|
First time I've been online today, so let me clarify why I think threatening 'massive retaliation' against Iran is different from 'free darfur'.
One (to me) means the United States taking military action in no uncertain terms, being the physical agressor. The other means taking internationally-backed diplomatic action. I do not support US military action in Darfur, and I have not been under the impression that the majority of democrats support US military action there, either. I will absolutely concede I am wrong in that if someone can provide the tangible evidence.
I wholeheartedly disagree that we should be using agressive military tactics to push our individual country's agenda. If we choose to use negotiation, economic sanctions, peaceful organization, etc, acting in concert with the collective wishes of the UN, then I find that action to be acceptable. The promise of agressive military action by Hillary is what I found disturbing, and what to me is more in line with the current administration's foreign policy.
|
Threaded Mode
