I like the part where scientists were keeping track of the temperatures on the other planets for the last several centuries, just to verify the validity of this argument.

Whoa there. That's just plain creepy. For heavens sake go buy an airplane if you want to buzz.

I don't think the people in the US are immune to the popularity of the royalty. For example think of how much the people here, like in England followed Princess Di, and all the outcry when she passed.

Generally I think Americans like to think of some one born to that special status. Maybe it is because so many of us have to struggle so hard to get to our own individual pinnacles. Not too many are born with the station and the wealth as a whole package.

Now if you want to think about someone who does not like royalty, think France. Yikes, when those guys don't like royalty, they REALLY don't like them.

They had it so tough in the French Revolution. Imagine how bad things must have been for that whole thing to blow up.

Good luck and long life to the royals. As for here, anyone can be royalty if they are lucky and apply themselves, think Carter, Clinton and Bush. Where do they find those guys? Does anybody remember Nixon?

Do you really think so eal? I do not see any of his platform positions being even slightly republican. I absolutely see him as a democrat with extremely leftist leanings, farther than any liberal I would expect.

Besides that I just don't see how he has any idea about the structure of government and its function, which I don't think is characteristic of either the republican or democrat parties.

For the record I think the independent, libertarian party has some good and valid points, but I do not think Ron Paul is a reasonable representative for that party either.

OK, of the people here who support Ron Paul, if he were not in the general election, would you be more likely to vote democrat or republican (if you don't mind indulging me here).

Sometimes being disrespectful towards others and their countries and heritage sheds a bad light on one's own. Are we all simple and can't show common courtesy?

I'm surprised I'm not seeing any mention of Thompson and Huckabee here. Huckabee has a earthy common sense approach to management, and Thompson seems to be able to draw on a little more information in forming and expressing his opinions than the average bear.

Ron Paul is a cackling hen in my opinion. But after he gets booted from the republican primary with his 3 percent of the vote I will support him as an independent in the general election for the sake of taking away Democrat votes. He will never get a Republican vote for dogcatcher.

Hillary is an interesting case. Probably a good choice if you favor giving up sovereign rights of the US to the UN, and if you favor taking from everyone to give to everyone else, both good options for some people. I think she would be very effective and relentless at accomplishing the exact agenda I have mentioned in this paragraph. I could be wrong, but that's my first impression. Good Luck. What is the immigration policy of Canada again? Gypsiii, I could use some assistance here!!!

Personally I'm glad to see you all took Fanta to task on his commentary. It was quite disrespectful, and unnecessary. This is the kind of unthinking, callous disregard for the values and traditions of others that only can foster a mutual disrespect.

I thought the post was interesting until the last line where it all was quite spoiled by the disrespect. I was very disappointed.

I've decided I don't know enough about the situation in Pakistan to take a stand pro or anti. It looks like a sticky wicket.

The question in my mind is, how much of Musharraf's action is necessary and how much is for his own personal aggrandizement.

Surely it is a good thing if the man maintains control, and his doing so keeps the military in secular hands. When a large number of the country's lawyers come out in opposition to his action and wind up in jail, other questions are raised.

In a country there must be some rule of law unless all the citizens are perfect and fair with their neighbors. Lawyers and legal organizations make up a large part of the structure which keeps the rule of law in place.

Law, unfortunately encompasses politics as well though. So there is the crux of the problem in understanding the situation there, for me. How much of the struggle between the legal system and Musharraf is political and how much is really necessary from a security standpoint? And are they actually the same or closely related in this case.

Good luck sorting this stuff out without some first hand knowledge.

Surprisingly a large number of people are not concerned about whether jihad groups have control of atomic weapons.

It would be the easy way out to accept such a scenario. Alas, the easy way is not always the prudent way.

Fascism implies, with the other stuff, a sort of racist, nationalist attitude. Musharraf's aversion to the Islamic extremists in his country does not fall in this category in my opinion. Therefore I don't know that Musharraf's government conforms to this racist standard enough for him to be labeled fascist.

The United States has had within its power for several decades to take over large parts of the world by military force and it has not done so, so I suspect that the labeling of the US as imperialist also misses the mark.

Musharraf, by his action is protecting the future of democracy in Pakistan for the likes of the secular former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. While she opposes his move as dictatorial, his action might just be the thing that keeps extremists from taking over the country. Keep in mind that it was extremists in his country who tried to explode her when she returned to Pakistan to try to gain a third term as a prime minister. If she were elected, as a freely elected leadership, would she be able to rule in such an environment?

For an interesting take on Bhutto's position, for those of you who actually click links (I usually do not) you might like this take. its a CNN thing. sorry about the length of the link name.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/11/03/bhutto.pakistan/index.html#cnnSTCText

Uninvited by those whose political interests are counter to our own. That's a natural. What is more difficult is sorting out those political interests and recognizing them.

