I also just happened to catch a few minutes of Michael Moore's movie
Bowling
for Columbine. The part I saw showed some Canadians that were being
asked
about the US. The gist of what they said was that the US was always
fighting
and that fighting was the way it tried to handle all it's problems. As
Canadians they didn't do things that way. Perhaps the reason why many
Americans want a strong leader or someone with military experience is
for
just that reason, they expect to be involved in wars and want someone in
charge who is good at warring. As we know, the more wars a country takes
part in the less use it has for democratic principles. Lots of wars
leads
to
authoritarian leadership. So it's a chicken or egg thing. Do we have so
many
wars because that is just how we try to solve all our problems or do we
have
so many wars because we elect leaders who are ex military men who think
a
war is the solution to all our problems? One thing is for sure McCain is
a
guy who believes that war is a great tool for problem solving. So if we
elect him are we more likely to have more wars?

Hawke

Good question, but I don't think so. The countries that get into a lot of
wars are the countries that have overwhelming power and an inherited sense
of responsibility, either for empires or for allies, and whether that
sense
of responsibility is sensible and justified or not.

The trouble with it is that it encourages more militarism than good sense
would dictate. Once a country gets into that mode, it's hard to stop. The
Ottoman Empire had it in its region of the world; the ancient Romans did;
the Spaniards did at one time in their history; and, of course, the Brits
handed it off to us.

There were some interesting editorials in the Times of London about how
the
US was getting a bad rap; that, in their opinion, of *course* the world's
only superpower has to intervene in places like the former Yugoslavia, and
with the ambitions of the former Soviet Union, and so on. That's a
legitimate point of view, and no surprise coming from conservative Brits.
But it's wrong for our time, if it was ever right. If there's going to be
policing actions around the world -- and there probably are, regardless of
what we might desire -- the only legitimate way to accomplish them today
is
with a large coalition of democratic states.

I think McCain has a fairly good sense of this, and is unlikely to be a
unilateralist. But it's Obama who has it built into his being. He's a man
suited for an emerging world order and is more likely to make a success of
it. I think it's a generational thing.

--
Ed Huntress


Funny thing about people is that a lot of the time you never know what they
are really like until they get power. I remember a line from Abagail Adams
in a letter to her husband where she said something to the effect that all
men would be tyrants if they could. Sometimes even the most mild mannered
individual turns into a maniac when given unlimited power. My take is that
McCain is not someone I would want to give it to. He's too much of a hot
head, even now at 71. The one thing I have gotten from what I have seen of
Obama is that he is cool and calculating, definitely not the kind to go off
half cocked off like I believe McCain would be likely to do. But if you saw
Obama's speech tonight I have to agree with him that after eight years of
republican control of the government giving them another four is lunacy.
Obama may be lacking in some things needed to be a good president but I'm
more than ready to take a chance on him. I seriously doubt he would make a
bigger mess of things than we have to deal with now. McCain I just know far
too well. I don't dislike him personally but he's completely the wrong guy
at the wrong time for this job. Of course, that may just well mean the
public will go ahead and elect him anyway. Look at what they did with Bush.
Could they have made a worse mistake?

Hawke