Didn't you vote for Obama?

Why weren't you a bigger fan of Ron Paul, Reaganite?

Who said WE'VE ever tried to mitigate collateral damage?

All one has to do is look at the official civillian death toll in Iraq to prove that point.

Oh wait... there isn't an official death toll because we honestly have NO idea how many people died as a result of the invasion...

I hate this little "true-ism" because we've seen it proven wrong before.

If Hamas didn't have the support of Arab countries, Israel would have destroyed them and the land they occupy already. Conversely, if Israel didn't have the support of the US, they wouldn't be here anymore.

Of course, my "what if" is no more true then yours. That's what makes "what ifs" so fun.

The point is, neither party in this war deserves to win because neither show restraint in their tactics.

My feelings are summed up by this quote: "On the issue of peace, I am long past innocence and fast approaching apathy. It's all a game -- a paper fantasy of names and borders. Only one thing matters. Blood calls out for blood."

Why don't people protest Hamas? Well, I think as a "terrorist orginaztion" most people do it anyway, but if you're asking why people are actively protesting Israel, then you might want to look at how many people they have killed recently.

How many people has Hamas killed in the last year?

How many people has Israel killed in the last 7 days?

In this case, violence is measured in units of density.

Bull shit!

We've given them very precise weapons, targetting systems, transports and information gathering assets. Israel has some of the finest soldiers on the planet and weapons contracts that would make Arab countries weap.

Pretending like the civilan death toll is nothing but collateral damage or the result of war ignores the advances we've made.

Civilian casulties can be mitigated to a MUCH higher degree then they have been. Israel simply hasn't bothered trying.

Well, that was all VERY interesting. Thank you for sharing, IamMe.

His tax cuts are targeted to Middle and Low income households, where as Bush's were across the board (i.e. Middle and Upper income households). The philosophy behind the former is that they will be spent immediately. They will not be saved or invested, so they will instantly stimulate the economy. The latter may or may not be used appropriately.

Personally, I subscribe to the belief that the former is better - but I guess we're all gonna have a chance to see this put to the test...

Curious to see what the vote turns out to be...

Actually, I agree with you Reaganite... up until the nuking part.

I doubt extremists would find a reason to attack us if we didn't give unabashed support to Israel. But more importantly, a nuclear explosion in the Middle East would be disastorous.

Here's an idea: Let's stop using oil (foreign and domestic) and leave the region to rot?

Oh, that probably wouldn't work either. Politicians need to look "compassionate" for the Jewish vote.

Wow! Who would imagine the sole superpower able to oppose us suggesting a weakened United States...

I would never have seen this coming...

No. Not in a million years. Never.

Oh, NOOOOOOOOW you care about Muslim extremists?

Why didn't you care about them when invaded Iraq? When we gave military aid to Israel? When we supported their current exportation of violence? When we rathceted up tension over Iran - threatening to bomb them?


His office was created to transition the country from one part to the next amidst a massive economic crisis - not to get a foot in the door on his foreign policy. For him to speak on the matter would violate every rule he's supposed to follow as the INCOMING president.

What amazes me is how little opinion the CURRENT preisdent has on the subject but to issue blanket support...

Uh, Bush added entirely new departments and gave them unfettered access to your bedrooms...

The Democrats in Congress did what they do best, which is roll over on their backs, but the point I'm trying to make is Bush did MUCH more to increase the "size" of the government then add a few jobs.

It's better then 10% unemployment, isn't it?

Or could it be proof that the press can print whatever it wants? Even trash like this?

It would be monumentally irresponsible of him to speak on the issue of Gaza and Israel right now. Sharing his long term economic plans with the country and coming out against a terrorist attack DO NOT violate the rules of presidential politics.

He should actually be commended for biting his tongue as hard as he is and I anxiously await to see if his policies are different from the current administrations.

Until he's president, though, his OPINIONS don't actually matter. This editorialist doesn't seem to understand the difference between opinion and policy.