe that the anti-war protesters weren't there the day after we went to war, you are living in la-la land.   Postado por lisa em 20 set 09 domingo - 2:05 [Responder Comentário]

	ZMT	Exactly Lisa. All of this talk about how "gracious and polite" the Left was during the Bush years...head on over to zombietime.com and look at the pictures(WARNING:language and full frontal nudity...still haven't figured out why we need to have NUDE protest rallies, esp. when morons take their little kids to the parade). Far worse than what we're seeing today(at least the aging veterans didn't subject us to their private parts). Many of the photos are from 2002...not exactly the end of the administration. Again...don't look if you don't want to see nude aging hippies or if you have minors in the room, but it DOES prove the point that the Dems did not sit with "silent respect" for President Bush. Some of the signs are really charming.  What is this coming too, when JoAnn is the one posting pictures that require a warning?! It's a world gone mad.   Postado por ZMT em 20 set 09 domingo - 11:01 [Responder Comentário]

	David Vidal	Oh let's face it. The "left" and the "right" in America plain can't stand each other, and will use any excuse to tear each other down.  They just like to throw diatribes at each other and have tantrums and such. Neither side really wants to solve anything. That's not near as much fun as keeping things the way they are and bitching and moaning and hurling insults at each other at every opportunity.   Postado por David Vidal em 21 set 09 segunda-feira - 4:31 [Responder Comentário]

	ZMT	Is that how you see it? I really see it as the media(and these youtube clips) showing the EXTREMES of left and right(like ZombieTime or the video Charlie posted from the 9/12 rally) and people believing that the 'other side' acts like that.  I recently reconnected with my high school drum corps from the 70s, and have spent loads of time chatting(Facebook, email and the actual reunion) with one of my dearest friends from back then. She is a far,far left Democrat who admits she's really a socialist, Hollywood producer, vocal lesbian activist!! She and I adore each other and could spend a weekend coming up with a better health care plan than what's out there, because we "make sense" to each other and see the other side. The media WANTS it to be a left/right fight...better news that way.   PS Charlie...my friend is next door neighbors with Leila Kenzle, who says "hi"!! Small world, huh?   Postado por ZMT em 21 set 09 segunda-feira - 4:22 [Responder Comentário]

	lisa lisa todd	So then, why doesn't somebody with some common sense, run on the ticket that is going to get them elected, make a whole lot of stupid pipe dream promises, then when they get in there, straighten the shit up.  Makes sense to me, since the majority is not going to elect common sense.   Postado por lisa em 21 set 09 segunda-feira - 4:21 [Responder Comentário]

	David Vidal	Originally, it was set up to where people would vote for an elector in their district, somebody who had the trust and respect of the people, and that elector was then sent to meet with the other electors from around the country, and among them they chose a president. That's where the electoral college came from. What we've got now is kind of an American Idol television runoff campaign that goes on for years. Honestly, I think the most telegenic candidate usually wins. Which is why Ike would never have a chance today. Or Abraham Lincoln, for that matter. Charlie'd have a good shot at winning political office if he wanted it, though...   Postado por David Vidal em 21 set 09 segunda-feira - 5:48 [Responder Comentário]

	BEVERLY BEVERLY Reddig	My guess---it all depends on ones agenda--unfortunately, it seems  any behavior can be rationalized and justified--   Postado por BEVERLY em 20 set 09 domingo - 12:13 [Responder Comentário]

	ZMT	Charlie, you'd have a case if the "9/12 Rallies" were in protest over Obama's policies in Iraq and Afghanistan..and I'd agree with you. I'd be speaking out if people were  suddenly protesting the war stuff after keeping silent when Bush did it! And yes, I can see the anti-war crowd marching on DC after we went into Iraq...but it was a different time. 9/11 was a fresh memory, we were scared witless(did YOU have smoke in the air at your house? I did. Do you live near a military arsenal and hear helicopters all night for the next 3 days?...I did, and so did my then 10 yr old son). It was only after the war became unpopular and Hillary "forgot" that she voted for it before she was against it, that the protests started. The anti-war crowd SHOULD be marching to DC right about now, but it's just not as much fun when Bush isn't there....why aren't you? Don't even TRY to tell me that it's because that gang had "respect" for the POTUS and kept silent...we HEARD you. I can't help but wonder if the "left" isn't watching these rallies and protests, and thinking "Damn, why didn't WE do that?"  It must be scary to watch the other side use your tactics and now how effective they are.    As for the war not being in the news as much...if you think really hard, can you come up with a reason why the media wouldn't be putting it out there? The same media who hires Chris Matthews, who said it's "his job to make Obama look good"? Hmmm?   Postado por ZMT em 20 set 09 domingo - 12:12 [Responder Comentário]

