I wouldn't expect to get anything other than self promotion from a book by a presidential candidate. There are other places to get information, although Fox isn't one of them ;). From what I can tell there's not much to choose between the candidates; for each of your charges against Obama I can list an equivalent charge against McCain.
Eh??? he wasn't a presidential candidate when he wrote the book...1995 my friend.
EDIT: oh btw.....it was written with the help of his buddy...Bill Ayers
As stated, well already have The police, Homeland security, The regular army, the reserves, FEMA, CIA, FBI, NSA, INS etc etc....NO need for another.
I guess the "Civilian Army" will have different T&C's for people who want to join up compared to all the others. Guessing further, it could be more flexible T&C's too, based on other countries' arrangements.
If the current problem is not enough new recruits in the current organisations because of unattractive restrictions, then a more flexible approach for a new organisation is common sense.
But it sounds like neither of us knows for sure what form this Civilian Army will take.
WHY do you support Obama, what policies is it he has that swings it for you (more than 1 reason please)
I judge them purely on foreign policy. With McCain and Palin positively hawkish when it comes to attacking Russia and Iran, Obama wants to settle their differences.
That means the UK won't be dragged into yet another pointless war and become a terrorist target because of it.
I judge them purely on foreign policy. With McCain and Palin positively hawkish when it comes to attacking Russia and Iran, Obama wants to settle their differences.
That means the UK won't be dragged into yet another pointless war and become a terrorist target because of it.
Hmmm not really a good reason to vote there is it!!!....lets the country go to hell just so the UK don't get dragged into another war! Domestic Policy is higher up the ladder to what is important to citizens of a country.
Well guess what....England could always say 'no'.....passing the buck there a little arn't you?
There is the argument that USA's enemy's would take advantage of the US's weakness under Obama....Remember Carter virtually eliminated the US military....
Obama as president could lead to more war/conflicts/terrorist acts.
Hmmm not really a good reason to vote there is it!!!....lets the country go to hell just so the UK don't get dragged into another war! Domestic Policy is higher up the ladder to what is important to citizens of a country.
Well guess what....England could always say 'no'.....passing the buck there a little arn't you?
EDIT: That was only 1 btw......
I think you're asking the wrong question of the wrong people, then. America's foreign policy is all that I care about, because it's more or less the only thing that's been visible to me this side of the pond.
i will be voting for neither unless someone can whip me up an american birth certificate.
You don't need one....they already have illegal immigrants and convicts voting....
Illegal Immigrants have been voting in US Elections for decades. California most especially has been plagued by hundreds of thousands of illegals voting in elections. Republicans have alledged for years that Democrats have undertaken massive voter registration drives of Illegals in heavily Mexican neighborhoods around Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego County and other Border regions.
Even Mid-Western States such as Ohio and Missouri have also seen problems with Illegal Immigrant voting. Now, Texas has been hit.
Some 16 months after Bexar County District Attorney Susan Reed boldly declared that she wouldn't tolerate undocumented people “illegally voting in my county,” a lengthy voter fraud investigation has concluded with the filing of low-level charges.
The charges filed in late July against just two people, both U.S. citizens, were for perjury, a misdemeanor.
The investigation discovered more than 300 noncitizens had registered to vote in Bexar County, some as far back as the mid-1990s, and that 41 of them had actually cast a ballot.
But officials acknowledged that none will be prosecuted because the statue of limitations had expired.
I think you're asking the wrong question of the wrong people, then. America's foreign policy is all that I care about, because it's more or less the only thing that's been visible to me this side of the pond.
and you feel 'enemy's' will go away when faced with a weaker US military or the knowledge that the US will sit back and do nothing?
I hope America will become less antagonistic towards other countries, and so invite fewer attacks from its "enemies".
I think the world will be safer with Obama as president compared to McCain. And that really is all that matters to me.
I'm pretty sure Al Qaeda will not 'roll over and go to sleep' Their issue is not a political one but is based on the fundamental belief that the US is EVIL. But believe what you wish..
