Moonlight Graham

That's a significant part of it, but not the whole story. Surely, there are those in gov't in the U.S. and Canada who actually see Afghanistan as a security problem. The military industrial complex and securing oil reserves just makes this decision to invade so much easier to make.

I'd rather have a gov't or party that decides policy depending on what works, or has proven to work, or is based on statistics, research, and rational common sense rather than simply on ideology. I think that somewhat describes the moderate "centrist" approach.

Disturbing. Important for us to remember that Afghanistan is one of the poorest & least developed countries in the world. In 2009 it holds the 2nd-lowest ranking among the 182 countries listed on the UN's HDI (Human Development Index), which ranks countries based on factors like adult literacy rates, life expectancy, income (GDP-per-capita) etc. Rankings: http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/ In my opinion, Afghanistan more resembles a sub-Saharan African country than most of the other middle-eastern countries in many regards. It's mostly tribal, rural, it's woefully undeveloped and poor, and its elite are corrupt druglords/warlords. The sad thing is, within a couple of decades from the time NATO leaves, even if we were to kill every member of the Taliban, whatever democratic government we help establish will likely be ousted in a coup (possibly even by the Afghan army we are helping to train) and replaced by a corrupt authoritarian regime. If no coup, then a "democratically elected" authoritarian regime is likely to emerge, or something just as bad. It may even come to be as bad as the Taliban were, who knows. The problems in Afghanistan are beyond immense. Way more complex a situation than Iraq. i don't think we should leave Afghanistan, but i do think we should end our military occupation there, send a few bombs al-Qaeda's way if they are ever to establish any kind of facilities in Afghanistan or Pakistan, and focus our efforts on trying to help the Afghans develop their country the way they wish (within reason obviously). Help them build infrastructure, hospitals, schools etc. But this is all if the Afghans want us there in the first place. They are a country well known for their rabid self-determination and resentment of foreign occupation.

Where are you looking? Only in the news headlines it seems.

You write as if Shady cares at all about this issue. This post is just an excuse to bash Obama. Whether it has any validity or not doesn't matter.

Wave you guys seen the new pic of what Omar looks like now? He looks so much different, all grown up. Looks like a man. By the time this whole court thing is settled he'll be growing grey hairs!

The video is a bit unsettling. But i don't know this guy's views or his agenda with all this. His does say that "at this rate the enitre Parliament will be Muslim, but that is not my objective." Is he an Islamic fundamentalist who wants Islam & Sharia Law to completely take over Britain and the world? Or is he simply pointing out that this is a step for diversity in Parliament in regards to Muslim representation, like blacks or women in Parliament?? Or is he just damn proud of his faith/people? hard to say, i dont know the context of this man's words or beliefs. But yes, it does seem unsettling.

There is a big difference in radical/extremist Islam and the Islam that the vast majority of Muslims practice. Most of radicals follow a radical fundamentalist form of Islam called Qutbism that came out of the 1950's/60's. I don't know why the "peaceful" Muslims don't reel in the radical violent ones. How are they going to do it? By taking up arms against the these armed and trained extremists? How can they if they are "peaceful", and it is against Islam to kill other Muslims? Many Muslim leaders have spoken out against the radicals. There's just some crazy bad apples out there. This bunch is just a heck of a lot more determined than the others.

Welcome!

Occasionally he does have good, serious interviews though and really hammers it to his guests. The Jim Cramer interview comes to mind. Would never say he's media's last hope though.

There is a big difference between Islam, and the radical, violent, fundamentalist version of Islam that those like al-Qaeda believe. You should choose your words more carefully. But it's a good point, radical fundamentalist Islam may be the new Communism.

Exactly. Revenge is what led to the harsh terms in Versailles. Keeping the Berlin Wall up would be a sick punishment. With the USSR gone, who would keep up the Wall? The West would. Do we want our men to stand in towers and shoot civilians trying to cross it...for the sake of revenge? Sick. Do we want East Germany to stay behind the wall, and develop anti-West and anti-democratic resentments which led to the rise of Nazi Germany in the 1st place? Everyone is better off with Germany united, democratic & free, and finally healthy. If you want revenge, Germans took their share of beatings via their defeats in WWI and WWII, plus they were a battleground in the Cold War. The wars are over, just let it go.

Gain a 1st-hand understanding into the mind of one of history's most important figures. It may be twisted, but it's an important historical work.

