Russia blasts U.S. for its domination and double standards in world affairs:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080927/ap_on_re_eu/un_un_general_assembly_russia

This is the same type of thing I am hearing from more and more countries around the world. They know they can get away with it now that U.S. is faltering economically and our military is over extended. The chickens are coming home to roost.

The double standards are quite obvious, even to a child. One of the tasks that US took on, being a world police it is... is disarming the "hostile" nations.

Any intelligent leader would follow the example of North Koreans. The nuclear weapons possession is in fact the only remedy to the current US external politics. US will not dare to invade the North Korea in its current state, because of the nuclear consequences that follow.

Can anyone blame Iran for seeking the nuclear weapons program? If US is such a moral example, should it seek to shed nuclear weapons likewise? Of course not. So, that's where we have a delima of a police confiscating guns. If only police has guns and the supervisory power, then who polices the police?

We can clearly see the abuse of the US power for self benefit and self-preservation... yet how is it benefit the world? If the war in Iraq really helps the peace process in the Middle East... or does it further fuel the Islam-Christian conflict?

Sometimes we all should learn that old grumpy guy in the middle of the woods somewhere does not want to live otherwise. You may drag him out and dress him up in a suit and tie, but it will not change who he is... an old grumpy guy. But that's the way US is trying to spread the "democracy" around the world. They take into account what a certain amount of people want ... the view that favors the US, and then they tell that everyone else just hinder the democracy process. Now, look where the "democracy" is taking the USA today... it's near brink of moral/economic/social collapse. Can you blame other nations rejecting the kind of democracy that people like Bush are spreading? Is it really healthy?

This has been the US policy since the end of WW2. This is nothing new. In fact, it is very old. The only one on the federal level even talking about changing it is Ron Paul. So anyone that disagrees with this policy should have voted for Ron Paul in the Republican Primaries.

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about :). Why divide people into camps? It's unfortunate that Ron Paul has to run under Republican flag, and I'm sure that he is well aware that if he sheds the Republican label he does not stand a chance. And its quite unfortunate, because people that are fed up with the current state of things have only one choice - to vote for the loosing party, of leave (which is not an option for many).

How is it different from Bolshevism, where a majority party rules and dictates how it's going to be to the minority? That's pluralism at its best don't you think? Its there an "opt out" button... besides not voting?

Unfortunately, you're absolutely right that it has been our policy for the last 50+ years. The problem is that most Americans don't have a clue what we are doing in the rest of the world, or they just don't care as long as their own lives are peaceful and plentiful. Ron Paul got a surprisingly larger number of votes than I would have expected, but I think more and more people are becoming aware of the things we are doing and are repulsed by it.

Our government is put into power by the people of the United States. If the vast majority of Americans want a major change as you suggest, let them vote for a candidate that represents that change. So far Americans have elected Presidents and a congress who were strong on promoting American interests around the world.

Now they have a decision to make between McCain and Obama. I look forward to seeing our choice.

Did you watch the debate? What did you think of Obama's remarks about American foreign policy? Did you hear what he said about Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan, and did you agree with him?

I never said the vast majority of Americans want a major change. I believe most Americans don't have a clue about what we are doing in the rest of the world, and/or they really don't care as long as their personal lives are not affected.

As I have said several times before, I am disappointed in the views of both candidates when it comes to foreign affairs.

Yes I saw the debate. I like what Obama said about trying to increase dialogue. I agree with him that we erred greatly by not going after bin Laden in Afghanistan instead of getting sidetracked in Iraq - which he has maintained from the beginning. I tend not to agree with either of them on Iran. And I'm still pondering what I think about Pakistan.

It's fairly clear to me after looking carefully at McCain's life experiences and his votes in the Senate that he is truly expressing how he feels and thinks. He just tells what is really in his heart and on his mind. No hesitation.

If you go back into Obama's past, and if you watch and listen to how he speaks, I think it is clear that he is saying what he knows Americans want to hear. (Not all Americans but enough to get him elected.)

Why isn't someone like Ron Paul or Ralph Nader or an outright socialist candidate the front runner?

My answer is that none of those would have a chance of being elected by the American people.

Even if I am wrong here about Obama, the main question is, why are both candidates saying what they are saying? Again, my answer is that they both know what the largest share of the American electorate want.

Obama wouldn't have a ghost of a chance if he said that he wanted to stay out of Iraq right now and also out of Afghanistan and would allow Iran to have the Bomb.

You agree?

So yes, sadly, it is true that a majority of Americans are very happy being global strongmen with a double standard - or at least strongmen who don't want any other strongmen on the block.

I would be happy to pull all our troops out of other countries, bring them all home and use the money we are spending on defense to pay for universal health care.

However if the US wasn't on the international scene, does anyone thing we would see more wars between nations? Does the US involvement actually deter many wars from happening?