> > And I must say I admire his willingness to say some really non-PC stuff (such as labelling countries like Iraq as "evil").
>
> 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.

I think it's pretty obvious that when someone says "Iraq is evil" they do not mean that the country and its culture and history and people are an intrinsic abomination. What is meant is that the government running the country is evil. And so it is. This is the government that has employed chemical weapons against its own citizens. This is the government that invaded a neighboring country to seize its oil resources and seaports simply because it knew it was strong enough to do it. This is the government that rounded up its own civilians and detained them in the vicinity of strategic bombing targets to dissuade them from being attacked. This is the government that tortured prisoners of war, beating them in the face with cat-o-nine-tails made of shredded metal. This is the country that has a known connection with terrorist groups whose charter involves the murder of innocent people worldwide.

When we say "Iraq is evil," I think it's clear enough what is being spoken of. It's not the Iraqi people, that have nothing to do with any of this.

> 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.

Einstein flunked out of school. Grades aren't everything. If they were, we'd simply elect the top scholar in the country every time.

> > Like with what? The Kyoto treaty? The International Court? Come on. We're under absolutely no obligation to give a wit what the rest of the world thinks of us and we're certainly not under any obligation to bind ourselves to the whims of the "international community" -- this is the whole idea of sovereign nations.
>
> That's exactly the kind of attitude I mean, I'm afraid. Why aren't you under any obligation? If the US made some kind of effort instead of having that attitude then don't you think the world could be a better place?

I'm fine, thanks.

Seriously, I don't understand why the U.S. gets criticism like this when it ALSO gets criticism that it is TOO involved with other country's affairs. Can you even count how many countries we helped rebuild after wars (some of which we were involved in, and some of which we were not) have damaged them? Time again, these nations are grateful for about five minutes, then go back to resenting our involvement in world affairs at all.

> Do you think ... That criminals other than the ones who attack the US should be ignored?

No. If criminals attacked say, Australia, I would think the proper course of action would be for Australia to deal judgment upon them.

Which is not to say we wouldn't assist, especially if asked. But this kind of criticism is absurd. The primary responsibility of the United States government is to look out for the United States people. That's the whole reason the U.S. government exists. The primary responsibility of the Australian government is to look out for the Australian people. That's the way the world works. If you're going to make higher demands on the United States, first make them of yourself. I daresay the U.S. has done more humanitarian sorts of actions in the world community than Australia has.