A ratio of 1:100 in casualties is indeed a problem, as is the contention that enemy combatants can be killed wherever they are, even in places of worship or UN facilities. Legal experts will be arguing for years about the legality of Israel's actions in the latest conflict.

But that misses the point. The real question is whether Israel's actions make Israel safer in the long run and did they improve the chances for peace in the Holy Land?

It seems the answer is obvious.

Should it be determined that the conduct of the war was a war crime, soldiers who performed these acts can not claim that they acted under orders. The trials of German soldiers after WWII settled that issue once and for all. Thousands paid with it with their lives.

If the Republican Party wants to survive, they better not listen to Rush Limbaugh who wants Obama to fail.

There were six neutral countries in Europe during WWII.

1. Switzerland

2. Sweden

3. Portugal

4. Turkey

5. Spain.

6. Ireland

7. Iceland, but I am not so certain.

The first two did business with Germany because they needed coal and other commodities. Many Swedes famously used their neutrality to help Jews to escape. Switzerland accepted many but also returned many to Germany

Portugal and Turkey, as far as I know, stayed pretty much neutral.

Spain remained officially neutral but sent troops to fight in Russia. Their neutrality is tainted.

Ireland of course leaned towards the UK. What choice did they have? I one overheard an American soldier asking a young Irishman whether Ireland fought in WWII. The young land answered "no, but if we did it wouldn't have been on the side of England." I think he was IRA because many young Irish did volunteer for the English Army.

Shouldn't the real question be "who were the doctors who inserted at least eight embryos into her uterus?" Who paid for all that? Medicaid? Or some doctor who wants to set a world record? To get these eight poor children to survive their first few months of life will cost millions. Who is paying for all that? And who will support this single woman with her 14 children? What chance will they have to ever becoming productive members of society?

Methinks the medical board in California needs to start an ethics investigation against the doctors who participated in this travesty.

A man who campaigned with a promise to make the rich richer could have gotten away with it. But not one who promised to return ethics to government. President Obama was well advised to admit that he messed up.

On the other hand, how many top level current or former politicians are clean? Chances are that very few can pass the investigation to which nominees to high office are subjected. No wonder voters are cynical about politics and politicians.

The current crisis was created because unchecked speculation drove housing and stock prices to a level that exceeded by far the true value of these commodities. Any efforts to again bring both back to the levels before the bubble burst are doomed to fail. All stimulus and bailout plans will ultimately fail unless they also include provisions to forgive a proportion of the debt. A good place to start is with mortgages. Why not assess each piece of real estate at the value it had before the housing market went out of control and adjust mortgages accordingly? The stock market apparently is in the process of finding its own realistic level.

People forget: Social Security was not designed nor does it serve to ensure a comfortable retirement income. The purpose of Social Security was and is to ensure that old people don't starve to death. It provides the minimum needed to survive. Those who can afford it have always had the option of building a nest egg so they can live in comfort to the end. Those who want to divert all or part of Social Security contributions to private plans assume that stock markets will always rise. The last year should have taught them a lesson by now. Many of those who paid heavily into 401K plans or built up a stock portfolio are now happy to have at least Social Security to keep them off the streets.

That said, the Government should be forbidden to tap into the Social Security fund to help its budget. Had the Government not done so again and again, the Social Security fund would be in even better shape than it is today.

Concerning health costs, the time will come when society has to decide whether it can still afford to do everything of which medical science is capable and how long to keep brain dead people alive. But this is a question of ethics that will be debated for a long time

These people have the gall to blame President Obama for the economic meltdown. Have they no shame? Who got us into that mess in the first place? But it is not only the system that failed. What failed is the integrity of those who took advantage of openings provided by lax rules and absent oversight. Didn't business and law schools teach anything about civic responsibility? Looks like those who are pessimistic about human nature have it right: Given half a chance, people will rip off society for their own short term benefits. And now it's time to put shackles on the finance industry.

I really enjoy your sense of humor.

But I bet some will believe every word!