I'm pretty sure Al Qaeda will not 'roll over and go to sleep' Their issue is not a political one but is based on the fundamental belief that the US is EVIL. But believe what you wish..
You *really* are unfamiliar with the history of terrorism in Britain, aren't you? When you grow up with bombs going off around you regularly, maybe you'll understand that you can't stop the attacks without tackling the central issues. Having the biggest gun doesn't solve matters.
"Evil" is defined by people who are sure that they are not. And they are often wrong.
You *really* are unfamiliar with the history of terrorism in Britain, aren't you? When you grow up with bombs going off around you regularly, maybe you'll understand that you can't stop the attacks without tackling the central issues. Having the biggest gun doesn't solve matters.
"Evil" is defined by people who are sure that they are not. And they are often wrong.
? I'm from Manchester and was in Manchester when the big ol bomb went off there and the 11 fire bombs in places like Littlewoods....(we had our windows blown out by one)...so yes I'm familiar with it.
YOU apparently are not familiar with the fact that the 'conflict' with the IRA was a completely different one than the one with Al Qaeda and other extremists..
They want to eradicate none Muslims...not live peacefully with them.
I don't care when the book was written, anyone who wants to be president has to have a huge ego. I don't see the problem with Bill Ayers. The Weathermen never killed, or even injured anyone as far as I can determine, while the police killed a fair few student anti-war protestors. Unless you were there in 1968, and admittedly I wasn't, it is hard to judge the way people on both sides conducted themselves. I don't condone bombing public buildings, even if they are empty and warnings are given, but those were strange days.
That's great...but how does his racist comments throughout his book (as that was the original reason it was brought up)....help him as a presidential candidate??
EDIT: Your question was why did I read the book.....do you not get both sides to a story before you decide?
I don't care when the book was written, anyone who wants to be president has to have a huge ego. I don't see the problem with Bill Ayers. The Weathermen never killed, or even injured anyone as far as I can determine, while the police killed a fair few student anti-war protestors. Unless you were there in 1968, and admittedly I wasn't, it is hard to judge the way people on both sides conducted themselves. I don't condone bombing public buildings, even if they are empty and warnings are given, but those were strange days.
Regarding Bill Ayers...the problem with that is Obama LIED about his relationship with Ayers...basically saying 'oh yeah he used to live in my neighborhood'.
There is the argument that USA's enemy's would take advantage of the US's weakness under Obama....Remember Carter virtually eliminated the US military....
Obama as president could lead to more war/conflicts/terrorist acts.
That's rather in-the-air. The USA will be a terrorist target regardless of who becomes the next President; as you've already said. Also, don't mistake "hawkish" for "effective". Hawkish politicians tend to appeal to instinct but they often create short-term gains followed by much-bigger long-term losses. The 1930s and '40s demonstrated that better than any period in history. Additionally, Donald Rumsfeld was a classic "action is all you need" hawk and his plan for Iraq failed badly and damaged US interests as a consequence precisely because he was ideologically incapable of realising fighting an enemy is more complicated than just dropping bombs on them.
It's also important to remember that Al-Quaida and other Islamist organisation have played on Muslim's feelings of victimhood in order to recruit. The Bush administration has done a lot for them in that regard because his hawkish foreign policy was easy to paint as an assault on the Islamic world. Bush's ridiculous policy with regards to Guantanamo Bay also caused huge damage to America's cause in the war. It might have given some people a thrill that terrorist suspects were being mistreated, even tortured in Cuba but it's impact on the War on Terrorism has been nothing but negative.
Also, Bush severely damaged the US-European alliance which has been vital to every serious conflict the US has been in since they entered the world stage. Repairing US-European mistrust and antagonism is one of the most important steps in fighting Islamist terrorism and confronting problems like Iran and Obama is far and away the best placed to do that.
? I'm from Manchester and was in Manchester when the big ol bomb went off there and the 11 fire bombs in places like Littlewoods....(we had our windows blown out by one)...so yes I'm familiar with it.
YOU apparently are not familiar with the fact that the 'conflict' with the IRA was a completely different one than the one with Al Qaeda and other extremists..
They want to eradicate none Muslims...not live peacefully with them.
