La visione politica di John McCain in campo internazionale, così come è stata presentata durante la campagna elettorale, ha alcuni punti di contatto con la linea manifestata da Obama.
Balzano agli occhi le critiche che entrambi i candidati alle presidenziali americane, non risparmiano all’amministrazione Bush per la gestione fallimentare della guerra in Iraq, e la dichiarazione di intenti rispetto alla necessità di una sua revisione; infatti McCain, senza mezzi termini, sostiene che “La cattiva gestione e gli errori commessi in Iraq dimostra che l’America dovrebbe andare in guerra solo con strumenti adeguati e solo con un piano realistico ed esaustivo che assicuri la vittoria”. Ma le riflessioni dei 2 candidati sul da farsi, per recuperare gli errori fatti in territorio iracheno, sono ovviamente diverse; In fact, while Obama favors a withdrawal of the military, and later expand the network of relations and crisis management using the tools of diplomacy, McCain considers it necessary to continue to be present militarily saying explicitly that America must continue to be present in that region " ... only with a realistic and comprehensive plan that will ensure the victory. "
E 'clear then that the Republican candidate bases its policy on "victory" as a primary objective and based on it, the American military presence in Iraq. McCain expanded its message with a tool of fear: he argues that a defeat in Iraq would have disastrous consequences for epochal proportions, the Islamic extremists "... after having defeated the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and the United States in Iraq, may believe that the world is willing to follow them and that everything is possible."
The theme of fear is one point on which both candidates leverage, of course, this argument for each of the two has different attributes and is aimed at completely different scenarios, but the result does not change, it should be noted that Obama devotes the same attention to the fear for the fate of the world and America, for example when he says that "one of the objectives of Al Qaeda has set off a Hiroshima against the United States," or when he says that you must "return to center our efforts on Afghanistan and Pakistan - the main front in the war against Al Qaeda - in order to face the terrorists where their roots are deeper. "
latter reference also shows a base common to both strategies: the war in Afghanistan has reason to be, because that state is still the favorite hideout for Al Qaeda and international terrorism and the presence of troops continues to be the most appropriate tool for its safety measures. According to McCain
in Afghanistan have been some progress, the factors that best evidence is represented by the return home of more than 2 million refugees, increased in misura significativa del benessere dei cittadini e dalle elezioni di importanza storica tenutesi nel 2004. Tuttavia la recente rinascita dei talebani rischia di far piombare l’Afghanistan nel ruolo che aveva prima dell’11 settembre, quando offriva rifugio ai terroristi di tutto il mondo. Stando così le cose occorre allora rinnovare l’impegno militare assunto a ridosso dell’11 settembre, provvedendo ad aumentare le forze nato, e ad allentare le restrizioni delle regole di ingaggio.
L’accenno di McCain alla prospettiva di implementare le forze militari, che appare anche più esplicito in altre parti del suo manifesto politico, trova un omologo nelle linee politiche programmatiche di Obama; infatti il candidato democratico states should be increased "our ground forces, increasing sixty-five thousand units of the army and the marines twenty-six thousand units."
Very different is the position of McCain against Iran, the intentions markedly more diplomatic, shown by Obama towards this state. McCain argues that Iran is the "primary state supporter of terrorism," which shows not want to stop the development project of nuclear weapons and the means to use them. And on this point does not fail to raise the specter of fear that it says "... protected by a nuclear arsenal, Iran would be even more willing and able to conduct a terrorist attack against its enemies, including the United States and Israel or even to provide nuclear weapons to one of its allied terrorist networks. "
In what position they take against Iran, McCain did not spare a jab, along with a tough stance against the UN and its policy is marked on the principles of caution to countries like Iran: "If United Nations - says McCain - are unwilling to intervene, then the U.S. should take the lead of a coalition of countries will, outside of the structure of the United Nations to impose effective multilateral sanctions, such as the export restriction petroleum products. "
The position becomes even clearer when McCain threatens the isolation of the regime in Tehran, by supporting a disinvestment campaign to isolate and delegitimize. "In this case the military action, although it should be the preferred option, it will still be covered: Tehran must understand that he can not win a conflict with the rest of the world."
Finally the idea of \u200b\u200bsupporting and strengthening Israel echoed by Obama, is manifested in different parts of the political agenda of the Republican candidate and the synthesis is represented by the will of the Jewish state fonire materials and military technology, in order to maintain its superiorità qualitativa in campo militare.
