Many people have called it the forgotten war but no one is going to be able to overlook the war in Afghanistan for much longer. More Coalition forces are being killed in Afghanistan than they are in Iraq these days. The war that has been on the back burner for years is starting to be something that is making it into the news more often these days.

Much like the war in Iraq it is hard to truly define where the war in Afghanistan is going. What exactly is the purpose and when will it be over? Neither one of these questions have clear cut answers. However, soldiers are being shipped over to Afghanistan on a regular basis and many of them are losing their lives.

Bush is contemplating sending more troops to Afghanistan. That means that more lives will be in danger. It also means that the war will continue to progress but progress towards what? If troops are going to continually be asked to sacrifice themselves for a war I think that they deserve to know where all of this is going.

The Afghanistan mission began as a quest for the ever elusive bin Laden who is still alive, free and making video statements when he feels like it. The Taliban is out of office but the country is still split on how it feels about that obviously because soldiers are being murdered still.

Bush acknowledges that June was a bad month for American and allied troops in Afghanistan. However, he also says that the month was a tough one for Taliban militants. While this may be true, the only problem with this observation is that we don’t know exactly how many Taliban militants there are. Therefore, while it may have been a month where many militants were killed, there could be hundreds, maybe even thousands more to take their place. 46 foreign troops died in the month of June in Afghanistan, 15 more than the number killed in Iraq. 28 of those were American troops which makes June the deadliest month for American and foreign troops since the war in Afghanistan began.

Bush says that the increase in deaths is due to the fact that troops are taking the fight to the Taliban forces. However, he does not really set out the clear strategy that is going to lead to the end of the war. I think that most of us just want to know at what point we can say, hey, the war is coming to an end.

June is the second month in a row that more troops have died in Afghanistan than they have in Iraq. This is very troubling because it seems like the3 war that was not supposed to really be a war has turned into something much more over the past few months. The number of deaths in may doubled in June and that means that something is changing in Afghanistan. We can choose to trust what Bush says, although I don’t recommend it, or come up with some conclusions of our own.

I read a report that really, truly scares my soul. It is reported that the Bush administration which has launched an endless war in Iraq is ready to start a war in Iran. I hope that these rumors are simply not true. Surely there is someone in the administration that is smart enough o recognize the fact that a new war just would not be good for anyone in the world.

The reasons for attacking Iran are not strong enough. I can not imagine that because Iran will allow access to information regarding their nuclear program that their country needs to be attacked. Will the U.S. really attack Iran because of this? I would hope that someone was smart enough to stand up and tell the Bush administration that another war would not only thin out our taxed military but it also would tie the country into another war in a land the we are not familiar with. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been waged in regions where the residents are not sure if they are happy or not about the foreign presence.

At some point world leaders are going to have to recognize the power of talking to one another. Dead bodies and destroyed cities and towns does not make the world a better place. Instead, war makes the entire planet a worst place. Someone has to find a way to stop acting before speaking.

The U.S. says that there are no plans to attack Iran. Hopefully that is the truth and world leaders will be able to come together and talk things out. Recently North Korea decided to declare what was happening in their nuclear program and they recently destroyed their reactor. I don’t know what prompted that but I imagine it was the reason why might be that they need help from the rest of the world. North Korea needs food and aide from other countries in the world. Thus, they decided to give up the reactor.

There is speculation that Iran is helping launch attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq. The U.S. ambassador in Baghdad denies that raids are being launched by the U.S. on Iran from Iraq. Bush continues to say that every option is available when it comes to dealing with Iran. However, those involved in the Iraq mission claim that attacks are not being planned or launched from Iraq or Afghanistan. I hope that those claims are true.

Like I’ve stated before, deciding that one country can have nuclear reactors and others can not is very tricky business. Is it appropriate for the country that has nuclear reactors to tell another country that they can not have one? This is a good question that has sparked controversy throughout the world. While I am in favor of peace and harmony, I also understand fairness. Wish that no one had nuclear weapons, but if one person does, what makes it inappropriate for others to not have them? Those are questions that, I guess, have no right answers.

Israel might attack Iran if they do not suspend their nuclear program. The United States has ordered Iran to stop their nuclear program. I am very confused about why the United States and Israel feel like they have the right to tell other countries what they should do. Why is it okay for some countries to have nuclear operations but not for others? Isn’t there a possibility that the nuclear operation is truly being used for energy like they say it is? What is Israel attacks and Iran is really only using nuclear energy for good things.? Then there will be another war raged on false pretenses. Surely the world does not need that.

A few weeks ago I was watching the news and I saw the Evangelical church is joining hands with Jews. At first I thought, wonderful, beautiful, because I really love to see different faiths come together and take part in one another’s religion. Then the story went on and my joy ceased. Apparently there are a few Evangelical churches that see the Iranian president as the devil. This was a joining point for the Jews and the Evangelicals. Come on folks, we are smarter than that right? Just because someone is not Christian or Jewish it does not make them evil. It also does not make them a mastermind war monger either.

