Image by Getty Images via Daylife
Podcasting is the new buzz of the internet. A Podcast is an mp3 or mp4 file of your post article that may or may not include video. Most of them are just audio files that you can listen to on the web or download for later listening.
Podcasting can [...]
Image via Wikipedia
Today brought the candidates for President’s foreign policy advisors, Randy Scheunemann and Denis McDonough debated their respective candidate’s foreign policy today albeit not face to face with NPR’s Robert Seigal.
O’Bama’s policy of course entails pulling troops out of Iraq beginning immediately upon taking office. He leaves himself the out of allowing to “keep a presence in Iraq” of American troops who will be tasked with “counterterrorism missions against al-Qaida“.
McCain’s is to keep troop levels troops in Iraq until al-Qaida is defeated and no longer able “to pose a strategic threat to the country.”
Now I see these two “policies” as not so divisive as the candidates would like we the people to think they are. Much like the difference between men’s jewelry and women’s, the gold is there and the value is there, it’s the weight and substance that’s different. O’Bama sets a timeline to reduce troop levels. McCain has never said he WOULDN’T reduce troop levels, but he doesn’t want to publish a timeline that the enemy can use against us. Here, O’Bama has the weight behind him. In keeping Iraq out of al-Qaida’s hands, McCain’s policy is the weightier one, but O’Bama doesn’t advocate removing American military presence in it’s entirety and has definitely said we would continue to mount missions against al-Qaida.
On the issue of Iran, we see a greater difference. McCain wants to continue sanctions and have no diplomatic relations with the current Iranian government, while O’Bama would open the door of diplomatic discussion. His advisor, Mr. McDonough cites the ground made by the Bush administration with North Korea once diplomatic discussion was opened.
There are fundamental differences between Iran and North Korea, however. The sanctions imposed against North Korea were effective in that they adversely affected that country’s economy. That brought North Korea to the bargaining table, not opening the diplomatic door.
The sanctions against Iran are having very little effect on it’s economy because of it’s position in the money rich oil market. They will never enter into talks with anyone trying to curb their foray into nuclear weapons development as they are operating from a position of power. The US’s continued weak dollar is not helping it to gain any leverage either. That’s not to say that some agreement couldn’t be reached with Iran concerning nuclear development, but it won’t be achieved in the same manner as the North Korea agreement was.
I’m having a really hard time with these two candiadates as they both posses strengths I applaud, but both possess weaknesses I deplore. Neither is the perfect one in my eyes and neither is better than the other. Together they might make the perfect team, but I’m afraid hell would freeze over before that would ever happen.
It’s going to be interesting to see who they choose as running mates. I feel like O’Bama - Clinton would be the strongest Democratic ticket and think that McCain - Rice would make a formidable Republican ticket.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Tags: Asia, Condoleezza Rice, Iraq, North Korea, Nuclear weapon, The World, United States, US, Weapons
Post here
June 27th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
You know, I’m right there with ya - “Neither is the perfect one in my eyes and neither is better than the other.” I’m a Republican, but I am totally undecided at this point. I guess I’ll just have to keep watching, listening and reading about what they’re saying and hope the answer becomes clear by the time the election gets here…
June 27th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Yeah — it’s going to be tough and tougher still once the election is over. I just know I’m going to be second-guessing myself for the next 4 years! And I think there are a lot of people in this same quandary. We all want a new direction, but who’s going to take that step? One talks the talk, but hasn’t seemed to really walk the walk while the other one is a real dark horse — when he wasn’t running for the presidency, he exhibited some backbone and independent thinking, but now that he’s on the carousel to the White House, he’s walking with the enemy in order to grab that brass ring. Is he going to revert to his true type if he gets it or is he going to keep letting others call the shots? Toss up!
ê¿ê
June 28th, 2008 at 7:03 am
I have been watching the latest American politics with interest. I have to be honest, I do not know much about your political scene but it is most certainly interesting. “The first female President’, ‘the first African American President’ - these were all terms bandied about in our press. In the end of the day it is all about the ‘next President’. The guys from the press just love putting labels on everything.
To me it seems as if the American public are quite interested in their politics, this is a good thing, I think. Here in South Africa, nobody really gives a damn. Politics is not discussed all that often as these dudes just do as they want to anyway.Here the feeling is that no amount of talking or debate is going to bring about any changes, so why bother? Our ruling party has such a vast majority that it leaves a very small opposition. This does not make for interesting politics, nor very efficient politics (my opinion)..
June 30th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Well, Sailor, it’s apathy that has gotten the US into the trouble it’s in now. We let Dubya get away with murder (literally), then voted him back into office for another 4 years. I don’t feel sorry at all for those who did it as they are getting their rewards now. I just wish we weren’t in the position to have to choose the best of a sorry lot once again.
ê¿ê