What do we agree upon?

[Annie]

Secure our borders and concentrate on the assholes who really did attack us. Afghanistan, the Taliban and the hunt for OBL got shortchanged. The people we lost on 911 deserved justice and we failed to pursue it.

Actually that would be Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Afghanistan.

As for Saudi Arabis and Egypt, you could blame them but then you'd have to blame the entire US for the actions of every one of its citizens too. And we all know looking around just how monolithic we are. No, I blame the people who harbored, supported and trained them not the countries where they were born. But that might just be a new thread.

Then again, no one accused you of being rational.

 

[goldcatt]

Actually that would be Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Afghanistan.

As for Saudi Arabis and Egypt, you could blame them but then you'd have to blame the entire US for the actions of every one of its citizens too. And we all know looking around just how monolithic we are. No, I blame the people who harbored, supported and trained them not the countries where they were born. But that might just be a new thread.

Then again, no one accused you of being rational.

Interesting response. Explain?

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

I am afraid that in 60-100 years MOST of us will be as embarresed by denying gays the right to marry as we are about denying interracial marriage.

In 60 + years, I will be dead. You appear to have a lot of guilt over homosexual and interracial marriage.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

I have read most of the thread. And from what I have read, most of the posts are negative complaints with no call for action in a demonstrative and concise manner, whereby substantive action is sought to rightfully address the negative complaints.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

There should be a life time ban of receiving funds for lobbying , speaking off shore or receiving funds for sales of books, lectures or awards from countries that do not allow religious freedom that mean building churches and repairing them.

There may be some merit to this idea, but why would you limit it the way you have? If a president is unduly influenced by potential earnings from foreign countries, then I don't understand why that influence is worse or something we need to protect ourselves from more depending on the foreign country's policy on church repair????????

It is a good measure of human rights .
The bann needs to be across the board congress president anyone in the federal government.

 

[goldcatt]

I have read most of the thread. And from what I have read, most of the posts are negative complaints with no call for action in a demonstrative and concise manner, whereby substantive action is sought to rightfully address the negative complaints.

Point.

Some positive suggestions for action on my own positions:

1. Redirect large portions of the unspent stimulus money to hire, train and equip the necessary numbers of personnel to control our borders and ports as they should be controlled.

2. Disengage from Iraq as quickly as possible and refocus on Aghanistan and stabilizing Pakistan as well as the hunt for OBL, if he's still alive.

 

[manu1959]

i believe us tax dollars taken from us citizens should only be spent in the usa on those citizens....

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

I have read most of the thread. And from what I have read, most of the posts are negative complaints with no call for action in a demonstrative and concise manner, whereby substantive action is sought to rightfully address the negative complaints.

Point.

Some positive suggestions for action on my own positions:

1. Redirect large portions of the unspent stimulus money to hire, train and equip the necessary numbers of personnel to control our borders and ports as they should be controlled.

2. Disengage from Iraq as quickly as possible and refocus on Aghanistan and stabilizing Pakistan as well as the hunt for OBL, if he's still alive.

As to point one, I agree that there needs to be stronger and more aggressive border control. I do not agree with using the "so-called" stimulus money. I do not agree with the stimulus plan per the Constitution. Redirecting money that should not have been borrowed in the first place, ( even if for noble needs ) does not address the problem of Congress spending money in areas that are not within the confines of Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution to begin with. Without addressing that salient point by both the employer and employee, the out of control spending and borrowing continues.

As to point two, I do believe that radical Islamists are a threat to anyone who does not worship the way they do. Any infidel can be in danger of these nutjobs. They don't hate us for our freedoms. They hate us because we are infidels. And in their eyes, we should either be forced to convert, or be killed without mercy.

While I understand that radical Islamists are a true threat, I also realize that you cannot completely eradicate the ideology. This dangerous and extremist ideology is spread throughout the world. Focusing on Afghanistan and Pakistan does not solve the problem, in my opinion. Our government has fostered the idiotic notion, that if we get Afghanistan and Pakistan under control, that we will have achieved some kind of victory over this faceless, genderless, ageless ideology.

