Why does sensible foreign policy seem so foreign?
May 6th 2008 13:30
Is it possible, even remotely, that with the upcoming presidential election in the US, that a change of office, administration, and possibly political party, that the US may finally see some changes made to their practice of foreign policy?
It's a given that the campaign is in full-swing, the machinery of each sides' campaign running at full steam to take the prize, and that minor and insignificant issues suddenly enforce raging debate (E.g. Obama's priest, or Hillary's 'sniper' comments spring to mind).
What disturbs me is that such nitpicking detracts from deriving serious issue debate from any candidate. I won't prejudice this post by going into who I'd prefer to see win; at present I would be more enlightened to see and hear more about what each candidate would do regarding the issues of Americas' foreign policy, and where they will steer it into the future. Given the enormity of the War on Terror, Iraq, Afghanistan, all following similar veins of Vietnam all over again, one would hypothesize a 're-think' in order for a change.
You may wonder why an Australian seems to gives-a-damn about it, and the answer is quite rational. Stripped of leftist or right wing attachments or sentiments, Australia and the US do have a lot in common, in terms of trade, domestic issues and a history of allied armed services to name but a few. As a rational, forward-thinking person whose country is heavily associated with America, it is of concern; suffice to say, I'd like to see changes made with less emphasis on warmongering and greater efforts of diplomacy and dialogue being undertaken.
Seemingly one would think it would serve the voting populus to be aware of what path a candidate would lead them down if elected, preferably prior to the election, and not a repeat of affairs in finding out afterwards.
It's a given that the campaign is in full-swing, the machinery of each sides' campaign running at full steam to take the prize, and that minor and insignificant issues suddenly enforce raging debate (E.g. Obama's priest, or Hillary's 'sniper' comments spring to mind).
What disturbs me is that such nitpicking detracts from deriving serious issue debate from any candidate. I won't prejudice this post by going into who I'd prefer to see win; at present I would be more enlightened to see and hear more about what each candidate would do regarding the issues of Americas' foreign policy, and where they will steer it into the future. Given the enormity of the War on Terror, Iraq, Afghanistan, all following similar veins of Vietnam all over again, one would hypothesize a 're-think' in order for a change.
You may wonder why an Australian seems to gives-a-damn about it, and the answer is quite rational. Stripped of leftist or right wing attachments or sentiments, Australia and the US do have a lot in common, in terms of trade, domestic issues and a history of allied armed services to name but a few. As a rational, forward-thinking person whose country is heavily associated with America, it is of concern; suffice to say, I'd like to see changes made with less emphasis on warmongering and greater efforts of diplomacy and dialogue being undertaken.
Seemingly one would think it would serve the voting populus to be aware of what path a candidate would lead them down if elected, preferably prior to the election, and not a repeat of affairs in finding out afterwards.
| 121 |
| Vote |
Comments (2)
Add Comments
Comment by Peter Rogers
on Looks Can Be Deceiving - Film Review (possible spoiler)
Gone are the days of critical, daring, and brave film-making, as not only do the film execs see this as 'too risky' in terms of return-profitability, but those aspiring directors who could become visionaries lose out when trying to pitch their dreams to get their ball rolling.
'Deception' had, from the outset and previews, an exceptional premise, and yet it fell into the trap of standard Hollywood fare: keep it simple for the audiences, throw in some jilted romance, and the same old bad-guy-loses ending.
The 'chick-flick' and 'action-movie' have become two of the predominant genres for movie plot lines receiving the green light; they appeal to a wide area of their targeted demographics, they're simple on the brain, and subject their audiences to the proliferated array of either fairytale happy endings with grand/over-the-top scenarios, or of blokes blowing up things with massive amounts of firepower (and never receiving more than the occasional graze).
This 'dumbing-down' of movies for their target demographics is considerably detrimental to those of us who possess something between our ears, and seek for riveting and gripping story lines and performances. Unfortunately, such movies are far and few between, and all too often we end up with movies that try too hard to be complex and subsequently fail; the end result resembling watching a bad train wreck in progress.