	David Vidal	We're a nation at war... kind of. We haven't really made a total commitment to fighting these wars. If we had, we would fire up the draft and raise taxes and get it done. But Americans are apparently not willing to do that. Because there is no deep support for these wars. Because we don't even know what we're fighting them for. So we're going about fighting them in a half baked fashion, using National Guard troops (who are doing a great job but were never intended for use in foreign wars), hiring mercenaries (Obama is using the same Blackwater fighters that Bush was so resoundly criticized for) and going into massive debt in the process. Our policies could be described as War Lite.  We want to have a war, but we don't want the calories. Unless they have friends or relatives in the military, or are in the military themselves, most Americans don't even think about the wars. Ever. The soldiers are for the most part working class and poor kids who see the military as a viable option to get a piece of the American Dream. And they generally come from families who have a tradition of military service. The huge sums of money that are being spent on the war effort are not going into a black hole. And just a tiny trickle is going to the soldiers. The money is going into the coffers of the military industrial complex that General Eisenhower warned us about so many years ago. Investors buy stock in those companies. The same people who make a ton of money blowing stuff up make a ton of money building new stuff. Not a bad deal. We help these countries hold bogus elections to install a puppet government that does what we tell 'em to do. This was American foreign policy for most of the twentieth century. The more things change, the more they stay the same. It's no more palatable when Democrats do it  than when Republicans do it. I think the country has developed full on schizophrenia. And the two personalities are busy wrestling with each other. It would be comical if it weren't so dangerous...   Postado por David Vidal em 20 set 09 domingo - 12:11 [Responder Comentário]

	Eileen-Rita Eileen-Rita Folwell	because you're not just at war overseas.   Postado por Eileen-Rita em 19 set 09 sábado - 3:50 [Responder Comentário]

	liane	Yes Charlie , not only the US is at war , many other nations as well such as Germany in Afghanistan and at present here are massive threats from Al Qaida if Germany doesn..t pull out of Afghanistan after 27th September( elections are on that date)Only Germany says they are not at war but are trying to build up the country which has happened to a certain extent, but the rest is bull...t.This  is a big discussion here at present.In Germany the word "war " is still regarded as tabu as a result of its history.No matter whose soldiers are in these theaters (Irak/ Afghanistan), they have wasted their time there and my opinion is , it will all end like Vietnam. which all in all has fared quite well without occupation and has found its own way. A few years ago when all this started especially in Irak, I mentioned on another forum of yours that going into Irak is like putting oil on a fire , meaning that many Muslim countries will get together against the Western World and this has happened. Terror has increased not subsided. My opinion is , leave them all to themselves to sort things out in one way or another and spare more lives of soldiers. In these countries there have always been "tribal wars" and the opression of the women etc, but despite all this the "West" had no right to go in . One cannot alter a nation by forcing  opinions on them.All we can do is, to hope whatever good has been done continues with those left behind and diplomacy or as usual with money and help them to benefit from their natural resources.Afghanistan is so currupt  that I see little hope of any success there anyway . So for me it would be OUT for all foreign troops. Now for a new topic Charlie , how about fathers and teenage daughters!!! That would be quite a good topic and would be interesting to see the answers. Liane   Postado por liane em 19 set 09 sábado - 3:50 [Responder Comentário]

