Some people need to get their heads out of the ground, and realize that the Shia and Kurds were gassed by chem weapons because they chose to do a bloody ass Revolution from ground zero than tolerate the evils of “Saddam Hussein”. They just failed, miserably, because Norman Schwarzkopf said “go ahead, use your helicopters, we’re too stupid to realize that you can drop chems from helicopters”.

And we admit that we’re subjecting Iragis to what we won’t stand ourselves – we’re fighting the terrorists over there so we don’t have to fight them here.
It’s more like, we’re getting the Muslisms to fight terrorism so we don’t have to. Given that it is their civil war, not ours. They should resolve it.

If we did fight them over here, there wouldn’t be an Arabia left.

One thing that was pointed out to me when I was in college is that the Seder meal is celebrated with glasses of wine. When I was growing up, this was translated to sips but back in the day, it was full glasses, possibly even what we would call mugs. And from there we go to the Mount of Olives, and the disciples’ inability to stay awake well, after four LARGE glasses of wine, possibly more alcoholic than we’ve got, is it any wonder they were sleepy?

When you write, “…most people just want to be let alone to live their lives as they see fit. They really, really don’t care (directly) what government does it, as long as they get left alone,” what comes to my mind is that it’s almost a moot point, because (as I think you go on to say), if there is not a guarantee of liberty, the government will not leave them alone. It will attempt to control their lives and even their thought processes far more than is compatible with the idea of freedom. Kerry was saying “democracy or communism, it doesn’t really matter as long as people are fed and safe,” while ignoring the essential point: Communism will never leave you alone, and this is of the utmost importance to people (plus, it won’t even reliably give them bread; it tends to cause economic hardship). That’s why Kerry’s statement was an absurdity, or worse.

Correct, their belief was that slavery would become obsolete once the Enlightenment inventions of automated farm harvestors and what not went into production, and slaves became more expensive than a hunk of machine that could do the same work at 1/2 the time and cost.

We would probably execute anyone trying to go back into the past to tell the Founding Father’s anything. With extreme prejudice. History is not to be assassinated.

Most people who have read the entire American history and Euro History and World History, already know that America is the youngest nation yet the oldest democracy.

O Rourke sounds like a Libertarian. Talks the Talk, but when it comes to fight against the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, he can’t get his Armageddon up.

Ikkkkk, far be it from me to appear to be defending Kerry, but, in a sense, he does have the right of it here — most people just want to be let alone to live their lives as they see fit. They really, really don’t care (directly) what government does it, as long as they get left alone and can feed their families and enjoy themselves sufficiently (that last is a sticky variable, mind you, no dispute)…

The problem is, of course, when you extend it out — if that government isn’t founded in some sense in true democracy, then, sooner or later, those foreign helicopters strafing them, etc., etc., etc., will be replaced with government helicopters doing the same.

Because the central issue at the heart of all government is “Who leads?”. Succession is all. And if it’s not in the hands of the people, then, sooner or later, it will no longer represent the interests of the people, but the interests of whoever is selecting the successors. And, when that happens, some faction or another will argue with the choice(s) of successors, and then the tyranny and oppression starts, because you can never tell who is on which side of who in the mix, so you have to get more and more ruthless in the end, or give up power, and few are willing to do that without the application of lead to skull.

If you look back at most of recorded history, much of the strife occurred at just these borders between leaders. It’s one of the true geniuses of the American system. Look at 2000 — we had a defacto Constitutional crisis, as the noise from the signal of “who’s next?” swamped the information in the signal. In many nations throughout history, the result would have been a pitched battle between the two parties.

Not Here.

Because those making the play knew that the electorate would not accept a leader chosen by force. So they kept up with the interminable legal maneuvering until one side (the Dems) threw up their hands unable to come up with any legal maneuvering in response.

And that is pretty damned unique in human history.

Realize that, of the major nations of the world, we may not be “the oldest” or the “most storied”, but we are the oldest government. Every other major nation of the world has gone through a major revision since 1776, and some of them more than one. In an era of constant change, our system has shown remarkable stability in dealing with the issues of government. People often fail to realize this.

It really does mark Americans in a very different way from The Others.