I support the notion that the future can be anything we make it. Hopefully cool heads will prevail and prevent anything resembling armegedon.

Give it a rest and don't be rude.

Right, well I just don't like the continual anti-US bias I am reading. That part is pretty clear. If I latch on to a comment out of the middle of what someone writes because I don't like it, maybe there was something wrong with the particular comment. Even though there may have been only one thing I didn't like, I might have disliked it quite a lot. At one point the rest of it doesn't matter so much. Context doesn't fix the problem.

I think the trouble here may in fact be ideology. In my opinion, freedom of the way a person lives their life is very important. I think that the US supports freedoms for individuals. I think Russia does less so, China does less so, Iran does not at all unless you walk the party line. Generally it is a communism vs capitalism issue, but it is more complex when you throw religion and socialism into the mix.

My personal political view has room for the needs of the people who can not take care of themselves, and opportunities to get ahead for those who apply themselves. And in either case the right to enjoy your life and do the things you want, so long as your choices are not likely to harm others.

What I would like to see is some movement towards moderation in such things in all countries. I do not favor one world government.

I want to see more focus on development of food and water supplies for those who need them, and a trend away from petroleum resources as a source of energy.

I do not want to see people bombing others to make their politics prevail, in the case of terrorists or countries. But I prefer to have the power in the hands of a law driven government rather than in the hands of renegade zealots. I will support that with my views and my actions.

Countries who are law driven now, in this age include mostly countries of Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia and to a lesser degree some few others. As governments move towards totalitarian regimes they move away from the rule of law and towards the rule of force, within their own country. Their international politics follow the same pattern.

Countries who run their world like an open book, such as the United States are easy to criticize. But they have a tendency to actually behave more reasonably, because public opinion has such heavy weight in decisions. Not always are the perfect choices made, but they work towards getting better, and those who make mistakes get a lot of trouble for it.

I hardly think that half the people in the US are war hawks. Most would prefer to never fight a war. It took years to get the US into WW2, so hard was the resistance to involvement. So don't get the idea that the United States needs to be chastened nearly so much as it needs support, ideologically and in other ways. Needs support, and deserves it too. Whichever country you live in, when some outside power wants to crush your government and shackle your people, the United States and the people of the United States would be opposed to that action. Don't forget it.

Your comment "If Bush's outing, and the emergence of Russia as a dissenting perspective are enough to heed the 'genie', maybe China will will give it a gentle slap behind the head, and get the 'genie' back in its hole!!!" was specifically what I was referring to. If you prefer to have the US slapped for trying to moderate the effects of religious fundamentalist extremists then I would suggest you are not making a wise choice.

No Kid, I don't believe that could be the case. It could be the pretense for a lot of discussion, but as a practical matter, taking over the world means controlling the world, and there aren't even enough Americans to manage the details, without the issue of trying to force them.

It's been pretty clear that the United States has been endeavoring to deal fairly with peace loving peoples everywhere. Some may argue the point, but a hell of a lot of history goes to support the position.

The God comment, goes both ways. Apply it to mohammed as thoroughly.

Your comment is completely unreasonable. Both Russia and China have huge stores of nuclear weapons. If that is not superpower status what is? If you think that does not moderate US activity you are not thinking clearly. You speak as if there is no threat to the United States if it just does whatever it wants.

Clearly you really dislike the US don't you Voil, suggesting that China should give the US a slap. What makes you think that China could do so if the US were the only superpower.

You talk as if there is no problem finding political solutions to everything, but your own bias makes it obvious that some people can not be satisfied. The United States looked for a solution to the Iraq issue for years, and now they have been with Iran for more years. For that country the work has been ongoing and tolerant since 1979, and the country remained a problem to peace in the region and is continuing to get worse.

It seems to me you are going to keep taking shots at the United States no matter how they try to find political solutions. That sort of attitude is part of the problem. Work on the political solutions instead of just taking cheap, idealogical pot shots.

Oops, sorry, there was an issue with posting.

None of that is such a dilemma for me. I know where I stand. I think some of this may be difficult for others to resolve, which was my point.

As for the advances in human nature, around 600 AD mohammed was attacking caravans and stealing their wealth for the greater glory of mohammed. Now 1400 years later his followers bomb innocent civilians to make their political hay. I would suggest there is more of a need of development there than with those who are trying to protect others from their zealotry and murder.

If your response is to suggest that torture is worse than murder, which can be assumed since your criticism only goes in the one direction then there is not much point in discussing civilization or philosophy, because any criticisms you might have are a fraud.