In my opinion, perpetual war is a terrible thing for a Republic. I am not stating or suggesting that the United States should not protect itself. I am not a passivist. I believe we have a duty and a right to protect ourselves from invasion. I also believe that we need to be pragmatic in our foreign policy operations.

It is my opinion, our government is trying to fight a politically correct war. You do not win wars that way. The U.S. government is fighting a war this way, because they want to spread democracy. Another words, they want to keep placating and pandering to the very entities they claim to have fundamental principled difference with.

Afghanistan did not attack us. Neither did Pakistan or Iraq. If the government truly has a problem with these countries, and their acquiescence of radical Islamic terrorists, believing that said countries are a direct and dire threat to us, then declare war on them. Sever all legal ties with them, and turn their countries into a glass factories. Our government won't do that though. I believe our government is using the war as a political weapon, and our brave men and women are paying the cost of that. It ticks me off that the employers of this Republic are allowing their employees to play political vote buying games with this Republic under the auspices of keeping us safe, and ending the war on terror.

I realize that what I just said will raise the ire of several people here. Some may think I am unAmerican amongst other unsavory names. They can think what they like.

As a nation, we are broke. We have been broke for a good while now. What happened to getting our own house in order first, instead of trying to police the world?

If there is ever another attack of some kind, and it is determined for a fact, that it was radical Islamists who were knowingly abetted by X country, you take X country out without warning. Is that politically correct? No. Does that mean innocent people will be killed? Yes, it does. Other countries see action like that, and they understand very quickly, that the United States means business. Don't even think about screwing with us. That will put the brakes on that kind of crap right quick. Other countries will get serious about policing their own, instead of pandering via the U.N., and other romper room organizations.

I could say a lot more, but hopefully you get the idea.

 

[goldcatt]

I have read most of the thread. And from what I have read, most of the posts are negative complaints with no call for action in a demonstrative and concise manner, whereby substantive action is sought to rightfully address the negative complaints.

Point.

Some positive suggestions for action on my own positions:

1. Redirect large portions of the unspent stimulus money to hire, train and equip the necessary numbers of personnel to control our borders and ports as they should be controlled.

2. Disengage from Iraq as quickly as possible and refocus on Aghanistan and stabilizing Pakistan as well as the hunt for OBL, if he's still alive.

As to point one, I agree that there needs to be stronger and more aggressive border control. I do not agree with using the "so-called" stimulus money. I do not agree with the stimulus plan per the Constitution. Redirecting money that should not have been borrowed in the first place, ( even if for noble needs ) does not address the problem of Congress spending money in areas that are not within the confines of Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution to begin with. Without addressing that salient point by both the employer and employee, the out of control spending and borrowing continues.

As to point two, I do believe that radical Islamists are a threat to anyone who does not worship the way they do. Any infidel can be in danger of these nutjobs. They don't hate us for our freedoms. They hate us because we are infidels. And in their eyes, we should either be forced to convert, or be killed without mercy.

While I understand that radical Islamists are a true threat, I also realize that you cannot completely eradicate the ideology. This dangerous and extremist ideology is spread throughout the world. Focusing on Afghanistan and Pakistan does not solve the problem, in my opinion. Our government has fostered the idiotic notion, that if we get Afghanistan and Pakistan under control, that we will have achieved some kind of victory over this faceless, genderless, ageless ideology.

In my opinion, perpetual war is a terrible thing for a Republic. I am not stating or suggesting that the United States should not protect itself. I am not a passivist. I believe we have a duty and a right to protect ourselves from invasion. I also believe that we need to be pragmatic in our foreign policy operations.

It is my opinion, our government is trying to fight a politically correct war. You do not win wars that way. The U.S. government is fighting a war this way, because they want to spread democracy. Another words, they want to keep placating and pandering to the very entities they claim to have fundamental principled difference with.

