That's less of the issue than the fact that we are one of the worlds largest suppliers of weapons to other countries, we set up governments that suit us at the time and when they stop listening to us we invade them and place someone else in charge.
For those still wanting to fight prop 8, I'd suggest reading this thread on stardestroyer.net, where they are discussing how to fight it.
I personally believe we should listen to our forefathers and not "look for created monsters abroad". we have enough problems at home to keep us busy. While some of our "friends" who like to use our military might for their own needs we would certainly benefit by separating ourselves a bit from our "entangling alliances".
Disclaimer here - I'm not trying to argue politics, just provide an explanation that was asked for earlier about why the international community was hoping for this outcome. I think the global community at large sees it as a break from an American foreign policy that is often seen as arrogant - unilateralism, stubbornness/refusal to listen, and so on. For instance, the argument that negotiations with hostile (or at least frosty) states such as Venezuela and Iran would somehow "give them legitimacy" and that, moreover, that's a problem, seemed very childish to me, and I think a lot of the world shares that view. Furthermore, Europe is politically some way to the left, and Obama is of course relatively liberal for an American politician. That means he lines up with their ideals better, and this may make them more comfortable with him. The same will probably apply to countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Thirdly, I guess there could be an issue of the perception of the outlook of Democrats, and particularly Obama; the concern for the common man/working class/etc could be seen to possibly extend to the world at large, and maybe suggest some level of concern for the rest of the world rather than a purely America-centric view. I'm not sure how accurate such an idea would be, but it's a possibility. Fourthly, because a lot of economies around the world work on a more socially-oriented system, where America's is almost laissez-faire capitalism in comparison, other countries may have more confidence in his ability to steer America back on the right track. And when America prospers, it's much easier for the rest of the world to do the same. Those are just my guesses, but they may help explain why the world outside America was so strongly pro-Obama. I would add that they tend to be pro-Democrat in all cases (do they have a more non-interventionist approach?), but it was probably stronger this time after the damage Bush did to America's international reputation, whether deserved or not. P.S. On a slightly different topic, I would like to note that I have been deeply impressed by how civil both McCain and Obama kept their campaigning and debates. There have been scandals, sure, and some mud-slinging going on. But regardless (and especially when you consider the candidates themselves), it's been miles better than over here, where most of the competing parties and their leaders look like children in comparison.
Yes, let's just negotiate with terrorists. Appease them now, and hope they stay that way later. Laugh.
well, i think its been well established in the last 7-or so years that violence isnt the answer. unless the goal was to drown them in new recruits.... [example; a wedding got air-struck recently, im sure members of that shattered family are in the recruiting lines by now] terrorists exist because the people there hate westerners [and if you look at their history, youd see why] if we were nice to them, actually helped them for once, then there would be less hate, less terrorists and in a few generations, none at all. also the ACLU is fighting prop 8, good luck! http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/05/BA3B13UM63.DTL
Yeah right being nice to them leads to good things eh? Are you aware that we helped what would essentially become the Taliban in Afghanistan when they where occupied by the USSR? Look at what helping them got us.......
talking =/= appeasement. Appeasement means giving them things, like land or weapons; talking is giving them words. I don't understand why we're so scared to even talk to people who don't see things the way we do. Hoping that will change come January 20th.
yep talking has never worked with N. Korea. Although I doubt the other option would work with them either.
We're getting pretty close to the closing of this thread. if it enters into ANY type of heated debate. It will be closed and the people involved warned for potential removal.
Yes people, calm down. lol, wasn't supposed to be up for discussion, was just congrats to the senator/presidential-elect. This thread has been one of the smartest and most mature thread (of the kind) that I have seen XoO members participate in. Maybe XoO is headed in the right direction. For the better, I hope.
Historically speaking (for what it's worth,) the forced pursuance of Western ideals and the oppression of religious practices in Iran led to current situation there today. This was action taking by the Shah who in turn was highly influenced by several prominent western governments such as Great Britain and the United States. This oppression of religious traditions lead to a large backlash, putting in power those you see today. I would just note that it is important to consider our prior influences on Iran when contemplating diplomatic (or non-diplomatic) measures with or against them. I am just providing a brief illuminating history, not meaning to discuss politics. On a side note, it will be interesting to see how capitalist democracy works with the "inequality benefiting the least-advantaged" theory of philosopher John Rawls, used by Obama.