Dealing With Iran

I was watching the first presidential debate between Obama and McCain and one part in particular that caught my interest was the policy towards Iran. Both candidates agree that Iran poses a potential threat as it continues to develop its nuclear technology. Additionally Iran has been sending IED’s and special interest groups, such as the Republican Guard, into Iraq. The candidates differ about how to deal with the problem.

McCain seeks a very interventionist policy, and proposed to create a “League of Democracies,” which would place severe sanctions on Iran. Should it continue to pursue its nuclear program, the next step would be military action. Basically, McCain believes that Iran poses so much of a threat that it requires strict and immediate action to handle. His final point was that direct diplomacy without pre-conditions should be opposed. According to McCain, sitting at the table to talk with Iran would only validate its position.

Obama favored a plan focused on diplomacy, and opposed military action unless all other options had been pursued. The Democratic candidate proposed direct talks with Iran without pre-conditions. He stated that Bush’s refusal to hold talks without pre-conditions with North Korea worsened the situation. It had the effect of spurring the growth of the North Korean nuclear development. Obama also criticized McCain’s “League of Democracies” plan, saying that the help of more nations than just democracies would be needed to deal with Iran.

I personally side more with Obama’s views on the issue. I am a firm believer in turning to military action as a very last resort, only when all other options are exhausted. Furthermore, I do not agree with McCain’s opinion that initiating talks without pre-conditions validates Iran’s stance. I do not believe that simply being willing to talk with people validates their opinions. If this were true we would never resolve anything because we would be unwilling to work out our differences.

Sarah Palin from a Conservative Perspective

I read an article titled “The Sarah Palin Paradigm: Real Change” by Chris Adamo, off of the Free Republic blog. In this editorial, the author points out why Sarah Palin would be an ideal vice-president, and then goes on to criticize the policies of the Obama administration and the Democratic party in general. Adamo’s intended audience is voters who are already more conservative-minded, because his outright criticisms of the Left are obviously not designed to persuade Democratic voters to accept his stance. I think that his one-sided viewpoint hurts his credibility, because it makes him too narrow-minded to fairly consider all aspects of the issue on both sides. The way Adamo sees it, the Democratic party is completely flawed and corrupt, while he views Palin through rose-colored glasses.

At the beginning of the editorial, the author points out that Palin’s actions throughout her political career that she is more in tune with the beliefs and attitudes of the founding fathers and the “people in the heartland.” As evidence of this claim, Adamo points to her track record as governor of Alaska, her convention speech, her handling of the liberal media, and her performance in the vice-presidential debate.

Conversely, the rest of the article is devoted to attacking all the flaws with Obama and the Democrats. According to the author, Obama’s political history makes his ability to enforce policies that affect any real change questionable. He furthermore points to Obama’s ties with Muslim-American advocates, his association with Bill Ayers, his ties to Fannie Mae, and his sympathetic stance toward Iranian president Ahmadinejad as proof of his inadequacy.