Afghanistan did not attack us. Neither did Pakistan or Iraq. If the government truly has a problem with these countries, and their acquiescence of radical Islamic terrorists, believing that said countries are a direct and dire threat to us, then declare war on them. Sever all legal ties with them, and turn their countries into a glass factories. Our government won't do that though. I believe our government is using the war as a political weapon, and our brave men and women are paying the cost of that. It ticks me off that the employers of this Republic are allowing their employees to play political vote buying games with this Republic under the auspices of keeping us safe, and ending the war on terror.

I realize that what I just said will raise the ire of several people here. Some may think I am unAmerican amongst other unsavory names. They can think what they like.

As a nation, we are broke. We have been broke for a good while now. What happened to getting our own house in order first, instead of trying to police the world?

If there is ever another attack of some kind, and it is determined for a fact, that it was radical Islamists who were knowingly abetted by X country, you take X country out without warning. Is that politically correct? No. Does that mean innocent people will be killed? Yes, it does. Other countries see action like that, and they understand very quickly, that the United States means business. Don't even think about screwing with us. That will put the brakes on that kind of crap right quick. Other countries will get serious about policing their own, instead of pandering via the U.N., and other romper room organizations.

I could say a lot more, but hopefully you get the idea.

For the stimulus, I don't share your constitutional philosophy but could live with repeal of the stimulus and separate appropriaton of funds for border and port security under the Constitutional power of national dfefense rather than simply redirecting it. It's the result that matters to me, not how we get there.

As for the idea of war, I agree on Iraq but not regarding Afghanistan. IMO, the Taliban running the country harbored, supported, aided and abetted those who conspired to attack us. Therefore, they deserved to be included in our justice. I do not believe we can eradicate belief, which is what radical Islam is. But we could have and should have made such an impression upon those who hold those beliefs that they are either scattered and diminished or deterred from using their terror tactics against us again. Now, it's too late to be fully effective but there are still mass murderers to bring to justice. Whether they are brought to court or sent to their God makes little difference to me, we owe it to our own to finish the job.

(Yes, I know that's an emotional argument on some levels. But ideally what do we stand for if not justice?)

As for Pakistan, the threat of a destabilized nuclear nation is terrifying. I do not advocate military action there, but we must consider our own interests in stability and preventing OBL and/or those like him to posess nuclear weapons or weapons components. If that means stepping in with aid or other resources to shore up the nation's stability, IMO it's worth it.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Point.

Some positive suggestions for action on my own positions:

1. Redirect large portions of the unspent stimulus money to hire, train and equip the necessary numbers of personnel to control our borders and ports as they should be controlled.

2. Disengage from Iraq as quickly as possible and refocus on Aghanistan and stabilizing Pakistan as well as the hunt for OBL, if he's still alive.

As to point one, I agree that there needs to be stronger and more aggressive border control. I do not agree with using the "so-called" stimulus money. I do not agree with the stimulus plan per the Constitution. Redirecting money that should not have been borrowed in the first place, ( even if for noble needs ) does not address the problem of Congress spending money in areas that are not within the confines of Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution to begin with. Without addressing that salient point by both the employer and employee, the out of control spending and borrowing continues.

As to point two, I do believe that radical Islamists are a threat to anyone who does not worship the way they do. Any infidel can be in danger of these nutjobs. They don't hate us for our freedoms. They hate us because we are infidels. And in their eyes, we should either be forced to convert, or be killed without mercy.

While I understand that radical Islamists are a true threat, I also realize that you cannot completely eradicate the ideology. This dangerous and extremist ideology is spread throughout the world. Focusing on Afghanistan and Pakistan does not solve the problem, in my opinion. Our government has fostered the idiotic notion, that if we get Afghanistan and Pakistan under control, that we will have achieved some kind of victory over this faceless, genderless, ageless ideology.