The Jewish Muslim conflict is one that spans a long history but I really just do not understand why the hatred has to be endless. Why is there not a way to fix this terrible wound on mankind? Surely there is a way for everyone to coexist and get some of what they want.

As far as the nuclear program goes, other countries have them. The United States is one of them. He assumption is that the United States knows what to do with nuclear energy and even though everyone knows that the country possesses weapons of mass destruction, the United States think that they know what to do with them. Well, isn’t it possible that other countries, including Iran, are truly trying to grow their nuclear energy program for good purposes. Everyone knows that there is a major energy crisis. Perhaps they are working on ways to cope with that.

I hope and pray there no other countries are invaded because of what someone thinks tat they are doing. I mean, without proof there is no reason to even consider invading someone’s country. Israel needs to reevaluate what they are saying and doing right now before more people end up dead. As an ally, the United States needs to ask Israel to step down and stop these threats. Let’s try to be grown ups and wait for something definite before murdering people. War is not the answer to this question. Come up with a better solution and try that before starting yet another war. Zimbabwe is in shambles. If anyone wants to intrude on another country, that is the place to go, not Iran.

After five years of fighting along side American troops in Iraq, Australian soldiers will no longer be involved in the seemingly endless war. Australia committed troops to the war in Iraq five years ago and was one of the first countries to join the U.S in Iraq. Now the new prime minister Kevin Rudd has made good on his promise to have all of Australia’s 550 troops home by mid 2008.

This comes on the tail end of growing hostility around the world about the war in Iraq. Even former supporters are finding that they just don’t see an end point in sight and the goals of the offensive have been blurred. Every since the premise of the war has been rebuked it has been hard to keep up the initial rhetoric of the Iraq war. Without weapons of mass destruction being in the picture the reasons are few and far in-between. Many of the countries that joined forces with the United States are getting backlash from their citizens. No one wants to be a target for hostility and any country involved in the Iraq war is bound to be on someone’s least favorites list.

As time stretches on and the solutions of the Iraq war become less and less clear, there are more governments that have to pull their troops out. The reduction of troops by one country will require that more troops from another country be sent over. That is why things like stop-loss(the reassignment of troops that have already finished their tour of duty) are becoming more prevalent.

The pullout of troops in Iraq has been a good selling point for several different politicians. Countries that have troops in Iraq have seen representatives that promise to bring troops home being very successful. The interesting point about politicians that use the pullout of troops as a campaign promise are actually doing it. Kevin Rudd was elected in November and he has already made good on his promise to get troops out of Australia. The quick turn around shows that even though politicians are known for using issues as campaign strategies and not following through, having troops in Iraq is one of those things that politicians and everyday citizens both have strong views about.

Over the next few months a new president will be elected in the United States. If a democrat is elected, the offensive in Iraq may be in danger. However, since the United States was the country that began the offensive, it will be very difficult for them to pull troops out of the country. What type of future does Iraq have with or without the United States troops fighting a war that has no clearly defined lines? Now that the U.S. has interrupted the flow of things in Iraq, is pulling out troops realistic? It is hard to say at this point but if a candidate is elected that has promised to bring troops home, citizens of the U.S. will expect to see that happen.

This may come to a surprise to many of us but the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq says that Al Qaida is closer to defeat than ever before. Of course, we don’t know how close or far from defeat Al Qaida has been over the years. This news is an interesting but is it really encouraging? Will this lead to an end of the Iraqi War?

At this point it seems that Al Qaida is less of a concern than some of the other insurgents that are rising up. While Al Qaida may be sending messages through the streets of Iraq, it seems that they are not the sole proprietor of chaos and anti-western sentiment. The idea that democracy will always work is as silly as the idea that communism will always work. Different places require different governing tactics and now that this democracy has been installed in Iraq, the main question is can the U.S. really leave Iraq even after al Qaida is defeated?

The obvious answer is no. Iraq has a long way to go before it will be a fully functioning viable country again. The reports about the lack of electricity and the water that is not fit to drink are still coming out and suicide bombers are prone to pop up in various places. Al-Sadr City the so called safe and clear zone has been the subject of many attacks over the past few months. This was the portion of the country that was said to be secured but what we have seen lately looks like a false sense of security. Could this report from the U.S. Ambassador be the same thing?

After the defeat of Al Qaida will troops be able to leave Iraq? Will all of the promises that were made by the U.S. government be met? These are serious issues to consider when a country invades another one and uproots their government. Issues that it is obvious that George W. Bush did not take into account when he decided that oil rich Iraq would be a great place to attack based on false presumptions. The truth about the invasion of Iraq and the war that Bush has declared victory in several times over the past few years, is that it has a long way to go. The U.S. lead invasion of Iraq must finish what it began and that is easier said than done.

The green light to leave Iraq will not come with one event, even an event as monumental as the defeat of Al Qaida. There will have to be a number of things that occur before troops can withdraw and Iraq will be a country of its own will again. Winning the war is only half the battle. There is much more work to be done in Iraq and the majority of it can not be accomplished with guns. The solutions lie far beyond any bullet or military offensive. The changes that have occurred in the country will take a while to get used to and since Iraq is not in a stable position yet, the adjusting has not even begun.