So you saying the soviets were right in invading Afghanistan?

So you saying jihadi schools continue to operate so that they create more terrorists who can kill more kids?

So you saying that it is NOT right to kill those to do not hesitate to kill children and women?

Wow! Maybe you really ought to watch Rambo, this time with audio on instead of just the guns chattering.

Who knows, your teeny tiny brain might evolve to comprehend the idea that countries retaliate when their citizens are killed by terrorists!

Iam not a right-wing nutcase.

Iam also not a redneck.

I know were not exactly saints in Vietnam and that we were responsible for destabilizing regimes from mexico to nicaragua and we invaded Panama just so that Carter's "just" accord could be reversed to give US corporates extra profits.

The term banana republic originated from us.

And yes, we invaded Iraq for oil.

We also did build up single-handedly Japan, Brazil, Germany, France, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and many many other countries.

The generosity of USA has far, far outstripped the bad things it has done. By a large mile.

And no, we did NOT invade Afghanistan for oil or its wealth.

We went there to wipe out terrorism, pure and simple.

What you read is the bad news. What you don't read is the good stuff that the press never reports: schools, roads, water-purifying plants and many other good stuff that the American Soldiers and Engineers have built.

Everytime a bomb kills a school full of children, do you think the American commander/pilot jumps in joy and high-fives his troops?

And for every mistaken Predator strike, there are hundreds more successful ones that take out hundreds of the Taliban. Those are never reported because of operational security and partly because the press is sensationalistic.

The military hates war. And Generals are the last, last human beings to put their "children" in harm's danger. They love to fight a fair war, and killing women and innocent children is not their first job of the day, how much ever you want to believe.

And NO, the 9/11 was not an inside job, just like Pearl Harbor was not one.

Stop being paranoid for once.

I was with you until yo told we invaded Afghanistan to get cheap Heroin.

For once, conspiracy theorists outdid themselves.

Oh you poor, poor guy... i don't know what to say to you.

You still believe the CIA killed Kennedy and Pearl Harbor was an inside job to get us out of Depression and that we deliberately refused to invade Europe to see who wins the slugging match between Hitler and Stalin...

ROTFL...

Oh man, i have never laughed so hard since FRIENDS ended many years ago...

You sure provide a good laugh. Thanks.

Newspapers are supposed to be impartial.

They are the fifth estate tasked with keeping the Executive, Congress and the Judiciary in check.

However they abrogated their duty completely.

Instead of asking the tough questions that we wanted them to ask, they asked silly ones or completely opposed us and supported the Government.

For instance, the run-up to Iraq war, the TARP scandal, the meltdown, etc.

They never asked the Bush admin about issues in Iraq war, instead everyone jumped on the cheney bandwagon to kill innocents.

Similarly when the mortgage meltdown happened, they should hauled banks over hot coals for lending recklessly. Instead the newspapers (owned by same owners who own banks) turned upon us for reckless borrowing: Of course, if someone offers us free money would we not take it?

Banks are supposed to evaluate and EVALUATE between borrowers and lenders [to it]. Instead if safeguarding public money, they went after profits.

newspapers were supposed to expose such banks and make them fail.

Instead they turned upon us in sotto voce and blamed the citizens for borrowing!

People don't like to be told they are fools, when they are not.

The success of online blogging is because bloggers told facts, uncovered plots, etc. Something investigative journalism used to do till Vietnam war after which it stopped.

So, in sotto voce the public say to the newspapers: DIE.

The writer wrongly proclaims that taxpayers own GM (similarly AIG, Citi, etc).

Nothing could be more wrong.

Just because Taxpayers money was "donated" to them doesn't mean we own them. The military gets 47% of taxpayers money. Does it mean we "own" them? Did we "vote" to prevent them from going into Iraq?

What sort of misleading statements everyone makes!

The Congress and President ALONE decide where our money goes to. Our duty is to PAY to IRS. Once the money goes to IRS< we have absolutely no say in the matter.

The Govt has donated our money to GM this time. And yes, THEY own GM now.

But we don't. Although we very much like to think we do, the fact is we HAVE NO SAY in GM's running.

Why?

Did we receive shareholder certificates from GM? Vouchers from GM? Can i refuse to pay my share of tax revenue that goes to GM? Hell the IRS will convict me if i refused to pay FULL taxes.

Stop thinking that WE and the Govt are the same.

Its NOT.

We are the voters (aka suckers). The Govt. is for the corporations, by the corporations and of people.

When will people learn that voters!=shareholders

Unlike the pussy-footing democrats who cower and get scared easily thus losing respect and seats, republicans are no-nonsense fellas.

That's what i like about them.

Once they take a stand, they defend it like Marines. Which is highly commendable.

This makes vacillating democrats as weak.

Consider the poor democrats: they are now afraid to prosecure law breaking republicans even when the public demands it.

They are so afraid!

God, i hope republicans win majorly in 2010 and 2012 thus teaching the democrats one more lesson in the long line of unlearned lessons that the dems have had.