In my opinion, perpetual war is a terrible thing for a Republic. I am not stating or suggesting that the United States should not protect itself. I am not a passivist. I believe we have a duty and a right to protect ourselves from invasion. I also believe that we need to be pragmatic in our foreign policy operations.

It is my opinion, our government is trying to fight a politically correct war. You do not win wars that way. The U.S. government is fighting a war this way, because they want to spread democracy. Another words, they want to keep placating and pandering to the very entities they claim to have fundamental principled difference with.

Afghanistan did not attack us. Neither did Pakistan or Iraq. If the government truly has a problem with these countries, and their acquiescence of radical Islamic terrorists, believing that said countries are a direct and dire threat to us, then declare war on them. Sever all legal ties with them, and turn their countries into a glass factories. Our government won't do that though. I believe our government is using the war as a political weapon, and our brave men and women are paying the cost of that. It ticks me off that the employers of this Republic are allowing their employees to play political vote buying games with this Republic under the auspices of keeping us safe, and ending the war on terror.

I realize that what I just said will raise the ire of several people here. Some may think I am unAmerican amongst other unsavory names. They can think what they like.

As a nation, we are broke. We have been broke for a good while now. What happened to getting our own house in order first, instead of trying to police the world?

If there is ever another attack of some kind, and it is determined for a fact, that it was radical Islamists who were knowingly abetted by X country, you take X country out without warning. Is that politically correct? No. Does that mean innocent people will be killed? Yes, it does. Other countries see action like that, and they understand very quickly, that the United States means business. Don't even think about screwing with us. That will put the brakes on that kind of crap right quick. Other countries will get serious about policing their own, instead of pandering via the U.N., and other romper room organizations.

I could say a lot more, but hopefully you get the idea.

For the stimulus, I don't share your constitutional philosophy but could live with repeal of the stimulus and separate appropriaton of funds for border and port security under the Constitutional power of national dfefense rather than simply redirecting it. It's the result that matters to me, not how we get there.

As for the idea of war, I agree on Iraq but not regarding Afghanistan. IMO, the Taliban running the country harbored, supported, aided and abetted those who conspired to attack us. Therefore, they deserved to be included in our justice. I do not believe we can eradicate belief, which is what radical Islam is. But we could have and should have made such an impression upon those who hold those beliefs that they are either scattered and diminished or deterred from using their terror tactics against us again. Now, it's too late to be fully effective but there are still mass murderers to bring to justice. Whether they are brought to court or sent to their God makes little difference to me, we owe it to our own to finish the job.

(Yes, I know that's an emotional argument on some levels. But ideally what do we stand for if not justice?)

As for Pakistan, the threat of a destabilized nuclear nation is terrifying. I do not advocate military action there, but we must consider our own interests in stability and preventing OBL and/or those like him to posess nuclear weapons or weapons components. If that means stepping in with aid or other resources to shore up the nation's stability, IMO it's worth it.

I understand the fear with Pakistan. I don't agree with the fear. I believe they need to wipe their own butts.

Those that voted for President Obama et al, have been played as suckers. All the war rhetoric during the campaign and now, it is the same old song and dance. And it is no surprise, that the partisan hacks are conveniently silent on the hypocrisy.

Do you advocate we keep policing the world, by borrowing money from China, or printing more money? This nation is in over it's head. We are going to implode. I don't want to see that happen. I believe we can protect this Republic, without spending all the extra money we have been. America first. Let the rest of the world take care of itself for a change.

Yes, some of your retort was emotionally based. While I understand the mindset, I cannot embrace it in a pragmatic way. In my opinion, it is illogical and dangerous. Our Republic cannot sustain perpetual war. It was not meant to. Remember Rome? We are walking that same path. It is not fair to the soldiers to ask them to fight with one hand tied behind their back. It is wrong. And in my opinion, that is what the political whores in Washington are doing.

