Here's something that a friend of mine said to me recently that got me thinking: many other countries are opposed to this war because they're saying that the US is a bully and they're acting like the world's police. But someone has to be the world's police, and since no one else is going to do it, the US will.

So should the US be the world's police? I mean, other countries have no problem asking the US for money or for humanitarian aid. But few countries ask for help to overthrow a corrupt government. I mean, duh, no government is going to ask for help to overthrow itself. But if a government has to be overthrown, whose job is it?

Wilson, during WWII, had this isolationist policy that hey, it's Europe's war, not ours. Until, of course, Japan joined in. So would things have been different if the US had joined in when Hitler invaded Poland? That was 1939, and the bombing of Pearl Harbor wasn't until 1941. Two years. What would the outcome have been?

So whose job is it to get rid of all those despots out there? Like I said before, I would really like someone to take out Kim Jong Il.

I think that the US has taken on this role mainly because no other country, other than Israel, is more hated than us. So we are a target (as Sept 11th showed). But why do they hate us so much? Cuz we're big and we throw our weight around? Cuz we're arrogant and rich and oblivious to the world's poverty? Cuz we act like the world's police?

Hmmm. Makes me wonder. No, I'm not calling for an isolationist policy. It's a global world, like it or not. But with the exception of oil and cheap labor, the US theoretically could become totally isolated and survive just fine.

On a side note, KFI talk radio is having a ball making fun of the protesters in LA. I can't blame them, some of these protesters have no clue! Reminds me of some Berkeleyites that protested for the sake of protesting, not knowing anything about what they're protesting about. I'm just glad I don't have to drive through Wilshire Blvd.