As for Pakistan, since this was the topic, I think the United States might better show some tolerance for the current state of affairs. Musharraf is going to need the support, and denying it would be a difficult kettle of fish.

Has anybody thought that a benevolent dictatorship might be more easily tolerated than an anarchy of extremists? Think Reza Shah Pahlavi here.

Peacekeeping force is by no means an oxymoron. Think of the times a teacher stands between a bully and a geek. I won't go into how simple a concept this is.

I think we should leave it up to the media.

Or is that how we do it already?

2

Adj made a point I was going to make. This is an internet age. On the internet you can find plenty arguments to support any position you want. They can be extremely wordy and still ignore the facts.

Somehow people have to filter the things they read because otherwise you have to believe opposites. When you read articles you need to take a look at its source, the writer, publication, whatever and add some weight for veracity.

If you consider sources, then consider other facts and think about whether what you are reading fits with the rest of the facts it will be a lot easier to resolve.

Quix, nice try, but mostly I disagree with all you said. I see where you are going with it, and at least you have given it some thought, but I think a little more time at the drawing board wouldn't hurt.

There was a lot of concern about biological and chemical weapons. Biological weapons are easy to make, simple to hide and easy enough to move. Saddam had an ongoing biological weapons program. He was required to prove he got rid of them, but he offered no proof. He had an ongoing chemical weapons program, he killed enormous numbers of people with them, no dispute about that. He was required to prove he had gotten rid of them, he did not offer that proof. So the question was not whether he had them, but whether he met the terms of the cease fire and proved their destruction.

These were the things that led to the second Iraq war, not lies. These were always the foremost issues, not uranium from Nigeria being denied by a moveon.org primary supporter (Wilson).

Read up on Wilson and his report, his politics, and what was not included in his report. Then consider whether in fact it might have been his report that was a lie. The general consensus at this time is that he didn't investigate the matter but simply reported that the uranium connection with Iraq and Nigeria was a lie. He never gave it credence enough to investigate it. He also ignored more significant evidence of Iraq uranium activity in greater Africa. Get over it because one obvious liar can not make the case that Bush lied about the same matter. If you can't recognize that there is no reasoning. Please vote for Ron Paul as an independent in the general election.

In the last days before the recent imbroglio in Iraq, large numbers of people escaped to Syria and took large amounts of cargo with them. So if it upsets you so much that you never saw Biologicals or chemicals in Iraq, consider that much of that may have gone to Syria with the running elite.

If you refuse to consider that possibility, than you are have a closed mind to significant details. If you ignore facts, you can't be helped.

Clearly you missed something, there was an entire discussion regarding that stuff. Unplug your right ear please. It seems only your left ear hears at all. I'm not here to educate those who ignore facts. With the right mindset though you can pretend the discussions never happened. Cheers.

I'm in your camp on this one Spider. Way too much of people calling Bush a liar without any foundation. Largely this is from people who have no solid basis for their political views, from what I have seen, but that is not always the case.

The Ron Paul supporters are coming!!!

On the Ron Paul issue. He needs to run as an independent as soon as he gets booted out in the primary. He could do a lot of good for the political process. I agree with virtually none of his positions and I consider him to be irrational, but he will never get a Republican vote, so he can only help. He could likely swing a large part of the Democrat vote his way, by giving a fresh debunking of their logic.

I heard Hillary today. She forgot that people care about taxes apparently.

Its not all just Clinton haters

Apparently they have pretty well discounted all the stuff in Wilson's report regarding Uranium and Africa now, so basically all the comments about Bush's lies are lies. Howzat?

Actually there has been a lot of writing about the matter recently. It seems that France was pawning off information on the US intelligence service supporting claims about Iran purchasing uranium in Africa.

I love the fact that democrats are free to ignore reality while they lie about Bush, but it doesn't make it right. Personally if my kids tell lies I generally correct them rather swiftly.

As for Hillary, I think she is pretty capable, but I think her politics are all wrong, and her agenda is somewhat anti-american I expect, from what I have seen and read.

Oh I forgot, I get French news articles thrust in my face daily. Today I was made to read one in French, which was annoying since French is not what I would consider one of my languages.

I talk to people from France every day and hear their political opinions regularly, some of which I agree with and some of which I do not. I've been to France and most of Western Europe for that matter. France, for the record has a more widely diverse political spectrum than the United States, and they are quite vocal in their particular versions of politics.

I agree that we get less influence in current popular music from Europe than would seem natural, given the global nature of the world. While in Europe I heard the most popular songs there several times a day, like the pop music here, then after returning never heard them again, not once. I've thought there was some market manipulation in that regard here. Nobody here seems to notice.