I don't believe the American people as a whole truly understand how screwed up the foundation of this Republic is right now. This Republic is in dire trouble and it is not the radical nutjobs we need to be worried about right now.

The greatest threat to this Republic, is "We The People." People need to seriously think about that statement.

 

[goldcatt]

I understand the fear with Pakistan. I don't agree with the fear. I believe they need to wipe their own butts.

Those that voted for President Obama et al, have been played as suckers. All the war rhetoric during the campaign and now, it is the same old song and dance. And it is no surprise, that the partisan hacks are conveniently silent on the hypocrisy.

Do you advocate we keep policing the world, by borrowing money from China, or printing more money? This nation is in over it's head. We are going to implode. I don't want to see that happen. I believe we can protect this Republic, without spending all the extra money we have been. America first. Let the rest of the world take care of itself for a change.

Yes, some of your retort was emotionally based. While I understand the mindset, I cannot embrace it in a pragmatic way. In my opinion, it is illogical and dangerous. Our Republic cannot sustain perpetual war. It was not meant to. Remember Rome? We are walking that same path. It is not fair to the soldiers to ask them to fight with one hand tied behind their back. It is wrong. And in my opinion, that is what the political whores in Washington are doing.

I don't believe the American people as a whole truly understand how screwed up the foundation of this Republic is right now. This Republic is in dire trouble and it is not the radical nutjobs we need to be worried about right now.

The greatest threat to this Republic, is "We The People." People need to seriously think about that statement.

I do not advocate we keep policing the world at all. However, we do need to be prepared to step in when our own interests are threatened. By "step in" I do not mean military action except if attacked or obligated by treaty to defend an ally who is attacked. Wars of choice are anathema.

But there are many projections of soft power, some of which do involve goods, services and/or money. We would be foolish indeed in my eyes not to use the influence we have to avert disaster for ourselves if nobody else can or will step up. Islamic extremists with nukes would find our unprotected borders and ports inviting, would they not? Assisting Pakistan is an ounce of prevention in my opinion.

No, I do not believe we should be beholden to China or any other nation for our economic and monetary well-being. Nor should we be firing up the printing presses to finance endless war. We should have listened to Eisenhower's famous warning decades ago. I do agree war has been misused as a poltiical tool, and it is still being so used today. I simply see one instance where war was in fact justified, and other instances where assisting foreign nations is in our own interests. I also see a job left undone that needs to be done.

The Republic is at a crossroads, I believe. The perfect storm of our own folly has finally hit us, and what we do next will determine whether we stand or go the way of Rome. I don't know that I trust the people making those decisions, but failure is not a certainty. We need to get back to the first principles of the nation - the idea of justice and rule of law in place of the whims of men among them.

 

[garyd]

Hundreds of beliefs have ceased to be over the centuries, other have been limited by science to a few lamers baying in the wilderness. For instance almost no one these days seriously believes in an earth centered universe.

Where some beliefs have persisted they have done so because they have changed to accomodate the actual reality rather than the reality they would have at some past time prefered.

Does anyone truly believe that had the Israelis, after the first nut bomber set of his bomb killing a bunch of kids on their way to school, immediately carpet bombed Palestine resulting in 30-40k dead Palestinians that even the most ardent Palestinian reconquista would have found it necessary to try another tack other than murdering Israeli school Children?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Does anyone truly believe that had the Israelis, after the first nut bomber set of his bomb killing a bunch of kids on their way to school, immediately carpet bombed Palestine resulting in 30-40k dead Palestinians that even the most ardent Palestinian reconquista would have found it necessary to try another tack other than murdering Israeli school Children?

I'm not exactly sure what it is you're saying here, but I'm thinking your position is that if Israel had retailiated to terrorism with a lot more force than they did, that the terrorism problem would not exist today. Have I read you correctly?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

goldcatt,
How is "aid" going to prevent Bin Laden from detonating a Pakistani nuclear weapon in your home town?

