<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Start me up...</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.whereistand.com/brianr/comments/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.whereistand.com/brianr</link>
	<description>Start me up...</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 04:39:21 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on U.S. Retreating From The Enemy by Jim</title>
		<link>http://blogs.whereistand.com/brianr/516#comment-1231</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Aug 2008 04:09:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.whereistand.com/brianr/516#comment-1231</guid>
		<description>Carol

You are such a non Palin girl. PRESIDENT BUSH cannot lead a parade but he can mislead the intellects like you, Biden, and Hilliary. But then, H is so brilliant and all-knowing and she did not know her husband was sleeping with others for 20 years. Oh I am sorry, that was a right wing conspiracy.

JB</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Carol</p>
<p>You are such a non Palin girl. PRESIDENT BUSH cannot lead a parade but he can mislead the intellects like you, Biden, and Hilliary. But then, H is so brilliant and all-knowing and she did not know her husband was sleeping with others for 20 years. Oh I am sorry, that was a right wing conspiracy.</p>
<p>JB</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Study Group Worth A Try by jeff</title>
		<link>http://blogs.whereistand.com/brianr/325#comment-1193</link>
		<dc:creator>jeff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:40:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-1193</guid>
		<description>Good site I \"Stumbledupon\" it today and gave it a stumble for you.. looking forward to seeing what else you have..later</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good site I \&#8221;Stumbledupon\&#8221; it today and gave it a stumble for you.. looking forward to seeing what else you have..later</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Official John McCain Flip Flop List by BrianR</title>
		<link>http://blogs.whereistand.com/brianr/533#comment-1188</link>
		<dc:creator>BrianR</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 23:13:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.whereistand.com/brianr/?p=533#comment-1188</guid>
		<description>I agree, if he chose Palin that could be interesting considering the Clinton factor and the fact that Obama's not going to pick her, which will only further enrage her bitter supporters.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree, if he chose Palin that could be interesting considering the Clinton factor and the fact that Obama&#8217;s not going to pick her, which will only further enrage her bitter supporters.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Official John McCain Flip Flop List by flarex</title>
		<link>http://blogs.whereistand.com/brianr/533#comment-1187</link>
		<dc:creator>flarex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:46:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.whereistand.com/brianr/?p=533#comment-1187</guid>
		<description>Oh look, only 67% -- http://whereistand.com/JohnMcCain/SarahPalin</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh look, only 67% &#8212; <a href="http://whereistand.com/JohnMcCain/SarahPalin" rel="nofollow">http://whereistand.com/JohnMcCain/SarahPalin</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Official John McCain Flip Flop List by flarex</title>
		<link>http://blogs.whereistand.com/brianr/533#comment-1186</link>
		<dc:creator>flarex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:58:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.whereistand.com/brianr/?p=533#comment-1186</guid>
		<description>A female VP would be a brilliant move to garner the spiteful Hillary zealots. I think that most people in this election seem to be crazy nowadays. Fanatics for Obama, fanatics for Hillary, and well, the conservatives were always crazy to begin with.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A female VP would be a brilliant move to garner the spiteful Hillary zealots. I think that most people in this election seem to be crazy nowadays. Fanatics for Obama, fanatics for Hillary, and well, the conservatives were always crazy to begin with.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Who&#8217;s the better candidate on terrorism? by John Maszka</title>
		<link>http://blogs.whereistand.com/brianr/532#comment-1184</link>
		<dc:creator>John Maszka</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Jul 2008 16:01:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.whereistand.com/brianr/?p=532#comment-1184</guid>
		<description>At this point, I'd have to say neither candidate looks promising.

In the 1950s, in the wake of Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” plan, Pakistan obtained a 125 megawatt heavy-water reactor from Canada. After India’s first atomic test in May 1974, Pakistan immediately sought to catch up by attempting to purchase a reprocessing plant from France. After France declined due to U.S. resistance, Pakistan began to assemble a uranium enrichment plant via materials from the black market and technology smuggled through A.Q. Khan. In 1976 and 1977, two amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act were passed, prohibiting American aid to countries pursuing either reprocessing or enrichment capabilities for nuclear weapons programs. 

These two, the Symington and Glenn Amendments, were passed in response to Pakistan’s efforts to achieve nuclear weapons capability; but to little avail. Washington’s cool relations with Islamabad soon improved. During the Reagan administration, the US turned a blind eye to Pakistan’s nuclear weapon’s program. In return for Pakistan’s cooperation and assistance in the mujahideen’s war against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the Reagan administration awarded Pakistan with the third largest economic and military aid package after Israel and Egypt. Despite the Pressler Amendment, which made US aid contingent upon the Reagan administration’s annual confirmation that Pakistan was not pursuing nuclear weapons capability, Reagan’s “laissez-faire” approach to Pakistan’s nuclear program seriously aided the proliferation issues that we face today. 