	April67 April Garofalo	~~Because--they are doing it--the higher uppers (members of the House)...it's ok then...justified --twist of words to fit in a mature sounding fashion--when to put it in as simply as possible--or what a kid would say~~Big Fat Sore Losers--throwing zingers at the President --it's manipulative-- The whole thing sound childish--playing dirty--  People deserve to have difference of opinions--but with respect to the other..To like --or not to like-the fact that is he won the election--The president still deserves a fair shake with respect--not everything he does is going to be liked--it's a given there--but he alone is not in control of every single decision that has to made with this country.. This to said especially to the higher uppers ( Members of the House)--they are suppose to be an example-- Representatives of us American people for all over the world~~   Postado por April67 em 19 set 09 sábado - 3:50 [Responder Comentário]

	C@ssidy:)	..Wow I havent thought about that!..   Postado por C@ssidy:) em 19 set 09 sábado - 3:51 [Responder Comentário]

	Roxana Roxana Bennett	have no idea!  doesn't make any since at all!   And we are at war, you are so right!   Postado por Roxana em 19 set 09 sábado - 3:51 [Responder Comentário]

	Roxana Roxana Bennett	Freedom of speech is fine!  But, we do need to maintain a certain level of respect, especially during wartime.  They are taking freedom of speech to the ultimite extreme!  We are suppose to have respect for the law and law enforcement!   And what kind of message also is this sending the young people and the soldiers that are serving that our watching.  I personally feel that people who disrespect in such ways should be arrested, asked to leave, or  temporarily gagged! lol   Postado por Roxana em 19 set 09 sábado - 3:51 [Responder Comentário]

	Brenda Duff	If you are talking about the futility of the blame game in politics, I agree whole heartedly. Personally I would love to hear more ways that we can work together on the issues. And I don't say that in a way that's being naive of the corruption in politics worldwide. I've learned recently about the indication that there where certain people with political influence from different nations in past century history who funded both sides of the war in order to be in a win/win situation.  I need to research this some more but if true...this kind of thing at the soldiers of those nation's expense is horrid. Leaders with the right motivations need to be heard over any politically afluent that are "paid political announcements" of a wrong kind. (I am not indicating anyone in particular here - but it might be interesting to follow the political support money trails - how much money is spent on the publicity of politics in general?  I am just curious) Footnote:  I am working on a song for Christmas about Christ's birth and this morning I was reading a well known verse in Isaiah 9: 6, "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given,..." and I couldn't help but notice the verse above it...verse 5; "Every warrior's boot used in battle and every garment rolled in blood will be destined for burning, will be fuel for the fire." and now read why...because for unto us a child is born. There is a time for defense, like a shepherd would defend a flock from wolves that would devour them.  But there is never a time for hate or usury or exploitation...those ways are destined to be abolished.   Postado por Brenda Duff em 19 set 09 sábado - 4:18 [Responder Comentário]

	lisa lisa todd	Unfortunately it wasn't just the weapons manufacturers that dealt to both sides of past wars, It was world banks as well.    Postado por lisa em 20 set 09 domingo - 2:05 [Responder Comentário]

	Charles Shaughnessy Charles Shaughnessy	Absolutely, Brenda. Above all else, war is a business. Eisenhower warned against the rise of the Military Industrial complex as a revenue generating part of our society that would need to be fed with more and more war. Weapons manufacturers never sell to just one side. They will always provide the offensive weapons to one side and the counterpoint " defensive" weapons to the other...and then reverse the formula!! Either way, whoever wins, they make money. That's why it's so ironic that in most wars we fight these days, our soldiers are being maimed and killed by weapons made in the good old US of A. Our US companies poured weapons into the mujahedeen when they were fighting the Soviets, but now they aim those stingers at us!! Crazy isn't it?!!!   Postado por Charles Shaughnessy em 19 set 09 sábado - 11:24 [Responder Comentário]

	ZMT	Where did the men like Ike go, in politics?   Postado por ZMT em 20 set 09 domingo - 11:01 [Responder Comentário]

	David Vidal	Probably to Hell. I'll let you know if I see 'em when I get there....   Postado por David Vidal em 21 set 09 segunda-feira - 4:31 [Responder Comentário]

Postagem Anterior: Like you don't know | Voltar à Lista do Blog | Próxima Postagem: The Internet...only Connect.