Do you always advocate appeasement and bribery?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The Civil Rights Act covers this, as far as employment is concerned anyway:

Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e [2] et seq., prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2[21]).

Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. An employer cannot discriminate against a person because of his interracial association with another, such as by an interracial marriage.

Now what part of this mentions homosexuals?

Ona side note:
Numbnuts wants to play semantics, equal protection v equal rights. I wonder what he thinks they're protecting if not equal rights.

Some idiots never learn.

The bolded part. If someone cannot discriminate based on "association" with a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, that would cover men who "associate" with other men or women who "associate" with other women.

As this was specifically designed to cover interracial or other types of marriage, it applies here.

If it was specific to those types, it would have purposely specified those types. But it does not. Assuming you're correct, (which you're not) this would mean that polygamy would also have to be ruled legal as well as any other type of marriages man can dream up.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Does anyone truly believe that had the Israelis, after the first nut bomber set of his bomb killing a bunch of kids on their way to school, immediately carpet bombed Palestine resulting in 30-40k dead Palestinians that even the most ardent Palestinian reconquista would have found it necessary to try another tack other than murdering Israeli school Children?

Whoever made this quote doesn't understand Islam or the terrorist mindset.

 

[skookerasbil]

global warming is the greatest haox ever perpetuated upon the American people.............not even debatable enymore.

I do support the lefties in one area............I do consider missile defense to effectively undercut teh concept of nuclear deterrence. Also.......the F22 Raptor is a sham and Im glad its cut. 70 hours of maintenance time for each hour of flight is a joke.


but "man made" global warming is still a goof and persuing alternatives with the current technology is the stupiest thing Ive ever heard of. Its like providing Model T technology to a Ferrrari!!!

 

[editec]

I am an "individual" American, that happens to believe

In "personal" responsibility, ie for my own success or lack thereof

Were you personally responsible for being born in this nation at this time?

If so then kudos on being responsible enough to plan ahead.

If I choose to wait tables for a lving or become a CEO of a fortune 500 company, that is my choice, both can be hard work and rewarding in different ways

And you have both of those choices equally offered to you, do you?

I believe in "hope". That is why I am a conservative. I believe people can be happy if they are "poor". I also believe the opposite

Me, too. but I do note that its far easier to be miserable if you're poor.

I believe the lefts ideals steal away hope and dreams. That is simply unAmerican

Of course you do.

It takes all kinds of people and personalities to make the world go around. but the leftists believe we should all be "uniform" in all our hopes dreams and endeavors. I reject that on it's face

Do they?

I didn't know that.

I thought they were just striving for something approaching social justice.

 

[MaggieMae]

I am an "individual" American, that happens to believe

In "personal" responsibility, ie for my own success or lack thereof

If I choose to wait tables for a lving or become a CEO of a fortune 500 company, that is my choice, both can be hard work and rewarding in different ways

I believe in "hope". That is why I am a conservative. I believe people can be happy if they are "poor". I also believe the opposite

I believe the lefts ideals steal away hope and dreams. That is simply unAmerican

It takes all kinds of people and personalities to make the world go around. but the leftists believe we should all be "uniform" in all our hopes dreams and endeavors. I reject that on it's face

I think that's what everyone strives for, but when people are stuck in the CYCLE of poverty, it's far more difficult when they are unable to even have the choices you speak of. If a baby is born today of an uneducated, already poor mother, perhaps addicted to drugs or alcohol because that's what SHE was born into, that baby isn't going to know any other way of life except what s/he sees eventually on television from the outside looking in. So then the the child 'wants' what he sees but can't have it any other way than to steal it. And round and round it goes. There needs to be much, much more community involvement in parental education as well as forced academic education. Whatever happened to truant officers?

 

[MaggieMae]

I have read most of the thread. And from what I have read, most of the posts are negative complaints with no call for action in a demonstrative and concise manner, whereby substantive action is sought to rightfully address the negative complaints.

Point.

