In the years since Vietnam action ended, it seems the Nobel Society in re its annual peace prize have favored mostly the likes of Jimmy Carter, who advocates no resistance even if terrorists just start a revolution in their own area and take USA nationals hostage on threat of their execution, and those who, like Al Gore and his specious global warming claim that only USA and English-speaking nations' commerce cause weather problems (lead toy problems okay though as we don't want to roil Communist China any more than some did protecting South Vietnamese voters once), would keep all but say Chavez and Castro oil production out of global commerce.

 

Certainly, a number of those in or able to be in the orbits of Nobel Society members, including some honorees, are either parts of governments or just have a cushy business investment as things lie internationally. Perhaps it is mere coincidence the Society chooses to pursue a course more favorable to their interests even if at the expense and non-inclusion of nations which would just sit where they are, in terms of globalized economy, and even if the isolated nations had to single-source from Society favorites.

 

In the instant USA case, it appears the motive psychology non-Conservatives use includes collectively asserting the USA is a mega-jobs, mega-union, mega-polluting industrial-military edifice bigger than in the 1960's and thus needs reigning in just like Qaeda, Iran, Chavez, and others tell their own people; rudderless immigration is a way to "siphon off" potential recruits to foreign leaders; Iraq is a Conquisdidore Bush/GOP swagger grab for oil and nothing more, so maybe forcing less mega-production upon the USA will force it to "finally" share with others; and if we just have officials who understand having the governed in the USA turn the other cheek to every threat or invasion from abroad, we'll at least have a population which lives and has peace, if an uneasy one...as new economies emerge, we'll keep having losses and can decide State-by-State or town-to-town who needs special monitoring or warehousing, as will those elsewhere in the New Peace Economy of non-Conservatives be doing with their end of such uneasy peace.

 

Thus, the net sum of such non-Conservative psychology appears to be as or in the nature of: "Lay back, you take it, oh yeah, take it...and if you're good and quiet enough, you just might at least come out with government-owned housing and government-run healthcare; and remember, you want to get through this thing, right, and have hope for your children or their children's children's children's children's children's children's children, assuming that fits tomorrow's plans of aggressors abroad? Bad men and people elsewhere want to hurt you, so maybe if you please them we'll be okay". Might explain why even if the USA were to be totally isolationist, some don't think it should have its own in-house capitalism or free trade or monetary system or farms or energy.

 

The only problem is, whatever these amorphous threats are on any day, they don't seem placated even by mass media and such espousing such a "please the rapist" mentality, so little seems to be gained were such sole "defensive action" taken.

 

The 2008 campaign cycle will afford ample opportunity for non-Conservatives to offer what they believe global and domestic issues to be, what we should do about them, and why we need to fear all other leaders amid this.

 

In the meantime, many pundits and vested interests have been creating visions and inferences not even the subject foreign forces seem to emit or have as "offers". Wherefore, as a Conservative never seeking swagger attack yet never shrinking from defense of democracy or from letting other sovereign leaders make their notions of free trade known to our officials, I'm not going to just replace what such foreign sovereigns say with the phrase "BUSH failed policies"; I continue to support the martial and diplomatic efforts of President George W. Bush, and to support Conservatives for 2008.