If you argue that one sort of extremism (murder) does not justify the other kind of extremism (torture), you are talking to the wrong person because I already agree with that. A better course would be to look for a solution to the first. I would suggest that the first problem was the murder, labeled as terrorism, and that the question of torture followed.

Finally I would suggest you find another target for your criticism anyway because as it stands I am quite moderate, and I'm growing a little bored with your continual attacks. I haven't time or temperament for the color of your arguments.

Lizard, you're right I don't do the blogs much, and I know there is a prevalence of the abbreviated typing and poor spelling. That hardly justifies it though. It is not much effort to type things correctly and I just don't think we need a new language quite yet.

One more thing, if you think our means to torture are nastier than in the past, read a little about the middle ages. Burning someone alive hardly rates with exposing them to cold on and off for some period of time. Still I am not trying to justify any sort of torture by this comment.

None of that is such a dilemma for me. I know where I stand. I think some of this may be difficult for others to resolve, which was my point.

As for the advances in human nature, around 600 AD mohammed was attacking caravans and stealing their wealth for the greater glory of mohammed. Now 1400 years later his followers bomb innocent civilians to make their political hay. I would suggest there is more of a need of development there than with those who are trying to protect others from their zealotry and murder.

If your response is to suggest that torture is worse than murder, which can be assumed since your criticism only goes in the one direction then there is not much point in discussing civilization or philosophy, because any criticisms you might have are a fraud.

If you argue that one sort of extremism (murder) does not justify the other kind of extremism (torture), you are talking to the wrong person because I already agree with that. A better course would be to look for a solution to the first. I would suggest that the first problem was the murder, labeled as terrorism, and that the question of torture followed.

Finally I would suggest you find another target for your criticism anyway because as it stands I am quite moderate, and I'm growing a little bored with your continual attacks. I haven't time or temperament for the color of your arguments.

Lizard, you're right I don't do the blogs much, and I know there is a prevalence of the abbreviated typing and poor spelling. That hardly justifies it though. It is not much effort to type things correctly and I just don't think we need a new language quite yet.

One more thing, if you think our means to torture are nastier than in the past, read a little about the middle ages. Burning someone alive hardly rates with exposing them to cold on and off for some period of time. Still I am not trying to justify any sort of torture by this comment.

OK fine, but I have a hard time with cute little typing shortcuts of the now generation.

As for the rest of that other stuff you typed, your comments are valid and well made but have nothing to do with my comment.

I made a nice point, in opposition to torture and pointed out a dilemma. If that stuff is too difficult to make sense out of take a little time to think about it.

I could ease up on the Lizard king a little, so I'll accept that criticism, but please, spell things in a regular manner. I have issues with reading improperly spelled and arranged sentences. I can do it, but I prefer not to, mainly because it is an annoyance.

The United States as a superpower? Well, not so much a super power as you might think. Everything done in this world is done in public, nobody is in a vacuum. The United States, like other countries has to get along with others.

Keep in mind that for some number of years the United States has done a lot to help insure the peace and prosperity, and free trade within the world. Without the enormous effort of the United States, and the sacrifice made by the American people, most of the world right now would be in the hand of despots.

In the tradition of the great thinkers who framed our constitution and bill of rights, Americans have endeavored to help others realize these freedoms in their lives and countries as well. Now when times are difficult with the rise of Islamic Fascists, people want to desert the United States in droves, just in the name of criticizing the big guy, without regard for the reasoning behind the country's actions.

If you don't support the countries who are supporting your freedoms and your way of life, eventually you may find that your way of life is no longer.

I'm not so easily impressed. I recognize good points when made, but develop them with a little more detail.

I still do not support torture.

lets hope not
and
2 != to

too many of these words of wisdom and lucidity lacked depth or understanding

school != skol

I'm just saying this because some of the comments I have read here make me wince.

For the record, as I have said before, I oppose torture of prisoners on the basis of cruelty. I also oppose terrorism on the same basis. So there is the dilemma people are wrestling with. Many of you here will favor one over the other it seems. For me if I had to choose which I hate more I would not like to do so. Terrorists have to be fought by special means, but I'm not sure torture is in the mix.

Free trade.

I buy finished goods from overseas cheaper than I can buy raw materials here. I sell these products in the US. If I do not purchase at the low prices I can find overseas I can not sell, because my sales price is too high. So forget it, I'm buying overseas or out of the market.