Some positive suggestions for action on my own positions:

1. Redirect large portions of the unspent stimulus money to hire, train and equip the necessary numbers of personnel to control our borders and ports as they should be controlled.

2. Disengage from Iraq as quickly as possible and refocus on Aghanistan and stabilizing Pakistan as well as the hunt for OBL, if he's still alive.

As to point one, I agree that there needs to be stronger and more aggressive border control. I do not agree with using the "so-called" stimulus money. I do not agree with the stimulus plan per the Constitution. Redirecting money that should not have been borrowed in the first place, ( even if for noble needs ) does not address the problem of Congress spending money in areas that are not within the confines of Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution to begin with. Without addressing that salient point by both the employer and employee, the out of control spending and borrowing continues.

As to point two, I do believe that radical Islamists are a threat to anyone who does not worship the way they do. Any infidel can be in danger of these nutjobs. They don't hate us for our freedoms. They hate us because we are infidels. And in their eyes, we should either be forced to convert, or be killed without mercy.

While I understand that radical Islamists are a true threat, I also realize that you cannot completely eradicate the ideology. This dangerous and extremist ideology is spread throughout the world. Focusing on Afghanistan and Pakistan does not solve the problem, in my opinion. Our government has fostered the idiotic notion, that if we get Afghanistan and Pakistan under control, that we will have achieved some kind of victory over this faceless, genderless, ageless ideology.

In my opinion, perpetual war is a terrible thing for a Republic. I am not stating or suggesting that the United States should not protect itself. I am not a passivist. I believe we have a duty and a right to protect ourselves from invasion. I also believe that we need to be pragmatic in our foreign policy operations.

It is my opinion, our government is trying to fight a politically correct war. You do not win wars that way. The U.S. government is fighting a war this way, because they want to spread democracy. Another words, they want to keep placating and pandering to the very entities they claim to have fundamental principled difference with.

Afghanistan did not attack us. Neither did Pakistan or Iraq. If the government truly has a problem with these countries, and their acquiescence of radical Islamic terrorists, believing that said countries are a direct and dire threat to us, then declare war on them. Sever all legal ties with them, and turn their countries into a glass factories. Our government won't do that though. I believe our government is using the war as a political weapon, and our brave men and women are paying the cost of that. It ticks me off that the employers of this Republic are allowing their employees to play political vote buying games with this Republic under the auspices of keeping us safe, and ending the war on terror.

I realize that what I just said will raise the ire of several people here. Some may think I am unAmerican amongst other unsavory names. They can think what they like.

As a nation, we are broke. We have been broke for a good while now. What happened to getting our own house in order first, instead of trying to police the world?

If there is ever another attack of some kind, and it is determined for a fact, that it was radical Islamists who were knowingly abetted by X country, you take X country out without warning. Is that politically correct? No. Does that mean innocent people will be killed? Yes, it does. Other countries see action like that, and they understand very quickly, that the United States means business. Don't even think about screwing with us. That will put the brakes on that kind of crap right quick. Other countries will get serious about policing their own, instead of pandering via the U.N., and other romper room organizations.

I could say a lot more, but hopefully you get the idea.

I have to say that I basically agree with much of what you said. However, the 'political' war in Afghanistan is two-fold. First, if we can finally purge the bad influence of the militant arm of The Taliban from both Afghanistan and Pakistan, they will have a hard time setting up shop as a base from which to operate. Yes, the militant Islamists will always exist, but I believe they do not represent the vast majority of Muslims. They choose poor nations in regions like Afghanistan and Somalia because they can easily win over struggling citizens to their cause. The second purpose, politically, is OIL and Afghanistan's geographic location. As long as we remain addicted to oil provided by those regional countries, we need to have a heavy footprint in the area.

The Cold War was basically won without firing a shot, but it took many many years of detente before the imperialistic attitudes of our then enemies began to change, and it took tens of billions of money to 'defend' that politically correct war.