Yikes! I mean, "the response does NOT address the question or comment".

"Not responsive" means that the response does address the question or comment. So, for example, if you ask me, "why do you think that Obama's tax program benefits America", and I respond by saying, "you are obviously a right-winger who watches Fox news all the time," well . . . that is not responsive. (Not suggesting you made that comment! Just an example.)

I'm an insurance underwriter with a degree in accounting and master's in business administration. Never taught in any school, though I've given some seminars over the years in risk-analysis and claim practice. I don't agree that my language in this forum is particularly argumentative, but I'll leave to others to decide whether that is true or even important.

In the 1950s, under President Eisenhower the corporate tax rate was as high as 90%. (Under President Nixon, the top rate was 77%. Under President Reagan, the top corporate tax rate was about 70%. President Obama has proposed a rate of 39%.) So, it would appear that Obama is allowing corporations to keep more than twice the assets that were taxed when your were growing up. Surely, you don't mean to suggest that we "turn this around" by recommending raising the corporate tax rate to 90% again, as when you were growing up?

You state: "We need to do a weapons destruction plan ... "I'll destroy one missile if you destroy one missile" or something to that effect. "

YES! I mean, there has got to be some way of doing something like that! This isn't (pardon the pun) rocket science. Sure, there'll be potential abuses, but that is no reason to at least move in positive direction.

"God only knows what's rotting over in Russia, or being sold to Iran." Agreed, re. Russia. That's discussed in the Senate report I mentioned. Re. Iran, actually Iran's weapons systems are partially the result of the programs fostered under the Shah. In the military, I worked alongside Iranian sailors during the mid-1980s, who had come to the U.S. to learn naval electronics and weapons technology.

Bless you. Nice chatting.

The citizens of Israel and the Palestinians actually largely (overwhelmingly) agree with the 2-state settlment proposed in UN SC 242. The world has agreed for decades. Only the govts' of the U.S. and Israel have blocked it, consistently vetoing the resolution at the U.N., usually 141-2, or comparable voting pattern.

You state: "We're not talking about rational, reasonable people here." I disagree. And the entire rest of world opinion concurs. The irony is that the position you just articulated is, itself, a major part of the problem.

As for the rest, seems to me evasive and defeatist. Every democratic movement in history would be rendered a nullity if its participants adopted the posture you articulate.

In any event, it appears that what you ultimately leave me with is the belief that the U.S. reserves unto itself the unilateral right to determine the scale, scope and limits of how the rest of the world may be permitted to conduct its affairs. Such a position constitutes a categorical rejection of the most fundamental moral principle: universality -- that I apply to myself the same standards I apply to others.

You say: "For all our faults, I still say we are a great nation with high ideals. We aren't perfect, but we come closer than anyone else in terms of our intentions." I agree that the ideals are high; but the conduct of the gov't in its foreign relations is largely not. The documentary and historical record is pretty aweful, starting with Washington's massacre of the Iroquois, up to Bush II's invasion of Iraq -- an explicit act of aggression by even the most conservative standards. Go here for a relatively simple chronicle: http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interven...

This is just an example table. Just a keyword search on google. There are many other sources.

You keep saying "We" -- as if there is no distinction between civil society (us) and the state (the federal gov't). As I have only very briefly explained, the record is simply overwhelming that the U.S. gov't has, in iots foreign relations, repeatedly engaged in conduct that is contrary to the rule of law and increased the danger to its own citizens, not to mention the citizens of other countries. I disagree that the U.S. gov't -- OUR gov't -- has behaved in a principled fashion. . . Gov'ts serve the interests of private power, and are only prevented from doing so, if at all, when citizens act to prevent them. The U.S. is no different. Indeed, as a rule, the more powerful the nation, then greater it abuses its power.

Too much to say, and not enough time to respond. You say: "I think self-preservation will keep most nations from deploying their weapons." I disagree; moveover, the costs of guessing wrong are too high. In 1962, the world came within ONE WORD of nuclear war: the U.S. fired one Soviet ships; two Soviet sub commanders gave the order to fire nuclear armed torpedos; a 3rd Soviet commander countermanded the order. Had he not done so, we may not be here.

Also, there is substantial evidence showing that with increased nuclear proliferation there is increased risk of accidental launch, mis-interpreted data triggering automated response, theft of weapons, hacking into weapons systems, etc. An extensive gov't report on this issue was issued a couple of years ago; the conclusions of the report were shocking.

The alternative is not difficult: the U.S. gov't -- OUR gov't -- should stop engaging in behavior that increase the threat of terrorism, the risk of military conflict, and the amplification of the global arms race. The U.S. gov't should honor its treaty obligations. It should substantially reduce its nuclear weapons stocks, and do so over a period of time with the cooperation and participation of other nations. It should eliminate its biological and chemical weapons, iagain n compliance with its obligations under various treaties.

Foremost, it should consider the grievances of "enemy" countries, and take reasonable and prudent steps towards alleviating those grievances.

Now, obviously, this will not guarantee permanent peace and security. There are never any guarantees. But there can be a radical reduction in the threat of catastrophic violence, and a corresponding increase in our well-being, both materially and spiritually.