To: Scumbria who wrote (123275 ) 8/29/2000 7:52:07 PM From: Eric K. Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1570418 OT Scumbria-- That's kind of a silly response. Since you're in the spirit of, "If x hadn't happened, y ...," Chamberlain and WW II wouldn't have happened if Wilson hadn't mucked around in World War I. Intervening in a war in which none of the participants really wanted to be fighting, due to a poorly reasoned humanitarian motive about submarine warfare being more evil than other types of warfare, coupled with a latent Anglophilic impetus is one of the worst things the Democratic party has ever done. Instead of having the Europeans flail around in their little war of attrition until they got bored, our presence allowed the French and British to dictate victor's terms, setting up the unfinished conditions that led to the Great Depression, the rise of fascism, and a lot of other wonderful things (yes, extremely reductionistic ). I haven't heard George mutter a particularly impressive foreign policy statement, but based on the articles I've read by Condoleezza Rice in Foreign Policy Review and one or two other places, plus a few speeches she has given (not the one at the RNC), she is advocating the much more sane foreign policy of rational self-interest over arrogant humanitarian moralizing ("because the US is economically ascendant, we have a moral superiority as well, and should 'help' others" presupposes we have an ability to judge moral correctness-- a rather messy issue when not practiced with the benefit of a chronological rear-view mirror). I pin most of slavery and much of the failure of Reconstruction on the Democratic Party. Not to mention both Vietnam and Korea. In fact, the Democratic Party is responsible for involving us in each of the four worst wars of this century. I consider three of the four to be misadventures, and the fourth to have been required largely due to a previous misadventure. -Eric