> It's non politically correct for a reason... it's a blanket statement likes the ones I'm making about America and as you're going to lengths to show such statements can't be accurate. And "evil" is a lot stronger than what I'm saying.

Sam's post said everything I would have on this issue. If you think Hussein is not evil then we really do not have any room to discuss the issue. We can debate whether or not Hussein should be removed from power by the U.S. but I see no argument you could make to say Hussein is misunderstood or some such.

I'm going to great lengths to show why your statements are wrong. Not that they couldn't be true. It's theoretically possible that the U.S. could wind up with an evil dictatorship. At such time you're more than welcome to call it evil.

> Well, as I recall he told students at a college that you too can become president with a C-average, or something very similar, which doesn't quite equal stupid, but I for one would feel happier with somebody beyond mediocre at best as a president.

Other people have handled this better than I would have, but let me point out something about the American character that may or may not be obvious to foreigners: as a whole, we really don't have much respect for intellectualism. This isn't to say we don't appreciate intelligence, just that we don't place much value on "book smarts" and the academic world. We are a fundamentally pragmatic people, and I think we differ from much of the western world this way. There are good and bad aspects to this belief, but my point is we have a huge history of electing presidents who seemed more "down-to-earth."

Our most respected president to this day is George Washington, a man who didn't finish high school and was woefully uneducated for a member of the upper class at the time (if memory serves he didn't even speak French, which was the international language). Abraham Lincoln, probably the second most respected president, was also pretty much uneducated.

In other words, doing too well in school and talking about it is almost a negative if you're running for president. I think it's possible that Bush played up this angle *intentionally,* especially in contrast to Gore who was practically the poster child for stuffy intellectuals.

>
> Do you think the environment doesn't matter?

Of course I don't think that. But the U.S. had a number of reasons to reject Kyoto, not the least of which was the fact it completely ignored developing countries.

> That criminals other than the ones who attack the US should be ignored?

Nope. But as Sam said, it's not *our* job, or the U.N.'s job, to deal with them. I see no compelling reason for a standing international court for criminals, especially if it would mean its decisions would be binding. Of course, since pretty much nothing the U.N. does is binding, the whole thing is a farce and a waste of time anyway.

> The US _does_ have a responsibility as such a powerful nation to improve the lot of humanity beyond their own shores, something which in many instances they shirk (and in many others sure, they are doing a perfectly good job - but not enough of these).

Okay, you and I disagree on the fundamental role of governments. Quoting from the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

There you go. The role of governments is to protect the life, liberty and property* of its citizens. There is nothing in there about in general making the world (or even the country!) a "better place." Government's role is to protect me from other people who would seek to use force against me. Granted, it does quite a bit more than that and this is often to its detriment.

There is more to it, than that, though. Governments aren't these charitable bodies that exist to do nice things. Quite the opposite. To paraphrase the 19th century French economist Frederic Bastiat (his work "The Law" is a great text that will probably make you reconsider some notions you hold about the nature of governments; a link is included below): government is the organization of the right of man to defend himself using force. Because of this, governments inherently use force to get their way. Carry this further, and we realize that whenever you a pay a tax, you are being coerced to do so (Bastiat called it "legal plunder"). As such, I find it morally reprehensible for my government to use *my* resources which it took *against my will with the threat of violence* on things that do not benefit me!

This does not mean that I think we should ignore all foreign involvement -- the lessons of World Wars I and II prove how ignoring seemingly local instability can drag the entire world, U.S. included, into conflict. It does, however, mean that our job isn't to "make the world a better place." It's to serve our own interests. Often, serving these interests can be humanitarian in nature. Promoting stability, prosperity and democracy usually provide generous returns in the form of allies and trading partners. But my government has a moral obligation to put my interests ahead of anybody from other countries.

> If the US made more effort at an international level then a lot of progress could be made in creating an international community, which I for one feel would improve the world.

I see this sort of argument a lot and really don't understand it. What sort of "international community" do you want? We have an internataional community in the United Nations and it can't do a lot. The U.S. also has a military alliance (NATO) that has proven effective for us. We also have diplomatic relations with virtually every sovereign country in the world. What more should we do?

Unless you are suggesting a sovereign world government (which would be disastrous) I don't see what more there is to do.

Ste "Poli. Sci. Major" phen

* We could get into a long discussion about why the phrase "pursuit of Happiness" was put in (short answer: slavery) but suffice it to say everyone who signed the Declaration knew it meant property.