You miss my point - the attacks and the speil are just the symptoms of underlying problems. These people didn't just wake up one morning wanting to kill non-Muslims. Deal with the underlying issues, and guess what, most of the attacks go away. You can't find and lock up every terrorist. You can't invade and control every country. You can't solve the problems by avoiding the issues. You can't deal with the issues without talking to every side involved.
You *can* formulate a foreign policy which doesn't antagonise other people.
You miss my point - the attacks and the speil are just the symptoms of underlying problems. These people didn't just wake up one morning wanting to kill non-Muslims. Deal with the underlying issues, and guess what, most of the attacks go away. You can't find and lock up every terrorist. You can't invade and control every country. You can't solve the problems by avoiding the issues. You can't deal with the issues without talking to every side involved.
You *can* formulate a foreign policy which doesn't antagonise other people.
No I got your point..it was a very bad example....extremist Muslims are already here...they will not go away with a change of policy.....
To kill an American is the ultimate for some of these people.....that will NOT change in this generation (and probably not the next few). The Koran commands to kill Infidels.....those extremists that believe that......will continue to believe it regardless of USA foreign policy.
Again I make the point to you....
UK can always say NO, Quit blaming the Americans for UK involvement.
You miss my point - the attacks and the speil are just the symptoms of underlying problems. These people didn't just wake up one morning wanting to kill non-Muslims. Deal with the underlying issues, and guess what, most of the attacks go away. You can't find and lock up every terrorist. You can't invade and control every country. You can't solve the problems by avoiding the issues. You can't deal with the issues without talking to every side involved.
I have to disagree with you there. The Taliban were aided and supported by the United States during the 1980s when they were a part of the Mujahedin and yet they still turned against the USA despite the USA not doing anything to actively upset them. Muslim rightwingers are very similar to Christian rightwingers in that they see themselves as fighting a cultural battle against invasive "liberal" forces. The Taliban banned women from education and tried to stop foreign radio and TV broadcasting. These weren't people reacting against US policy in the Middle East. The Middle East is much more conservative than the West when it comes to religion; I see Islamism as the Middle East's varient of "the religious right" only more widespread and much more violent. The big difference is probably due to more political enfranchisment in the USA.
That's not to say US and other Western interference is irrelevant, it clearly isn't, but it's foolish to argue that it's the cause and that with a change in foreign policy it'll go away.
You *can* formulate a foreign policy which doesn't antagonise other people.
People have forgotten this now but back in 2000 this was the stated position of George W Bush who blamed Clinton's "nation building" for antagonising people against America (a veiled reference to Al-Quaida's previous attacks - funnily enough Republicans prefer to forget all this). The result of Bush's new isolationism? Massive terrorist attack by Al-Quaida in New York.
The result of Bush's new isolationism? Massive terrorist attack by Al-Quaida in New York.
I don't think it was a result of Bush's "new isolationism". That attack had been brewing for years and its causes pre-date Bush. Say what you like about Bush but you can't blame 2001-09-11 on him. (Well, unless you buy into these idiotic conspiracy theories that have sprung up of course, but I don't think anyone here does buy into that bravo-sierra)
Unfortunately that will never happen due to our 'special relationship' with the USA.
I think the "special relationship" might be put out to grass. Blair believed a lot of myths about the USA including the idea that the SR meant that a British Prime Minister had some sort of special leverage over the US President no other European leader did. As it turned out, Blair went back and forth from Washington with his Big Ideas only to see many of them summarily overturned as Cheney and Rumsfeld pulled the President's ear back over to their side. Instead of realising that his influence was more minor than it "should" be Blair kept at it and made Britain look weak and craven on the world stage. If we don't get anything out of the SR then there's little point in pretending it exists any more.
