Ardy, your obsession with differences versus non differences may well defeat me.
Just for clarification, I would say my issue is the distinction between many similarities and no difference.
If you want to say there are an uncomfortable number of similarities... such as yada yada yada.... that is accurate and fair, However an infinite number of similarities does not pove "no difference. A Chimanzee has DNA that is 95%$ similar to human DNA. Those similarities... although large, do not prove there is no difference between a chimp and a man.
The "carry a big stick" policies of both the Republicans and Democrats is essentially the same.
IMO this is only partly true.
It is true that Obama has ramped up special forces type attacks around the world. IMO these attacks are quite distinct from a full scale invasion of a foreign nation.
Whether or not such operations can be successful in any meaningful way is an open question.
In general, I agree with the many forum members who have advocated substantially less militaristic foreign policy. My major concern in this respect is that I am not confident that it is a correct policy to ignore Al Queda and their attempts to take over foreign governments and to acquire nuclear weapons.
Secret preemptive wars with lots of collateral damage.
Military might instead of diplomacy.
IMO it is incorrect to suggest that such attacks are the equivalent of a war.
But beyond that, the simple fact is that both bush and McCain tended think that diplomacy is bunk and to easily go down the road of actual war.
How each one goes about can indeed be different.
You're right.
Is that helpful for me to agree with you on that?
Olive
I am not trying to be contentious.... although I am certain it will seem that way. However I think that it is important to avoid clouding a discussion with statements that are not accurate. For exmple it is simply not true that lots of similarities is the same as no difference. And so I am suggesting that we use syntax we both agree is true... IE lots of similarities... and avoid syntax that I think is provably incorrect... IE no difference.
Maybe Gore or Obama never would have invaded Iraq.
Maybe?
Why would it be any more likely than maybe Nader might have invaded Iraq? We will never know if Nader might have invaded Iraq. But we have no reason to believe that he, or Obama, or Gore would have invaded Iraq.
According to that article, Obama is in 15 more countries than Bush was.
Yes, he is going after Al Queda in all those places... just exactly like we would likely do if there was some other criminal conspiracy in those same places.
As I see it, the question is whether the US government should ignore Al Queda abroad.
Even though I didn't vote for Obama, after he was elected I supported him and had high hopes for him.
That disappoints me.
Yes I can understand that
So you can focus on the word "different" all you want to, Ardy.
Show me what McCain said he would do versus what Obama is doing and how it would be worse.
Fair enough
I will start a separate thread devoted to this topic
I really wish you wouldn't demand that I only have two choices.
Perhaps this also deserves a separate thread.
