This kind of thing indicates to me that we are reaching our social goal of "diversity". We have become so far removed from our former feelings of ethnic identity, more or less WASPish, that many people simply do not recognie who "we" are. We are a collection of strangers, related to each other by laws, not by "culture".

On a personal level, it is not an unreasonable fear that the perpetrator might be armed, as well as crazy. As a law-abiding person, you of course would be unarmed; you can thank "Gun Control" for that. To contemplate fighting someone who's armed when you are not is just stupid, and most people sense that. They are not "responsible" .They rely utterly on the Police. Not really the America I grew up in, but that was a long time ago.

Why are we lamenting that the US is not going to be the World's Policeman? The World's Policeman needs to be controlled by a representative body, or it's no good. As Big Old Geek suggests, we are seeing the beginning of the end of "nations". I use the quotes because so many of them are not really nations at all ("Failed States")

The whole idea of a collection of competing sovereign "nations" as leading to stability or justice is intrinsically impossible; it doesn't lead to a "Balance of Power", but to an un-Balance, usually corrected by war. "Metastable" would be a better term.

Look at the headlines: most of the problems that the wars deal with are political; and most of the reasons they continue is basically that there is no alternative. Political Poet wants a better idea. Well, it is there in the American stock of Enlightenment schemes: a world regime of law on the pattern of our Constitution. We have the choice of re-inventing it voluntarily, or to continue drifting along with our old scheme of shifting Hegemonic alliances, with it's inevitable devastating wars, until finally one group "wins", not necessarily a nation, and not likely to be democratic.

This whole scenario was played out in ancient China 2000 years ago, for our enlightenment. Disigny

The idea that any candidate can do this is so tragically pathetic. We are divided for the same reasons as the Austro-Hungarian Empire of 1914: we are culturally "diverse"! We have wildly exaggerated the ability of the American culture to assimilate extreme foreigners. Franklin had his doubts about our ability to assimilate even Germans.

We've seen it all before; when the Roman Senate got corrupt and paralyzed, the call went out for a "strong man" to "bring the (state) together", but that is very superficial, and itself inherently divisive.

This is not all negative though, that countries are "divided"; it merely means that we need to work on the next stage: a democratic International Law regime that could actually delliver security and justice in accordance with real laws. No one nation can do that.

"Buzzing Lightly" is misinterpreting Giap. The VC had been fighting steadily for 20 years before the anti-war Americans showed up. The VC had even defeated ex-Nazis of the French Foreign Legion. The VC just assumed that if they keep fighting long enough, no matter what the losses, the American public is going to lose their enthusiasm for the war, ani-war protestors or not. Which is entirely predictable, since there was no obvious reason for the war anyway. disigny

As an exercise in "hard-headed realism" , to say our Iraq policy is all about "oil" doesn't make a lick of sense. There are a dozen other places with oil, but we don't seem to feel obliged to bankrupt ourselves invading their countries. Much cheaper to just buy it; it's not as though the Iraqis could afford not to sell..However, the Arabs are, and probably always will be, really angry about Israel, which some people think is worth any US cost to defend..disigny

The real lesson ought to be stated as:"if you want Peace, work for Justice" (Pope John Paul). Justice doesn't mean assassinating and torturing "bad guys". It really means solving politcal problems by reference to "International Law", which at present simply doesn't exist; we won't have peace until it does. By default, we proceed instead with "national interests", which, naturally, are often in irreconcilable conflict, such as with the US, Israel, and the Muslim world. That's why we cannot treat the Muslims "fairly"; there are no standards for "fair", other than force, and "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" (for awhile). The original Bin Laden tape stated what he thought the issues were; would he have proceeded with the "terror" if he thought he could have brought a lawsuit somewwhre about "Religious

Desecration", with some hope of winning it? I doubt it, certainly most Muslims would not.

Incidentally, the conflict is not "about oil"; there are dozens of places with oil that we don't find it necessary to invade. disigny

Tangerine's reply is breathtaking: "slippery slope is bullshit".. Ever heard of "Habeus Corpus", and the "Patriot Act" ? Or "Declaration of War", or the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution? Probably not. disigny

My father and I were both FDR Democrats (I'm old enough to remember the Depression). It seemed at one time that this group could win elections forever. It's important to recognize why it didn't.

Americans have a far too naive an idea about "groups", and their reality. The fact is, "diversity", like too many spices in a soup, has been carried far beyond a viable level. We are achieving it, and as a result are becoming like the Austro-Hungarian Empire, politically crippled. This is not to blame anyone in particular, just an observation. However, take heart; with a World Government, it could work out.