|
it's funny--there are plenty of people who say, "it's our damn country, we don't have to listen to any other country about what we should or should not do." I'm guessing that people who feel like this have never spent any significant time in foreign countries. The US has its hand in influencing all nature of actions in other countries, from banana trade to security issues. Often they use carrots to get their way (send milosevic to the Hague and we'll give you billions of dollars), occasionally they use sticks. In all cases, the US govt is sticking its hands in things, if the situation were reversed, you would be incensed about. What do you think would happen if the US decided to relax trade stipulations regarding steel protectionism in exchange for China's sending thousands of troops into the US to help with security? The two are completely not related, and yet, if the troops are necessary (let's say to fight terrorism on US soil) , that's what the US is forced to do.
Selfish people will say, "well that's their problem, it's not my problem". Smart people will recognise that as hypocrisy.
BTW, if no other point was brought out from Gore's speech, I would hope everyone would agree that "Gore is smarter than Bush" is a reasonable statement. He has a stronger understanding of foreign affairs, has learned from history (how much do you think Bush knows about Eisenhower's contribution in Korea?), and can string together a coherent argument.
That there is rhetoric in the speech goes without saying. Politics is like that. But that shouldn't obscure the thought that Gore has obviously put into the issue. When you hear Bush talk, it's always something on the order of "we want to spread democracy and make the US safe", with very little supporting detail.
I agree with those that say that Gore is at his best now that he's not running. So he's out of touch with people and his charisma is low. It's a shame those attributes are as critical in politics as they are.
__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.
|