Peter RogersWhy does sensible foreign policy seem so foreign?
May 6th 2008 13:30
Is it possible, even remotely, that with the upcoming presidential election in the US, that a change of office, administration, and possibly political party, that the US may finally see some changes made to their practice of foreign policy?
It's a given that the campaign is in full-swing, the machinery of each sides' campaign running at full steam to take the prize, and that minor and insignificant issues suddenly enforce raging debate (E.g. Obama's priest, or Hillary's 'sniper' comments spring to mind).
What disturbs me is that such nitpicking detracts from deriving serious issue debate from any candidate. I won't prejudice this post by going into who I'd prefer to see win; at present I would be more enlightened to see and hear more about what each candidate would do regarding the issues of Americas' foreign policy, and where they will steer it into the future. Given the enormity of the War on Terror, Iraq, Afghanistan, all following similar veins of Vietnam all over again, one would hypothesize a 're-think' in order for a change.
You may wonder why an Australian seems to gives-a-damn about it, and the answer is quite rational. Stripped of leftist or right wing attachments or sentiments, Australia and the US do have a lot in common, in terms of trade, domestic issues and a history of allied armed services to name but a few. As a rational, forward-thinking person whose country is heavily associated with America, it is of concern; suffice to say, I'd like to see changes made with less emphasis on warmongering and greater efforts of diplomacy and dialogue being undertaken.
Seemingly one would think it would serve the voting populus to be aware of what path a candidate would lead them down if elected, preferably prior to the election, and not a repeat of affairs in finding out afterwards.
It's a given that the campaign is in full-swing, the machinery of each sides' campaign running at full steam to take the prize, and that minor and insignificant issues suddenly enforce raging debate (E.g. Obama's priest, or Hillary's 'sniper' comments spring to mind).
What disturbs me is that such nitpicking detracts from deriving serious issue debate from any candidate. I won't prejudice this post by going into who I'd prefer to see win; at present I would be more enlightened to see and hear more about what each candidate would do regarding the issues of Americas' foreign policy, and where they will steer it into the future. Given the enormity of the War on Terror, Iraq, Afghanistan, all following similar veins of Vietnam all over again, one would hypothesize a 're-think' in order for a change.
You may wonder why an Australian seems to gives-a-damn about it, and the answer is quite rational. Stripped of leftist or right wing attachments or sentiments, Australia and the US do have a lot in common, in terms of trade, domestic issues and a history of allied armed services to name but a few. As a rational, forward-thinking person whose country is heavily associated with America, it is of concern; suffice to say, I'd like to see changes made with less emphasis on warmongering and greater efforts of diplomacy and dialogue being undertaken.
Seemingly one would think it would serve the voting populus to be aware of what path a candidate would lead them down if elected, preferably prior to the election, and not a repeat of affairs in finding out afterwards.
| 103 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Harry
Sydney Diary
Personals
Brisbane Diarystar
Comment by Damo
Whoever wins we lose.