I prefer to manufacture locally, and to some extent I do, where I can do so economically. Freight costs come into factor when making the distinction between what to manufacture locally vs what to purchase overseas.

Since we design all our own products, our purchasing overseas means that some of our technology goes overseas with the purchase process. I really don't like that, but we protect ourselves in some measure by reserving certain processes to be performed here.

As long as there are no tariffs to balance the playing field, my dollars will continue to go overseas. I haven't got a lot of choice.

Even if you are my next door neighbor, I cannot buy from you if your price is too high.

Tariffs will give local companies some edge in sales, allowing them to produce products which they could not do profitably in the past.

I remain a critic of the free trade arrangements which are promoted in the interest of globalization.

There is an exception, in my way of thinking. For countries which remain in an underprivileged status, such as economically depressed regions. Some of these may be small enough to not largely affect our trade balance or manufacturing capacity. These countries may need some special benefits to enable them to have some access to our markets so that they might have special incentive to remain in the democratic sphere of governments. I do not think it is reasonable, for example to let a country such as Ecuador, go communist just because we denied them free trade status.

It might be a small thing with large benefits to help your neighbor in some cases.

Don't feel too bad. I had a poli-sci prof who lectured us on one thing, had us read textbooks and other books for another bunch of stuff and gave exams on a third set. The three never overlapped, and his grading method was always ambiguous. Passing that class depended an unknown standard.

Can we get off the torture thread already? People are not going to agree or change their minds on this one. There is a lot of partisan rhetoric intended to divide the parties and a lot of heated disagreement.

Probably we can find some points to agree about, including the importance of human rights, national image and security. We can hope that the heads in power will have the common sense to show restraint and that others will recognize the restraint and ease up on the rhetoric. Yelling murderer at one another is not going to solve the problem.

What did that say, anybody have a summary? No way I have time.

I notice that was all within 2 months.

I think Hanged Man pretty much covered the issue.

I hardly think waterboarding was ever punishable by life in prison or the death penalty. That doesn't mean I approve of the practice though.

I just stepped back in to mention something. The comment was made that Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize for his averting war over nuclear matters with North Korea.

I would remind everyone of two things. First Yasser Arafat was also awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. That checker-headed pirate was sending boys to their death for decades with bombs strapped to their bellies. Mostly the suicide bombers looked for soft targets, women and children, whoever would create the biggest media circus.

On the issue of uniforms, I think there may be some distinction about whether a combatant is in the service of a country rather than in the service of some international gang of anarchists. One is a soldier, whether his country's cause is right or wrong, the other is a criminal.

Second, Carter's foray into international negotiation with North Korea, actually gave them the nuke. Look at your news stories over the last few years. Furthermore there is some indication that they are supporting Syria and Iran with nuclear and missile technology even now as they claim to be putting the final cap on denuclearization talks.

So Carter is in good company with his "peace" prize. Good luck supporting Carter in intelligent company.

Well now, on the issue of torture, I am opposed to it. I just happened to get the idea that this post was mostly about supporting Carter's view on anti-Americanism. I highly doubt Carter is well informed on the matter and certainly he is not an impartial observer, carrying his anti-Bush vitriol firmly in place wherever he goes.

Sorry Voil, an enormous number of people agree with my sentiments on Carter. I'm not going to try to rehash the rebuttal to your comments. It is all so old as to be stale. So there is my opinion. Don't care much about changing your mind, even though your analysis is lacking in depth.

Somebody could spend a little more time reading the King George Bible.

Was that funny? Ha ha ha ha. I just loved it.

Huckabee, Thompson, Romney, they all pale compared to Cheney, but at least they are picking up the flag.

Usually if you want to impress sheep you would dress as a sheep and then suddenly show your teeth, but if I wanted to impress wolves you would dress as a wolf but then it might be a little more risky to suddenly show your wool. So Brykers, good job on that. Personally I prefer to be more direct. All that bleating gets so annoying anyway.

Hillary the hawk, imagine that. She would attack Iran in a minute. Did anyone notice that about her? I'm concerned about her fiscal policies because I have to pay so much tax already, but the tax train is running pretty fast already. Maybe we should all just lay down on the track and let it run over us, for the sake of the children, after all who can resist the children.

Rudy is a really unfortunate front runner. I just don't think he has the horsepower. McCain would be more presidential. So would Romney. So would Thompson. I expect Hillary would bungle things terribly but the list of reasons is so long I don't have time to go into it now. It is not so simple as a few snippy partisan comments so it will have to wait.