What happened to Saudi Arabia? Why weren't they pursued? They were even only 1 of 3 countries in the world that recognized the Taliban as the legit gov't of Afghanistan prior to 9/11.

A politician saying "you're either with us or you're against us" is a really stupid thing to say. It's antagonizing. That's not being a good diplomat, it's just a good way to piss people off. In global politics, nations can often choose to be for a given issue, against an issue, or stay neutral. Bush was saying you can't be neutral. If you're neutral, then that means you're against us. Stupid. There's also a big problem if Obama "takes a side" in the Iran democratic protests. If he publicly sides with the protesters what good would it do VS how much it would make the Ayatollahs and the Iranian gov't PO'd and tarnish relations, & ruin future chances at diplomatic dealings. The US has mucked with the internal affairs of Iran enough, best to leave the protesting up to the protesters on that one. Anyways, if the diplomatic approach eventually doesn't work regarding nukes that's fine. What will matters is that Obama is trying. A national leader should try to exhaust every workable diplomatic/non-violent possibility before they start killing people and blowing stuff up. Hopefully Obama does this. Obama needs to keep trying the diplomatic approach, but he also needs to stay tough on Iran. There's a balance between being tough & being diplomatic. JFK and Reagan seemed to get it right. Carter and Bush Jr. got it wrong.

YES!!!! I've waited so patiently for the sequel to "Zeitgeist". This "movie" is a piece of crap. It makes a couple interesting points while i was skipping through it, but it's mostly just conspiracy B.S. from a silly conspiracy website. I like the part in the film about UFO's, that guy's testimony of the UFO coming out of the water was soooooo real!! ya right.

Well i'm sure you know there's a big difference in the case of Post-WWII Japan, Germany, and Italy. Those were decimated countries from the war. The U.S. didn't want a repeat of WWI Versailles settlement and rise of more irrational regimes like Nazi Germany taking rise from economic desperation. So they decided to help rebuild Japan/Germany/Italy. Those countries weren't in much of a position to complain since the violent whooping they just received was from aggressions they had started. Iran in 1953, on the other hand, was a coup orchestrated by foreign powers for the purpose of securing resources that wasn't theirs. Completely different situations.

Canadian identity begins with Casey and ends with Finnegan. ALL HAIL MR. DRESSUP!!! That's right Mr. Rogers u sweater-zipping freako!

Well now that wouldn't be fair. There aren't enough people on welfare to rake everyone's leaves. So why should you get your leaves raked and not I? Best you're gonna get is having them work for the state. Mow lawns of gov't property, dig ditches along public roads etc.

I hope Palin`s sweet body doesn`t start to sag by 2012.

Given that, the only solution i see with Iran is to wait until they attack us, then we bomb the living heck out of them. Whooped (and radioactive), we then spend-spend-spend to help rebuild their country with our system of governance. It worked with Germany and Japan, it will work with Iran too.

The topic post is so lacking in reality and devoid of any real knowledge of what many poor people and those that live on welfare go through, or have gone through in their pasts. Many people on welfare aren't on it because they are "lazy". Yes, some are just simply "lazy" no doubt, but there are many others who have mental health problems, addictions, abusive pasts etc. This thread enrages me. Some good points have been brought up, however most of the people who have brought them up unfortunately are not worth the trouble responding to as it would just simply be a waste of my time. Yelling into the wind. Bottom line: there are some problems with the welfare system, no doubt. Lazy people do exist who mooch off the system. But that is a problem with the system that needs to be fixed. Welfare is a necessary component to any rational society, not to mention a humane one. There are so many people out there that are just screwed up, been dealt a bad hand in life, and-or need a break. Some of you people need to go spend some time with the types of people who are on welfare for some legit reasons. People who can`t involve themselves on these message boards on a regular basis since they can`t afford internet because they were molested as children, lived on the street for awhile as teenagers, became hooked on the drug scene, had themselves a baby or 2 at an early age, and are now trying to get by raising a couple kids alone while now doing their darnedest to get lives in order, some even trying to get their GED at the same time. 1-2-3 LAZY!

Those darn friggin' Americans!!!

Saw this flick for the 1st time this past Halloween with some buddies. It was pretty darn good. Sam Raimi's 1st horror flick since the Evil Dead series. The movie was actually rated PG-13 (how??), but all the gory scenes are off-the-wall & original in true Evil Dead and will totally satisfy any horror fan who's seen every and is bored with the same 'ol hack n' slash movies/scenes.

I'll admit it: the entire word. Had to google it right now