I don't think it was a result of Bush's "new isolationism". That attack had been brewing for years and its causes pre-date Bush. Say what you like about Bush but you can't blame 2001-09-11 on him. (Well, unless you buy into these idiotic conspiracy theories that have sprung up of course, but I don't think anyone here does buy into that bravo-sierra)
Oh, I don't blame him, I know that Al-Quaida had been planning it for years (although I've heard talk about him dismantling some of the intelligence structure pre-9/11 but I've no idea how true that is). My point was that Bush came into the Presidency announcing a new isolationist foreign policy for the USA ("no more nation-building") and it didn't make the damndest bit of difference to Al-Quaida's plans.
I think the "special relationship" might be put out to grass. Blair believed a lot of myths about the USA including the idea that the SR meant that a British Prime Minister had some sort of special leverage over the US President no other European leader did. As it turned out, Blair went back and forth from Washington with his Big Ideas only to see many of them summarily overturned as Cheney and Rumsfeld pulled the President's ear back over to their side. Instead of realising that his influence was more minor than it "should" be Blair kept at it and made Britain look weak and craven on the world stage. If we don't get anything out of the SR then there's little point in pretending it exists any more.
I've always understood the "special relationship" being give each country perks, be it trade, financial, whatever. Of course, the UK needs the US more than the US needs the UK, so any arrangement along those lines is always going to be hideously one-sided, with the imbalance effectively becoming implicit blackmail - please the US or suddenly our perks get scaled back. I think Blair was fooled into thinking he could influence Bush at the start, and then when reality bit, couldn't back out, locked in by the implications of the "special relationship" breaking down.
I think that, after 63 years, the UK had repaid any debts or obligations to the US which arose from the world wars. Norway sends us a big tree every Christmas, and I think an equivalent token guesture from UK to the US is appropriate these days.
The UK and the USA both went to shit a long time ago, Obama is right it is time for a change. I'd vote for him if I could basically because things probably couldn't get any worse than they have been recently.
The economy is collapsing around our ears and that isn't just the US it's starting to spread all around the world.
Oil is a pisstake, I laughed at Sarah Palins desperate spin campaign on TV the other day saying they would set up a health service and they would tap the US oil reserve. Absolute BOLLOCKS! about 80% of their party have money tied up in it, why the hell would they use it when it's piling huge amounts of interest into their already over inflated bank accounts?
If they get in they won't touch the US oil reserves, an McCain will have a heart attack or a seizure onstage during a speech, and we'll be saluting president MILF.
Even if Obama makes an arse of it, it really can't be worse than it is now.
I actually believe though that if Obama does get in at least 1 attempt on his life will be made during his first year of presidency.
Rant Over, my opinion won't be swayed so there's no point in bitching at me :p
Meeting with Terrorists with no preconditions
Barack Obama said that he'd meet with the rogue leaders of the world, including the leaders of Iran, without preconditions.
You say that as if it's a bad thing when it's not. The current policy is epic fail, and to continue the current policy is to continue epic fail.
Someone has to have the courage to talk to these people. This does not mean "give in" to these people, it means open a dialogue, no more no less. The current policy with regards to Iran, for instance, is just hardening the resolve of the Iranians and making them more extreme - in part, because it's proving to them why they need long term energy independence (which, incidentally, is something that lots of people in the US seem to want, too). When asked "Why not just get the uranium off the Russians?" the Iranian engineer in charge of the project simply replied "Would you want to be dependent on the Russians for your long term energy supplies?" And thus the light turned on. Europe is desperately trying to avoid dependence on Russia for gas because the Russians can't be trusted. No - I don't want a theocracy to have uranium enrichment technology, but unless someone starts a dialogue with them this is exactly what will happen, and what's more, they WILL make a nuclear weapon unless the US opens a dialogue with them.
Similarly, someone has to talk to Hugo Ch?vez and Evo Morales. The current policy is just hardening their resolve against the United States, and the longer the current policy is in force, the worse it will get.
The trouble is with our (and Britain is equally culpable) hawkish policy over the last few years as it's spent any moral capital we may have had. Why did the French have to broker the peace agreement with regards to Georgia? Because the USA and Britain simply didn't have the moral authority to tell Russia they had been bad for invading Georgia.
