[Loser]

Originally posted by Unknown_Enemy:
I am interested by comments of US citizen about it.

Well, to start with the piece is written in a rather sensationalist style. It is clearly meant to arouse an emotional response more than it is meant to inform or even to rationally persuade.

However, the article does address a matter that should be seriously considered: how much power does the U.S. have?

That is a little scary. There is only one superpower left and it is the U.S. Would even a united Europe be able to thwart the wishes of the U.S.? Does the divided and contentious Europe we find now have a chance?

Next question, what does one do about this. Should a coalition of nations be formed solely to oppose the U.S.? Should nations oppose the U.S. in any of its endeavors simply because it is too strong? Does every action the U.S. takes seek only to add to its power?

The question is not, however, how much power should the U.S. have. You cannot simply take power away. The U.S. has this power because of its nature: because of its industry, because of its economy, because it has the third largest population in the world and because of what it is doing with that population. You could not take this power away without changing the nature of the U.S.; this may be possible, but it's not a realistic goal.

The question is how much authority should the U.S. have. Unfortunately there is no simple substitute for the power the U.S. uses to back the authority it has taken for itself. If another body were to be given authority over the U.S. that authority must also be backed by power.

The U.N. has some authority but it did not change Iraq, did not prevent genocide in Africa or Europe, did not slow nuclear programs in Pakistan or North Korea. (The one in India did come to a stop, and only resurfaced when Pakistan started getting close.) Is anything wrong with this? Perhaps not. Perhaps we should look at what the U.N. has done. Or perhaps the U.N. lacks power because it only derives its authority from the power and authority of its consistently bickering constituents.

Should the U.S. be solving the world problems? I doubt it. They aren't pursuing this goal, either. Really the U.S. only messes with the world to their own ends: for their security, for the stability of their interests, for their profit. Is that right? Should you expect anything different?

Could you or even your country do anything about it? Probably not, not even with all of your friends.

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
It is one thing to say you disagree with the Prez. but it is quite another to state that he should be capped, and it should be delt with right there and then in a class room.

Quite a different thing: this is one thing you cannot say with impunity. I'm not sure this was the best way to teach this little civics lesson, but it seems like a lot of people aren't aware that Freedom of Speech does not extend to Conspiracy to Commit [whatever].

If you are speaking about committing a crime, you can be charged with Conspiracy to Commit that crime, this covers talk of killing the president and means that talking about this is, eventually, going to get the attention of the Secret Service.

That, it seems to me, is the way it ought to be.