Reply #25: . [View All]

[chimp chump]

"So might makes right?"

Of course not. But the bigger battallions nearly always win more battles.

In the end, projecting geopolitical power to achieve national objectives around the world actually does require an effective military.

This has been true throughout history. Some people like to think that if we all just make nice talk at the U.N., it's going to change the nature of all countries and their leaders. Well, maybe someday but not soon. In the meantime, weak countries like to talk and strong countries will determine outcomes.

I think there's a lot of naivete about foreign policy in this country. But there isn't really that much difference between the two major parties over the last fifty years on the fundamental foreign policy objectives.

Look at the current race. Dean vs. Bush really was a clear difference. Far less so in the final match between Kerry vs. Bush. And how did Kerry become the nominee? By appealing to voters that he would be a good commander in chief, using his credentials as a decorated veteran, soothing hunters with his camo, etc.

If you all want to pretend to be holier than thou about being international peaceniks, go right ahead. But every S.o.S for decades has belonged to the CFR and other policy think tanks. These organizations ensure something of a real uniformity in the foreign policy of both parties.

Think about it. When Clinton was bombing in Kosovo Bush and McCain, both likely nominees of their party, refused to offer any criticism whatsoever and publicly supported him. And it was actually very horrible. Clearly an instance where both parties should have opposed saving the Euro-weenies from a problem they created and weren't able to solve themselves. But notice that despite the supposed differences between the two parties on these issues, the two GOP candidates fully supported Clinton, no matter how much their conservative base hated seeing America side with the genocidal Muslim drug smugglers against the Orthodox Serbs. You see the same thing in this year's election. Kerry fully supported Bush's actions and didn't really undercut him in any substantial way.

There is no important foreign policy objective that doesn't have pretty strong bipartisan support. It's been that way for decades.