As for Obama causing more wars, well, the Muslim extremists want McCain to win because they think the hawkishness will continue, and it will be shining happy recruiting times for them, as the US-led wars continue to provide an excellent recruiting sergeant. If McCain does win, I hope he has a different policy, and does work up the courage to actually talk to people instead of dropping bombs on them.
Finally, I think quite a lot of people are ascribing too much power to the office of the US President. The US president does not rule by decree. He does have the power of veto, and he does carry a lot of weight, and he is the Commander in Chief. But he can't just do what he wants without support.
Comments
Eh??? he wasn't a presidential candidate when he wrote the book...1995 my friend.
EDIT: oh btw.....it was written with the help of his buddy...Bill Ayers
I guess the "Civilian Army" will have different T&C's for people who want to join up compared to all the others. Guessing further, it could be more flexible T&C's too, based on other countries' arrangements.
If the current problem is not enough new recruits in the current organisations because of unattractive restrictions, then a more flexible approach for a new organisation is common sense.
But it sounds like neither of us knows for sure what form this Civilian Army will take.
WHY do you support Obama, what policies is it he has that swings it for you (more than 1 reason please)
I judge them purely on foreign policy. With McCain and Palin positively hawkish when it comes to attacking Russia and Iran, Obama wants to settle their differences.
That means the UK won't be dragged into yet another pointless war and become a terrorist target because of it.
Hmmm not really a good reason to vote there is it!!!....lets the country go to hell just so the UK don't get dragged into another war! Domestic Policy is higher up the ladder to what is important to citizens of a country.
Well guess what....England could always say 'no'.....passing the buck there a little arn't you?
EDIT: That was only 1 btw......
Obama as president could lead to more war/conflicts/terrorist acts.
I think you're asking the wrong question of the wrong people, then. America's foreign policy is all that I care about, because it's more or less the only thing that's been visible to me this side of the pond.
2) also he has funny arms, probably from wanking too much.
3) obama is a lovely guy who had a granny who died, and people like Jay Z and puff daddy like him.
i will be voting for neither unless someone can whip me up an american birth certificate.
You don't need one....they already have illegal immigrants and convicts voting....
Illegal Immigrants have been voting in US Elections for decades. California most especially has been plagued by hundreds of thousands of illegals voting in elections. Republicans have alledged for years that Democrats have undertaken massive voter registration drives of Illegals in heavily Mexican neighborhoods around Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego County and other Border regions.
Even Mid-Western States such as Ohio and Missouri have also seen problems with Illegal Immigrant voting. Now, Texas has been hit.
Some 16 months after Bexar County District Attorney Susan Reed boldly declared that she wouldn't tolerate undocumented people “illegally voting in my county,” a lengthy voter fraud investigation has concluded with the filing of low-level charges.
The charges filed in late July against just two people, both U.S. citizens, were for perjury, a misdemeanor.
The investigation discovered more than 300 noncitizens had registered to vote in Bexar County, some as far back as the mid-1990s, and that 41 of them had actually cast a ballot.
But officials acknowledged that none will be prosecuted because the statue of limitations had expired.
and you feel 'enemy's' will go away when faced with a weaker US military or the knowledge that the US will sit back and do nothing?
I hope America will become less antagonistic towards other countries, and so invite fewer attacks from its "enemies".
I think the world will be safer with Obama as president compared to McCain. And that really is all that matters to me.
I'm pretty sure Al Qaeda will not 'roll over and go to sleep' Their issue is not a political one but is based on the fundamental belief that the US is EVIL. But believe what you wish..
You *really* are unfamiliar with the history of terrorism in Britain, aren't you? When you grow up with bombs going off around you regularly, maybe you'll understand that you can't stop the attacks without tackling the central issues. Having the biggest gun doesn't solve matters.
"Evil" is defined by people who are sure that they are not. And they are often wrong.
? I'm from Manchester and was in Manchester when the big ol bomb went off there and the 11 fire bombs in places like Littlewoods....(we had our windows blown out by one)...so yes I'm familiar with it.
YOU apparently are not familiar with the fact that the 'conflict' with the IRA was a completely different one than the one with Al Qaeda and other extremists..
They want to eradicate none Muslims...not live peacefully with them.
