Our Presidents answer to us, not other countries' rulers. Bush gets this. I don't know if any of the Democratic candidates do.
This is another example of unnecessary polarization, I think. There is a difference, a difference bigger than a nuance, between being subservient to other countries or even catering to other countries, on one hand, and recognizing that it's smart to get along with your neighbors to the extent feasible, on the other. When someone advocates the latter, he is automatically charged with the former. Just as when someone raises a question about using language that equates war with a football game or a video game, they're thought to be anti-military. Or when someone questions a mores of the inner city, he's thought a racist. And on and on.
Sure, there are some nuts out there who would submit our country to the authority of the UN. A few nuts. Most people just want to maintain alliances, to avoid flipping off an ally or potential ally.
If not, we'll "agree to disagree" and do what we think is best.
Exactly. You clearly get it. There's no need to make it into a war in defense of sovereignty. Bush's rhetoric was effective flag waving, but his framing of the issue was a fallacy.
I don't know if we just don't listen to others or whether we're all just looking for a fight. |
