debates

[Carl Remick]

>>True enough. There was one subtle difference which might amount to 
>>nothing.
>>Bush aruged that foreign affairs should be about "us" in every 
>>circumstance.
>>Gore, at least, mentioned humanitarian reasons. If we stick to the 
>>rhetoric,
>>and by all means, let's stick to the rhetoric, Bush is obligated to 
>>intervene
>>*only* when it is profitable while Gore's position opens up a space for
>>intervention in the name of 'humanity' (hence, his comments about values)
>>[yeah, i'm struggling for a needle here]. For instance, Gore mentioned 
>>that
>>genocide needs to be stopped, for humanitarian reasons - he then asked 
>>Bush
>>about this - and Bush basically said no, that the "US" shouldn't be 
>>involved.
>>Although this might not amount to anything, there is a substantial 
>>difference
>>here.
>>
>>& the political,
>>ken
>
>Vote for Bush, then.
>
>Yoshie

I'm afraid that I am going to wind up voting for Gore as the lesser of two 
evils domestically; the race is too close to risk a protest vote for Nader.  
But I will do this with great reluctance.  I think Gore presents the greater 
risk in terms of cruise-missile adverturism.  Gore's "humanitarianism" is 
liberalism at its red-in-tooth-and-claw worst.

Carl
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.