That's great...but how does his racist comments throughout his book (as that was the original reason it was brought up)....help him as a presidential candidate??
EDIT: Your question was why did I read the book.....do you not get both sides to a story before you decide?
Regarding Bill Ayers...the problem with that is Obama LIED about his relationship with Ayers...basically saying 'oh yeah he used to live in my neighborhood'.
That's rather in-the-air. The USA will be a terrorist target regardless of who becomes the next President; as you've already said. Also, don't mistake "hawkish" for "effective". Hawkish politicians tend to appeal to instinct but they often create short-term gains followed by much-bigger long-term losses. The 1930s and '40s demonstrated that better than any period in history. Additionally, Donald Rumsfeld was a classic "action is all you need" hawk and his plan for Iraq failed badly and damaged US interests as a consequence precisely because he was ideologically incapable of realising fighting an enemy is more complicated than just dropping bombs on them.
It's also important to remember that Al-Quaida and other Islamist organisation have played on Muslim's feelings of victimhood in order to recruit. The Bush administration has done a lot for them in that regard because his hawkish foreign policy was easy to paint as an assault on the Islamic world. Bush's ridiculous policy with regards to Guantanamo Bay also caused huge damage to America's cause in the war. It might have given some people a thrill that terrorist suspects were being mistreated, even tortured in Cuba but it's impact on the War on Terrorism has been nothing but negative.
Also, Bush severely damaged the US-European alliance which has been vital to every serious conflict the US has been in since they entered the world stage. Repairing US-European mistrust and antagonism is one of the most important steps in fighting Islamist terrorism and confronting problems like Iran and Obama is far and away the best placed to do that.
Oh and as McCain said...'I'm not George Bush'.
You miss my point - the attacks and the speil are just the symptoms of underlying problems. These people didn't just wake up one morning wanting to kill non-Muslims. Deal with the underlying issues, and guess what, most of the attacks go away. You can't find and lock up every terrorist. You can't invade and control every country. You can't solve the problems by avoiding the issues. You can't deal with the issues without talking to every side involved.
You *can* formulate a foreign policy which doesn't antagonise other people.
No I got your point..it was a very bad example....extremist Muslims are already here...they will not go away with a change of policy.....
To kill an American is the ultimate for some of these people.....that will NOT change in this generation (and probably not the next few). The Koran commands to kill Infidels.....those extremists that believe that......will continue to believe it regardless of USA foreign policy.
Again I make the point to you....
UK can always say NO, Quit blaming the Americans for UK involvement.
I have to disagree with you there. The Taliban were aided and supported by the United States during the 1980s when they were a part of the Mujahedin and yet they still turned against the USA despite the USA not doing anything to actively upset them. Muslim rightwingers are very similar to Christian rightwingers in that they see themselves as fighting a cultural battle against invasive "liberal" forces. The Taliban banned women from education and tried to stop foreign radio and TV broadcasting. These weren't people reacting against US policy in the Middle East. The Middle East is much more conservative than the West when it comes to religion; I see Islamism as the Middle East's varient of "the religious right" only more widespread and much more violent. The big difference is probably due to more political enfranchisment in the USA.
That's not to say US and other Western interference is irrelevant, it clearly isn't, but it's foolish to argue that it's the cause and that with a change in foreign policy it'll go away.
People have forgotten this now but back in 2000 this was the stated position of George W Bush who blamed Clinton's "nation building" for antagonising people against America (a veiled reference to Al-Quaida's previous attacks - funnily enough Republicans prefer to forget all this). The result of Bush's new isolationism? Massive terrorist attack by Al-Quaida in New York.
Then maybe that is a UK foreign policy that you should change eh?
