Interesting replies. I have n doubt that the US uses our share of torture, extortion, etc to get what we want. right and wrong becomes very convoluted I'm sure, and as of right now I'm thankful I'm not the one who makes the final decision in situations like that.
You realize of course that Barrack Obama is the only person running for President who advocates bombing Pakistan. http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801 Someone should perhaps advise Sen. Change that Pakistan has NUKES. They aren't just going to roll over and die at the invasion of the infidels. This guy is a complete loose cannon who poses 10x the chance of a MAJOR war than does John McCain. Anyone voting for Obama is an ASSHOLE. But that goes without saying.
Ha for all your tough talk you really present an impotent argument. I read the article and I was watching when Barrack made those comments. I don't feel like getting into it as I have charts to look at it, but I sincerely hope you are not this ignorant. If you don't support Obama then fine, great tell us why. I really hope its not based on some quote that you, to say the least, took way out of context.
Hey, IIIIIII didn't write the article nor did I quote it. Here's a direct quote: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." Spin it any way you want. Just TODAY this story is appearing in Asia: "Mr. Obama had accused Pakistan of misusing American aid for preparing for a war against India." http://www.hindu.com/2008/09/07/stories/2008090759570900.htm Obama is WAR MONGERING and MUCKRAKING in a war zone that America should avoid like the plague. Obama will be LBJ against Bush's JFK. The world will little remember 4000 dead in Iraq but a U.S.-Afghan-Pakistan-Indian shoot out will forever grab the worlds attention.
Yea you didn't quote it, you simply took it to mean that he wants to "bomb pakistan" lol. Anyways his foreign policy is of course up for debate as it should be, thats not where I take issue. It's that, according to you, anyone voting for obama is "an asshole". Like I said, that statement is testament to your ignorance.
Given the US track record... Having Obama is much more preferrable to the world than the ignorant hothead McCain with a shadowy counsel of cronies. McCain would be another scapegoat for a continued unpopular abusive regime. There is little to be proud of in the US handling of Latin America, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam and elsewhere... jonbig04, you say you are happy you are not the one taking decisions on torture, killings, terror, destabilization and intervention toppling democracies... How do you feel supporting and voting for those policies? Do you just wash your hands of it all, because you had nothing to do with it? Shouldn't we just let Radovan Karadžić go - because he didn't kill anyone, did he? Can any US soldier or commander ever be accused of war crimes by the ICC? Why should corruption in the US be punishable, you don't really need accountability for politicians, do you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accountability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_deficit http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/5/4/4/3/pages254431/p254431-1.php (Democratic accountability in global politics)
There are geopolitical strategies and currents being strengthened around the world now. Soon the US will be very dependent upon support from alliances, as their position will become tested. Surely, a prolonged period of economic weakness will be very dire for the US, as it will directly affect it's ability to effectively run it's military - through intervention and influencing US economic interests. It sure doesn't look like the US can expect "business as usual" in the not too far future... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_intensity_conflict http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_operations_other_than_war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_generation_warfare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Great_Game http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History There comes a point where you need to ask if you want to define yourselves through conflict, struggle and mistrust - or try to construct strong relations that are sustainable for future mutual growth. It might seem banal but diplomacy and international relations is somewhat similar to simplistic human social relations - of any relationship. You need to establish and show trust to be able to progress together in a relationship. It means that you do not exploit others in a predatory fashion, but show respect and give room for mutual growth. That is how you strengthen relations, avoid conflict - invest in the future. This has happened between Europe and Russia to some extent with mutual investments and increased cross-border market activities. It has also started with Russia, India and Brazil through the Sukhoi PAK-FA project. Brazil has traditionally strong relations with several Arab nations, and export agricultural products. The US and Europe have a strong mutual relationship, but there are obvious signs that these ties have been weakened considerably. Not only has the political capital eroded by dwindling support from the European populations, but the economic ties have been expanded eastwards. This means a real weakening of the position of USA and it's influence. In Asia the reality now is that China is the important player in the region, with incredible continued economic growth. Taiwan quickly adopted their policies with stronger ties to China - being the traditional agile business-minds. The recent credit crunch shows how confidence and outlook for the US is now all roses. Unless the US is able to adopt to changing realities and redefine itself - they will continue to face opposition and erosion of their influence, growth and future - resisting all your surroundings and environment is simply not sustainable. In the end you run out of resources and become beaten down. Hopefully some new political leadership can usher in some new thoughts that are not in line with the old doctrine of domination, intervention and covert destabilization. There are short term profits for some corporations and interests through the pursuit of energy dominance, but unless you have trust - you don't have a free capitalist approach - but rather a predatory authoritarian approach. Again, it's not sustainable unless you take on all your surroundings. If the rest of the world are strengthening their economic ties - you are really missing out on the growth opportunities. Military defence capability is vital for security - but business sense, diplomacy and mutual trust are the attributes that are rational and effective for a sustainable modern future. Emerging markets have now emerged successfully, gained foothold, strength and will continue to grow - increasing international dependencies. Old conservative conflict doctrine is not in the best interest for a secure future, and younger leaders with more acute minds are needed for better approaches for investing in sustainability and mutual growth with more fair and balanced free markets. Old established conservative families and corporations do really not have everyone's best interests in mind, but are fighting for their dominant survival... with their means of influence available to them, particularly political clout. They are not in favour of fair, balanced free markets or free trade because it erodes their power-base and grip on system deficiencies.
Wow. Great post. I can't disagree with anything above. You basically summed up why I'm voting Obama. I do feel that our military presence in the middle east is necessary, much like our military presence in turkey during the cold war. The world now knows the extent to will go to protect our interests and assets. If Iran had any doubts about whether we would act if they keep developing nuclear weapons, Im sure all doubt has been removed. Anyways great post.
Jon, one thing I must admit-you're not duplicitous on this issue. One cannot take the moral high ground opposing Irani weapons if they opposed the liberation of Iraq's millions of Shia'. Iran had a legit reason for arming themselves to take out Saddam. Of course by the same token Saddam had reasons to fib about his WMD capabilities to scare Iran. (which I predicted in 2002-Saddam was 'tween a rock and a hard place). I applaud you for constructing a unique outside the box argument. Rest assured though you'll be the only non-partisan Obama voter with the same take.