Balzano agli occhi le critiche che entrambi i candidati alle presidenziali americane, non risparmiano all’amministrazione Bush per la gestione fallimentare della guerra in Iraq, e la dichiarazione di intenti rispetto alla necessità di una sua revisione; infatti McCain, senza mezzi termini, sostiene che “La cattiva gestione e gli errori commessi in Iraq dimostra che l’America dovrebbe andare in guerra solo con strumenti adeguati e solo con un piano realistico ed esaustivo che assicuri la vittoria”. Ma le riflessioni dei 2 candidati sul da farsi, per recuperare gli errori fatti in territorio iracheno, sono ovviamente diverse; In fact, while Obama favors a withdrawal of the military, and later expand the network of relations and crisis management using the tools of diplomacy, McCain considers it necessary to continue to be present militarily saying explicitly that America must continue to be present in that region " ... only with a realistic and comprehensive plan that will ensure the victory. "
E 'clear then that the Republican candidate bases its policy on "victory" as a primary objective and based on it, the American military presence in Iraq. McCain expanded its message with a tool of fear: he argues that a defeat in Iraq would have disastrous consequences for epochal proportions, the Islamic extremists "... after having defeated the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and the United States in Iraq, may believe that the world is willing to follow them and that everything is possible."
The theme of fear is one point on which both candidates leverage, of course, this argument for each of the two has different attributes and is aimed at completely different scenarios, but the result does not change, it should be noted that Obama devotes the same attention to the fear for the fate of the world and America, for example when he says that "one of the objectives of Al Qaeda has set off a Hiroshima against the United States," or when he says that you must "return to center our efforts on Afghanistan and Pakistan - the main front in the war against Al Qaeda - in order to face the terrorists where their roots are deeper. "
latter reference also shows a base common to both strategies: the war in Afghanistan has reason to be, because that state is still the favorite hideout for Al Qaeda and international terrorism and the presence of troops continues to be the most appropriate tool for its safety measures. According to McCain
in Afghanistan have been some progress, the factors that best evidence is represented by the return home of more than 2 million refugees, increased in misura significativa del benessere dei cittadini e dalle elezioni di importanza storica tenutesi nel 2004. Tuttavia la recente rinascita dei talebani rischia di far piombare l’Afghanistan nel ruolo che aveva prima dell’11 settembre, quando offriva rifugio ai terroristi di tutto il mondo. Stando così le cose occorre allora rinnovare l’impegno militare assunto a ridosso dell’11 settembre, provvedendo ad aumentare le forze nato, e ad allentare le restrizioni delle regole di ingaggio.
L’accenno di McCain alla prospettiva di implementare le forze militari, che appare anche più esplicito in altre parti del suo manifesto politico, trova un omologo nelle linee politiche programmatiche di Obama; infatti il candidato democratico states should be increased "our ground forces, increasing sixty-five thousand units of the army and the marines twenty-six thousand units."
Very different is the position of McCain against Iran, the intentions markedly more diplomatic, shown by Obama towards this state. McCain argues that Iran is the "primary state supporter of terrorism," which shows not want to stop the development project of nuclear weapons and the means to use them. And on this point does not fail to raise the specter of fear that it says "... protected by a nuclear arsenal, Iran would be even more willing and able to conduct a terrorist attack against its enemies, including the United States and Israel or even to provide nuclear weapons to one of its allied terrorist networks. "
In what position they take against Iran, McCain did not spare a jab, along with a tough stance against the UN and its policy is marked on the principles of caution to countries like Iran: "If United Nations - says McCain - are unwilling to intervene, then the U.S. should take the lead of a coalition of countries will, outside of the structure of the United Nations to impose effective multilateral sanctions, such as the export restriction petroleum products. "
The position becomes even clearer when McCain threatens the isolation of the regime in Tehran, by supporting a disinvestment campaign to isolate and delegitimize. "In this case the military action, although it should be the preferred option, it will still be covered: Tehran must understand that he can not win a conflict with the rest of the world."
Finally the idea of \u200b\u200bsupporting and strengthening Israel echoed by Obama, is manifested in different parts of the political agenda of the Republican candidate and the synthesis is represented by the will of the Jewish state fonire materials and military technology, in order to maintain its superiorità qualitativa in campo militare.
0 comments:
Post a Comment