>>>>I have to admit: it was a funny bill but the idea is sound:
>>>>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/15/house-prepares-chop-spending-remainder/
>>>
>>>What idea ??
>>>Someone actually proposed ending Afganistan/Iraq wars and consecutively cutting military budgets by half ?? {g}
>>>Thaat could indeed make whole world of difference in curbing your enormous deficits! (Never mind avoiding ww3 and making whole world much better/safer/happier place)
>>>
>>>Or we are heading in completely different direction ;
>>>http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/empire/2010/10/20101025152732205454.html
>>
>>What would make the world an even happier, safer place is if Pakistan completely caves to the folks in ISI who brought us the Taliban and starts selling, losing or using the nukes ! Cool. No worries about the quick reaction force no longer being at Baghram - that will be controlled by the Taliban. But I'm sure India has a contingency plan.
>>
>>Upshot may not do much for global warming, but it will definitely change the numbers for those worried about over-population.
>>
>>Or is Cyprus ready to step in and fix things?
>
>
>I tought you wld have hidden boogeyman ready up your sleeve. {g}
>So you actually believe that by occupying Afganistan/Irag, while bombing scores of civilians in Pakistan, you are protecting the whole world from nuclear dissasterer ?? That is indeed fresh flower in total boredom of common/cheap brainwashing.
>I though CIA anf ISI are almost sister companies, what happened all of a sudden; some money gonne missing ?

If you think ISI and CIA are brothers in arms you know little about either. We worked with them in the 80s because we had little choice. Like the Saudi Royal family, if we could engineer a way to help one half of them kill the other half, we'd get a better outcome <s> ( some truth to applying that formula to our own intelligence community )

No, we are not protecting the world from Pak nukes and some of what we are doing in Pakistan and Afghanistan works in the other direction ( and some doesn't )

But in the world of tough choices - not bumper sticker slogans meant to appeal to college kids and "the street" - it is very very complicated.

Abolishing the CIA, pulling US troops out of everywhere but Kansas, and unilateral US disarmament is not a solution or a step in that direction.

If you think Pak nukes and the very real potential of their going walkabout is a bogeyman, fine. But what you think isn't really important. What is important is what happens to those nukes and to the mess of true believers and kleptocrats that currently "guard" them. I'm not sure we can do anything about that, but I'm also not sure our complete uninvolvement in their future is going to make anybody safer.

What would probably make us safer is if we could trade our idiot director of national intelligence, Clapper, to the other team <s>