I don't think it was a result of Bush's "new isolationism". That attack had been brewing for years and its causes pre-date Bush. Say what you like about Bush but you can't blame 2001-09-11 on him. (Well, unless you buy into these idiotic conspiracy theories that have sprung up of course, but I don't think anyone here does buy into that bravo-sierra)
I think the "special relationship" might be put out to grass. Blair believed a lot of myths about the USA including the idea that the SR meant that a British Prime Minister had some sort of special leverage over the US President no other European leader did. As it turned out, Blair went back and forth from Washington with his Big Ideas only to see many of them summarily overturned as Cheney and Rumsfeld pulled the President's ear back over to their side. Instead of realising that his influence was more minor than it "should" be Blair kept at it and made Britain look weak and craven on the world stage. If we don't get anything out of the SR then there's little point in pretending it exists any more.
Oh, I don't blame him, I know that Al-Quaida had been planning it for years (although I've heard talk about him dismantling some of the intelligence structure pre-9/11 but I've no idea how true that is). My point was that Bush came into the Presidency announcing a new isolationist foreign policy for the USA ("no more nation-building") and it didn't make the damndest bit of difference to Al-Quaida's plans.
I've always understood the "special relationship" being give each country perks, be it trade, financial, whatever. Of course, the UK needs the US more than the US needs the UK, so any arrangement along those lines is always going to be hideously one-sided, with the imbalance effectively becoming implicit blackmail - please the US or suddenly our perks get scaled back. I think Blair was fooled into thinking he could influence Bush at the start, and then when reality bit, couldn't back out, locked in by the implications of the "special relationship" breaking down.
I think that, after 63 years, the UK had repaid any debts or obligations to the US which arose from the world wars. Norway sends us a big tree every Christmas, and I think an equivalent token guesture from UK to the US is appropriate these days.
The economy is collapsing around our ears and that isn't just the US it's starting to spread all around the world.
Oil is a pisstake, I laughed at Sarah Palins desperate spin campaign on TV the other day saying they would set up a health service and they would tap the US oil reserve. Absolute BOLLOCKS! about 80% of their party have money tied up in it, why the hell would they use it when it's piling huge amounts of interest into their already over inflated bank accounts?
If they get in they won't touch the US oil reserves, an McCain will have a heart attack or a seizure onstage during a speech, and we'll be saluting president MILF.
Even if Obama makes an arse of it, it really can't be worse than it is now.
I actually believe though that if Obama does get in at least 1 attempt on his life will be made during his first year of presidency.
Rant Over, my opinion won't be swayed so there's no point in bitching at me :p
You say that as if it's a bad thing when it's not. The current policy is epic fail, and to continue the current policy is to continue epic fail.
Someone has to have the courage to talk to these people. This does not mean "give in" to these people, it means open a dialogue, no more no less. The current policy with regards to Iran, for instance, is just hardening the resolve of the Iranians and making them more extreme - in part, because it's proving to them why they need long term energy independence (which, incidentally, is something that lots of people in the US seem to want, too). When asked "Why not just get the uranium off the Russians?" the Iranian engineer in charge of the project simply replied "Would you want to be dependent on the Russians for your long term energy supplies?" And thus the light turned on. Europe is desperately trying to avoid dependence on Russia for gas because the Russians can't be trusted. No - I don't want a theocracy to have uranium enrichment technology, but unless someone starts a dialogue with them this is exactly what will happen, and what's more, they WILL make a nuclear weapon unless the US opens a dialogue with them.
Similarly, someone has to talk to Hugo Ch?vez and Evo Morales. The current policy is just hardening their resolve against the United States, and the longer the current policy is in force, the worse it will get.
The trouble is with our (and Britain is equally culpable) hawkish policy over the last few years as it's spent any moral capital we may have had. Why did the French have to broker the peace agreement with regards to Georgia? Because the USA and Britain simply didn't have the moral authority to tell Russia they had been bad for invading Georgia.
As for Obama causing more wars, well, the Muslim extremists want McCain to win because they think the hawkishness will continue, and it will be shining happy recruiting times for them, as the US-led wars continue to provide an excellent recruiting sergeant. If McCain does win, I hope he has a different policy, and does work up the courage to actually talk to people instead of dropping bombs on them.
Finally, I think quite a lot of people are ascribing too much power to the office of the US President. The US president does not rule by decree. He does have the power of veto, and he does carry a lot of weight, and he is the Commander in Chief. But he can't just do what he wants without support.