Not only did Pakistan continue to develop its own nuclear weapons program, but A.Q. Khan was instrumental in proliferating nuclear technology to other countries as well. Further, Pakistan’s progress toward nuclear capability led to India’s return to its own pursuit of nuclear weapons, an endeavor it had given up after its initial test in 1974. In 1998, both countries had tested nuclear weapons. A uranium-based nuclear device in Pakistan; and a plutonium-based device in India.

Over the years of America's on again- off again support of Pakistan, Musharraf continues to be skeptical of his American allies. In 2002 he is reported to have told a British official that his “great concern is that one day the United States is going to desert me. They always desert their friends.” Musharraf was referring to Viet Nam, Lebanon, Somalia ... etc., etc., etc., 

Taking the war to Pakistan is perhaps the most foolish thing America can do. Obama is not the first to suggest it, and we already have sufficient evidence of the potentially negative repercussions of such an action. On January 13, 2006, the United States launched a missile strike on the village of Damadola, Pakistan. Rather than kill the targeted Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s deputy leader, the strike instead slaughtered 17 locals. This only served to further weaken the Musharraf government and further destabilize the entire area. In a nuclear state like Pakistan, this was not only unfortunate, it was outright stupid. Pakistan has 160 million Arabs (better than half of the population of the entire Arab world). Pakistan also has the support of China and a nuclear arsenal. 

I predict that America’s military action in the Middle East will enter the canons of history alongside Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Holocaust, in kind if not in degree. The Bush administration’s war on terror marks the age in which America has again crossed a line that many argue should never be crossed. Call it preemption, preventive war, the war on terror, or whatever you like; there is a sense that we have again unleashed a force that, like a boom-a-rang, at some point has to come back to us. The Bush administration argues that American military intervention in the Middle East is purely in self-defense. Others argue that it is pure aggression. The consensus is equally as torn over its impact on international terrorism. Is America truly deterring future terrorists with its actions? Or is it, in fact, aiding the recruitment of more terrorists? 

