Are You Asking the Right Questions? (Score 1)

I'm always amused when campaigns use the phrase, "that is a distraction. The American voters really want to discuss the issues..." Actually, no one discusses the issues during an election campaign. What you do is appeal to people's prejudices, emotional frailties and ignorance. Issues are discussed between campaigns, and increasingly that is looking to be about a half-a-day in January before the mid-term elections. Let's first understand that Iraq was a battle. Afghanistan is a battle. We are actually now in a permanent state of cold war, and frankly its nothing new--we've been in a continuous cold war since the dawn of human civilization. The European wars of the twentieth century were simply outbursts in a simmering conflict that had its roots in the 19th century, whose own conflicts had their roots in the 18th century and so on. War isn't optional--its a permanent feature of humanity. Its also the driving force behind human civilization. Our technology, our culture--even our philosophies are born from war. In terms of foreign policy, its never been a choice between war and no war, but really, really big war, or small, manageable wars. For reasons I find nearly unfathomable, the current hot wars we are engaged in are never discussed in terms of their geopolitical significance. Has anyone looked at a map? Afghanistan and Iraq bracket Iran--coincidence? Not bloody likely. During the war actually named "cold war", the U.S. and Soviets actively engaged in this kind of proxy war, by supporting friendly governments in strategic locations to thwart the strategic interests of the other. Ironically, Iran, which used to be a strong ally before Obama's godfather of naivete (Jimmy Carter) ignored the strategic interests of the West for touchy-feely notions about human rights, was a major bulwark against the Soviet dreams of expansion into a warm water port. Afghanistan was also part of that dream. Things have changed, and Iran is now the target to strategic isolation--geographical, economic and military. Candidates who view Iran as a "tiny country" are too stupid to bear. Iran has been the key to dominating the region for millenia, which is why of course it has been the seat of so many empires over the ages. Iran can literally step on the neck of the world with sufficient military might. Tiny country my ass. Everything Barack Obama has said about foreign policy has scared the bejesus out of me--the man has no clue, and not having a clue in the geopolitical game costs lives--millions of them. Jimmy Carter's colossal blunders in Southeast Asian, Afghanistan, and Iran literally cost millions of lives and the credibility of the U.S. as a world power (are you old enough to remember the humiliation of the hostage crisis?). It has been thirty years, and we are still suffering the effects, still paying a cost in lives. You can in fact screw up the economy and recover in pretty short order. There are dozens of countries that have demonstrated that fact. The effect is immediate, the voters get mad, and sanity is restored. Geopolitics is a far less forgiving arena. You screw up, people die, maybe a lot of people, maybe you. If McCain couldn't balance a checkbook, I'd still vote for him because he's a serious student of foreign policy and he has no illusions about people's motives or the productivity of having nice chats with dictators. As it stands, Obama has no clue on the economy either. Frankly, I don't blame Obama, I blame the Americans who are too woefully ignorant to nominate a candidate with brains, experience and the constitution to actually lead this country in the twenty-first century (yeah--I mean Hillary). I weep for a nation with this many idiots in it.