DM, to save finding the relevant bits of your posts to quote, I'll just address some of your points:
1) The US has done the whole 'go it alone' thing with Iraq, and where did that get them? 98% (or whatever the number was) of world leaders may well agree with dealing with Iran's army, but you don't get that 98% on your side by insulting them.
2) You have made repeated remarks about Obama's comments about pulling out of Iraq. Remember the whole "the war is over" debacle from Bush? Republican and Democrat alike have made ridiculous claims over the war, and both have been proven wrong. Worse still, Bush was actually in office at the time. If you're going to claim that the president doesn't pull the levers, then McCain is just as liable to fall into that trap as Bush and Obama. You can't have it both ways.
3) Creationism, and it's ill-gotten sister Intelligent Design, look centuries of science in the face, and laugh. 4,000 year-old dinosaurs? WTF. What's with all this radio carbon dating then?
4) Power or no power, the VP *is* a figurehead, second only to the president. In the last week alone she's accused a fellow Senator of consorting with terrorists, and rattled the sabre in Iraq's face. I'd have a lot more respect for her if she admitted that she doesn't have all the answers yet, instead of attempting to invent something on the spur of the moment and immediately looking like a stupid fool. 'What newspapers have you read?' isn't a particularly difficult question to answer. If she can't deal with that one, I dread to think of what she'd do in a meeting with a foreign power.
people reading what they want into my posts, except in ALL of them I say there will simply be NO difference in the way any leader would deal with any of these. I can't have it one way but not the other, thats correct, thats why I claim the same for all of them
I'm not really sure what you mean about the go it alone thing. Iran, the sanctions and diplomatic talks have been ongoing for over a decade, multiple VERY experienced world leaders have tried talking it over and repeatedly get told to smeg off, sure they let inspectors in now and then, thats only useful for inspecting firstly the area's they let us inspect, and secondly the area's we can ask to see that we know about. Obama's claim is the inteligence he has is they have 150kg of uranium stockpiled, not exactly working is it. The Iran thing hasn't been going it alone at any stage. Obama's thinking seems to be pull out of Iraq and hope his vast experience somehow bears more fruit than dozens of worldwide leaders with decades more experience sometimes. Its either completely naive or he's just saying what the public want to hear for votes. Neither would surprise me however its probably the later.
The point is everything he wants to do is being done, has been being done and has been ongoing, he says the next option after serious sanctions and talking is military and he won't rule it out but has a go at McCain for saying the same thing and having a go at Bush for not doing it, when he has been. The thing that does get to me about Obama is he acts like he's the only one who wants to talk, like they aren't doing it now and that somehow due to his vast experience of dealing with people who repeatedly threaten to wipe Isreal from the face of the planet, that somehow his talks will work better. Again stupid, or saying what people want to hear in a perfect world.
The simple fact is Obama and McCain both think Iraq could become infested with terrorists the second they leave but Obama wants to do it quicker, with no backup plan and hope that Iran will listen to him, its possibly the stupidest thing he could ever do to be quite honest.
As for Palin, plenty of VP's have been all but pushed completely aside once the ballot is finished. She can be shipped off to deal with negotiations with Iceland and their whale culling. Either she's stupid , flat out stupid in which case I really do think they'd just ship her off on long, important but ultimately time wasting talks with inconsequential countries, or her people are clever and simply trying to win all the redneck, racist and average joe votes and she'll be vastly different once in office. Again either is possible, a politician who says one thing to get in power and then completely changes, theres always a first time i guess
Just to reiterated, I don't think McCain would be massively better than Obama, nor do I support everything he "promises" , but as in a previous post, its about someone maybe getting some minor good things going on, vs a guy who the world might love but congress and the senate refuse to support getting nothing at all done. The only true power a president has is the veto, and its power is all but gone, if you don't let the other side pass stuff, they shoot down all of yours anyway. Its always negotiation, you get abstinance talks in school and we get some funding for, hell, i don't know, some condom machines in schools.
But the way it is, and the way people change once in power, Obama might turn into a military nut job once elected or McCain might become a hippy, broken election promises is pretty much the staple of politics and has been for centuries. On a world scale though, is McCain or Obama being in power more likely to deter say Russia from re-invading Georgia, or China doing worse in the Sudan, or Iran launching an attack on Israel or Iraq. Remember, the appearance that you will use force can be more effective, infact is more effective in world politics than actually using force. The appearance you'd avoid any conflict at all costs is also going to encourage a lot of countries to take a lot of liberties. World peace is an admirable goal, but until the rest of the world is ready and wants it, it does you no good to try and achieve it and we are no where near ready for world peace yet.
Also, within what, seconds of Palin being nominated the trash talk about her sick child was being throw about, and you can guess which party was behind that. Both parties are guilty of lying, talking crap, having people who contridict themselves and they are as bad as each other, though I think its fair to say the dirt on Palin appeared before they started throwing mud this time(i'm under no impression they wouldn't have done it anyway at some point).
I'd also say that while the VP is officially the 2nd in command, and 1st in line to take over, assuming McCain doesn't die she would be far, far away from being the 2nd in command in terms of power. Frankly the leader of the house, and a half dozen other people(normally from the opposite side) have much much much much more influence anyway. Its quite possible that all 4 of them, no matter who actually wins the election will be in influencial positions anyway.
