Sorry, that's idealism (combined with revisionist history) gone wrong ...
The unilateral bombings and cruise missile attacks ("bombs from afar and won't put American soldiers in the same harm"), American special force actions without even notifying allies, Bosnia and putting things in motion before consulting NATO, etc...
Please do not re-write history. Yes, W. is far more hated.
It was also shown that Iran's active work on a nuclear weapon halted in 2003, and they instead focused on enrichment instead. Sometimes "resolve" is a necessary evil, even if I personally do not agree with it, I cannot argue with some of the results at times.
Same goes for the "you're either with us or against us" mandate to states that used to sponsor terrorism. Although Clinton began the dialogue with Libya, it really "picked up quick" after 9/11.
Obama has repeatedly stated he plans to take a hard line on Afghanistan and the fringe regions of Pakistan. He said that very early in his campaign.
Do not mistake his being against the 2003 invasion of Iraq as someone who will "only talk it out." I have repeatedly stated that I trust Obama's judgement on foreign policy better than W.'s and Clinton's. He does understand things well.
Now a lot of it has been at the benefit of "hindsight." So I hope he can translate that into foresight as well.
Even Obama did. McCain also disagreed very much with W. on many aspects back during the original, 2000 primary. Don't call him a "dumb ass W. supporter." Even many Democrats sided with W.'s votes on domestic and other things during 2001-2006 as well.
The United States has many, many responsibilities. This Clinton administration new this. I will, once again, point out both Bosnia and Missile Defense. These were US policies set in-motion during the Clinton administration. You can blame W. for a lot of things (e.g., the decision to invade Iraq), but some things were policies set by the Clinton administration where Clinton would not have done things different.
Obama will inherit the same from the W. administration too. Don't think for a moment that he won't do what is necessary for the strategic interests of the western world, even when most disagree. Clinton did not back down either.
I disagree. Just because the world considered W. worse than Clinton did not mean Clinton wasn't disliked during his administration.
The unilateral bombings and cruise missile attacks ("bombs from afar and won't put American soldiers in the same harm"), American special force actions without even notifying allies, Bosnia and putting things in motion before consulting NATO, etc...
Please do not re-write history. Yes, W. is far more hated.
Actually, even Clinton has said some things on North Korea and in a few other areas. Remember, Clinton did take a "hard line" on North Korean before Jimmy Carter started the bilateral talks. Everyone agrees now that those should have never occurred, as the 6-part talks are far more effective in a "common front."
It was also shown that Iran's active work on a nuclear weapon halted in 2003, and they instead focused on enrichment instead. Sometimes "resolve" is a necessary evil, even if I personally do not agree with it, I cannot argue with some of the results at times.
Same goes for the "you're either with us or against us" mandate to states that used to sponsor terrorism. Although Clinton began the dialogue with Libya, it really "picked up quick" after 9/11.
So are blackmail and threats in the hope of free subsidy. I live in the real world, do you?
Bullshit! Now you're living in the fantasy world. Don't re-write history as you believe.
Obama has repeatedly stated he plans to take a hard line on Afghanistan and the fringe regions of Pakistan. He said that very early in his campaign.
Do not mistake his being against the 2003 invasion of Iraq as someone who will "only talk it out." I have repeatedly stated that I trust Obama's judgement on foreign policy better than W.'s and Clinton's. He does understand things well.
Now a lot of it has been at the benefit of "hindsight." So I hope he can translate that into foresight as well.
Actually, McCain is well respected by several nations. He opened the door to normalizing relations with Vietnam, despite his horrific experiences in the Hanoi Hilton. Give the man some credit.
Even Obama did. McCain also disagreed very much with W. on many aspects back during the original, 2000 primary. Don't call him a "dumb ass W. supporter." Even many Democrats sided with W.'s votes on domestic and other things during 2001-2006 as well.
You live in a dream world, especially given your lack of remembering the Clinton administration and unilateral actions and related complaints from the world. Although many have "forgotten" them as of late 2002, they still happened.
The United States has many, many responsibilities. This Clinton administration new this. I will, once again, point out both Bosnia and Missile Defense. These were US policies set in-motion during the Clinton administration. You can blame W. for a lot of things (e.g., the decision to invade Iraq), but some things were policies set by the Clinton administration where Clinton would not have done things different.
Obama will inherit the same from the W. administration too. Don't think for a moment that he won't do what is necessary for the strategic interests of the western world, even when most disagree. Clinton did not back down either.
).