The last thing the United States should do at this point and time is to violate yet another state’s sovereignty. Beyond being wrong, it just isn't very smart. We all agree that slavery in this country was wrong; as was the decimation of the Native American populations. We all agree that the Holocaust and several other acts of genocide in the twentieth century were wrong. So when will we finally admit that American military intervention in the Middle East is wrong as well?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>At this point, I&#8217;d have to say neither candidate looks promising.</p>
<p>In the 1950s, in the wake of Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” plan, Pakistan obtained a 125 megawatt heavy-water reactor from Canada. After India’s first atomic test in May 1974, Pakistan immediately sought to catch up by attempting to purchase a reprocessing plant from France. After France declined due to U.S. resistance, Pakistan began to assemble a uranium enrichment plant via materials from the black market and technology smuggled through A.Q. Khan. In 1976 and 1977, two amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act were passed, prohibiting American aid to countries pursuing either reprocessing or enrichment capabilities for nuclear weapons programs. </p>
<p>These two, the Symington and Glenn Amendments, were passed in response to Pakistan’s efforts to achieve nuclear weapons capability; but to little avail. Washington’s cool relations with Islamabad soon improved. During the Reagan administration, the US turned a blind eye to Pakistan’s nuclear weapon’s program. In return for Pakistan’s cooperation and assistance in the mujahideen’s war against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the Reagan administration awarded Pakistan with the third largest economic and military aid package after Israel and Egypt. Despite the Pressler Amendment, which made US aid contingent upon the Reagan administration’s annual confirmation that Pakistan was not pursuing nuclear weapons capability, Reagan’s “laissez-faire” approach to Pakistan’s nuclear program seriously aided the proliferation issues that we face today. </p>
<p>Not only did Pakistan continue to develop its own nuclear weapons program, but A.Q. Khan was instrumental in proliferating nuclear technology to other countries as well. Further, Pakistan’s progress toward nuclear capability led to India’s return to its own pursuit of nuclear weapons, an endeavor it had given up after its initial test in 1974. In 1998, both countries had tested nuclear weapons. A uranium-based nuclear device in Pakistan; and a plutonium-based device in India.</p>
<p>Over the years of America&#8217;s on again- off again support of Pakistan, Musharraf continues to be skeptical of his American allies. In 2002 he is reported to have told a British official that his “great concern is that one day the United States is going to desert me. They always desert their friends.” Musharraf was referring to Viet Nam, Lebanon, Somalia &#8230; etc., etc., etc., </p>
<p>Taking the war to Pakistan is perhaps the most foolish thing America can do. Obama is not the first to suggest it, and we already have sufficient evidence of the potentially negative repercussions of such an action. On January 13, 2006, the United States launched a missile strike on the village of Damadola, Pakistan. Rather than kill the targeted Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s deputy leader, the strike instead slaughtered 17 locals. This only served to further weaken the Musharraf government and further destabilize the entire area. In a nuclear state like Pakistan, this was not only unfortunate, it was outright stupid. Pakistan has 160 million Arabs (better than half of the population of the entire Arab world). Pakistan also has the support of China and a nuclear arsenal. </p>
<p>I predict that America’s military action in the Middle East will enter the canons of history alongside Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Holocaust, in kind if not in degree. The Bush administration’s war on terror marks the age in which America has again crossed a line that many argue should never be crossed. Call it preemption, preventive war, the war on terror, or whatever you like; there is a sense that we have again unleashed a force that, like a boom-a-rang, at some point has to come back to us. The Bush administration argues that American military intervention in the Middle East is purely in self-defense. Others argue that it is pure aggression. The consensus is equally as torn over its impact on international terrorism. Is America truly deterring future terrorists with its actions? Or is it, in fact, aiding the recruitment of more terrorists? </p>
<p>The last thing the United States should do at this point and time is to violate yet another state’s sovereignty. Beyond being wrong, it just isn&#8217;t very smart. We all agree that slavery in this country was wrong; as was the decimation of the Native American populations. We all agree that the Holocaust and several other acts of genocide in the twentieth century were wrong. So when will we finally admit that American military intervention in the Middle East is wrong as well?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Official John McCain Flip Flop List by Ted</title>
		<link>http://blogs.whereistand.com/brianr/533#comment-1178</link>
		<dc:creator>Ted</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 01:54:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.whereistand.com/brianr/?p=533#comment-1178</guid>
		<description>You're out of luck -- and the Democrats are out of luck -- because the GOP ticket is gonna be McCain/Palin (and that does seem unbeatable).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re out of luck &#8212; and the Democrats are out of luck &#8212; because the GOP ticket is gonna be McCain/Palin (and that does seem unbeatable).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Who would Osama vote for? by Teri Calhoun</title>
		<link>http://blogs.whereistand.com/brianr/519#comment-1177</link>
		<dc:creator>Teri Calhoun</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.whereistand.com/brianr/519#comment-1177</guid>
		<description>Very well said young man!  When the possibility of war in Iraq was first mentioned bin Laden was rumored to be in the area of Kashmir.  Why is the Pentagon just now saying that as if it were news?  I'm sick of seeing our young men die
to line rich men's pockets.  War is an industry and always has been.  What ever happened to peace talks?  Will our species ever mature enough to outgrow war?  Tomorrow is Independence Day.  I'm sure that in and around 1776 the British thought we were just a bunch of ignorant thugs and terrorists too.  Now they think we are a good investment.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very well said young man!  When the possibility of war in Iraq was first mentioned bin Laden was rumored to be in the area of Kashmir.  Why is the Pentagon just now saying that as if it were news?  I&#8217;m sick of seeing our young men die<br />
to line rich men&#8217;s pockets.  War is an industry and always has been.  What ever happened to peace talks?  Will our species ever mature enough to outgrow war?  Tomorrow is Independence Day.  I&#8217;m sure that in and around 1776 the British thought we were just a bunch of ignorant thugs and terrorists too.  Now they think we are a good investment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Hillary: Superdelegates Could &#8220;Change Their Minds&#8221; by Nitin</title>
		<link>http://blogs.whereistand.com/brianr/525#comment-1162</link>
		<dc:creator>Nitin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:42:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.whereistand.com/brianr/525#comment-1162</guid>
		<description>My biggest concern is that she is setting the stage for a retry in 2012. If that is the case then you're right; she will drag this out to the very end, exacerbating the damage she has already done and "tearing apart" the party in the process. Meanwhile the overwhelming losers in all of this are the policy oriented democrats who started the primary season with two fantastic candidates and will end up with a diametrically opposed republican in the oval office.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My biggest concern is that she is setting the stage for a retry in 2012. If that is the case then you&#8217;re right; she will drag this out to the very end, exacerbating the damage she has already done and &#8220;tearing apart&#8221; the party in the process. Meanwhile the overwhelming losers in all of this are the policy oriented democrats who started the primary season with two fantastic candidates and will end up with a diametrically opposed republican in the oval office.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Remembering &#8220;The Maverick&#8221; by feran</title>
		<link>http://blogs.whereistand.com/brianr/524#comment-1131</link>
		<dc:creator>feran</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2008 18:58:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.whereistand.com/brianr/524#comment-1131</guid>
		<description>You should make a Public Figure account called JohnMcCain2000, and then we can post evidence on it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You should make a Public Figure account called JohnMcCain2000, and then we can post evidence on it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>



<script type="text/javascript">
var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");
document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));
</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-1081993-2");
pageTracker._initData();
pageTracker._trackPageview();
</script>