McCain's world-view

E.Nashton

Dear Sirs,

Neither Utopian or a Warmonger? Are you sure you're speaking about John McCain? In the speech he once again raises the hope of creating a "League of Democracies"--a concept that sounds eerily familiar to the failed (Utopian) "League of Nations."

As for not being a warmonger, have you bothered to look at his past comments on Iran, North Korea and Russia? Honestly, what part of "the only thing worse than bombing Iran is a nuclear armed Iran" takes him out of warmonger contention?

As I watch the relationship between our two nations slowly implode over Iraq and Afghanistan, I continue to wonder why individuals like yourselves spend so much time whistling past the graveyard. What you are going to get with John McCain is a pathologically stubborn President that will give new meaning to the phrase, "you are either with us or against us." Though the choices in this election are about as bad as they have ever been in American history, I remain hopeful that you will not have the pleasure of discovering just how dangerous a man John McCain is.

Do your readers a favor and spend a bit more time examining this man. Chances are you might actually get your analysis right.

Ian C

Mr Nashton "the only thing worse than bombing Iran is a nuclear armed Iran" is one of the the things we like about McCain. He is telling it how it is and his past suggests that it is something he will not allow to happen. There is nothing more dangerous at this time than a terrorist regime with nuclear weapons. Only those too comfortably off will want to believe that this is not the largest single priority today. The Democratic candidates are showing uncertainty and confusion in this. That is why they must not (cannot?) win this November.

E.Naston

Mr. C (IAN),

I'm glad that you're so sure of yourself with respect to your military policy. However, a US attack on Iran (and it won't include the type of support that we desperately need from the UK) does not happen in a vacuum. If you haven't noticed, the US is having quite a time in Iraq (a country that your nation has abandoned) and Afghanistan (where drugs seem to be more important than stability for the UK).

But, far be it for me to lecture you and your nation on the subject of your interests...

I recognize how easy it is for you to say that attacking Iran would be a good thing, since your nation would not share in the sacrifice...However, for the adults that live and work in the US, we'd much rather prefer that OUR nation focuses on getting Iraq and Afghanistan right before it moves onto a more dubious commitment.

As for being comfortably off, I believe the word that you are searching for is naïveté, and clearly, for someone who doesn't seem to understand that there are limits to US (and UK) power, you fit the bill far better than I.

Granted, these democrats are, once again, a disaster--and they would never receive my vote (I am a Republican). But worse than McCain and his pathological hawkishness? I think not.

Ian C

I understand your reluctance Mr Nashton, but your responsibilty come November as a citizen of the USA is to vote having made a choice. Your country is the only superpower that has the (unwanted) role of world policeman. If she does not dig in on Iran then she will no longer be able to prevent anarchy in the Middle East nor to stop it sprouting elsewhere, with vast damage to her own and her allies interests - not least of which the world's fuel store will be in the hands of those who would deny us what we currently need to run our peaceful, if self-centric, lives. The Iraq war has hugely damaged the credibility of the USA and its role as the 'good cop', there is no denying. But to let this prevent you from supporting action that is still more necessary than that, would be an even greater mistake than the errors committed in the first place. Just because we have demonstrated the limitation of poorly exercised power in the past, through incompetence and incorrect analysis, does not mean that we need do so in the future. Especially if the USA is served by a leader who has the track record to suggest that he would not have made nor will make the same mistakes.

TGF UKIP

James, I cannot accept the implication that it is, or has been in the recent past, the US that has deserved the description of the poor ally. On the lead up to the Iraq war, Saddam believed he had purchased insurance at the UN via his bribes to France and Russia in particular via oil development contracts in western Iraq and more direct pay-offs to people "close to the highest levels in the Elysee and the Kremlin via the oil for food programme. Neither were the Germans any better - they were extensive suppliers of high tech machinery to Iraq and under Schroder/ Joschka Fischer were in any case viscerally anti-American. Neither have the euro spots changed viz their appalling failure to meet their NATO obligations in Afghanistan and the Germans' failure to even contemplate sanctions against Iran when the British sailors were kidnapped. The "poor ally" charge should be levelled elswhere than at the Bush Administration. Russia is explicitly an enemy of the West and it is at least arguable that France and Germany are little better. At best they are no more than nominal members of the Western Alliance and don't let anybody be fooled by Sarkozy.