quote:
The first step towards repairing that damage will hopefully start with the November elections. Unfortunately, even a Democratic, liberal president may not ensure unilateral and fair treatment of problems worldwide, but it will at least be a step in the right direction.
Will it? Bush is not solely responsible for the US's negative reputation; nobody seems to bhavge complained when Bill Clinton started dropping Tomahawks on medicine factories, and Kerry has stated that even knowing what we know now, he would still have gone to war in Iraq. Cliton did nothing to challenge the abusive practiices of American multiu-nationals, and contributed little or nothing to environmental programmes such as the Kyoto treaty.
And is it not precisely because Kerry is NOT going to present a radical alternative that he is considered electable? There is no reason to think a Kerry presidency will change the direction of US foreign policy to any meaningful degree. The candidates who present radical proposals such as Nader are then attacked as if they supported Bush!
Americans have to realise that if they want things to change they will have to vote for that change. As long as they continue to vote for people who will not rock the boat, and appeal only to the mythical centre, American policy will not change, and America will continue to be the largest human threat to life and liberty in the world.
This message has been edited by contracycle, 08-19-2004 04:26 AM
™ Version 4.2
