Posted on 03/18/2008 4:56:09 PM PDT by calcowgirl
Americans and Europeans share a common goal – to build an enduring peace based on freedom. Our democracies today are strong and vibrant. Together we can tackle the diverse challenges we face, whether radical religious fanatics who use terror as their weapon of choice, the disturbing turn towards autocracy in Russia or the looming threats of climate change and the degradation of our planet.
But the key word is “together”. We need to renew and revitalise our democratic solidarity. We need to strengthen our transatlantic alliance as the core of a new global compact – a League of Democracies – that can harness the great power of the more than 100 democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests.
At the heart of this new compact must be mutual respect and trust. We Americans recall the words of our founders in the Declaration of Independence, that we must pay “decent respect to the opinions of mankind”. Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed.
We need to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies. When we believe that international action is necessary, whether military, economic or diplomatic, we will try to persuade our friends that we are right. But we, in return, must also be willing to be persuaded by them.
The nations of the Nato alliance and the European Union, meanwhile, must have the ability and the will to act in defence of freedom and economic prosperity. They must spend the money necessary to build effective military and civilian capabilities that can be deployed around the world, from the Balkans to Afghanistan, from Chad to East Timor.
We welcome European leadership to make the world a better and safer place. We look forward to France’s full reintegration into Nato. And we strongly support the EU’s efforts to build an effective European Security and Defence Policy. A strong EU, a strong Nato and a true strategic partnership between them is profoundly in our interest.
We all have to live up to our own high standards of morality and international responsibility. We will fight the terrorists and at the same time defend the rights that are the foundations of our societies. We cannot torture or treat inhumanely the suspected terrorists that we have captured. We must close the detention facility at Guantánamo and come to a common international understanding on the disposition of dangerous detainees under our control.
International responsibility also means preserving our common home. The risks of global warming have no borders. Americans and Europeans need to get serious about substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years or we will hand over a much-diminished world to our grandchildren. We need to reinvigorate the US-European partnership on climate change where we have so many common interests at stake. The US and Europe must lead together to encourage the participation of the rest of the world, including most importantly, the developing economic powerhouses of China and India.
I have introduced legislation that would require a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, but that is just a start. We need a successor to Kyoto, a cap-and-trade system that delivers the necessary environmental impact in an economically responsible manner. New technologies hold great promise. We need to unleash the power and innovation of the marketplace in order to meet our environmental challenges. Right now safe, climate-friendly nuclear energy is a critical way both to improve the quality of our air and to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources.
That dependence, I am afraid, has become a vulnerability for both the US and Europe and a source of leverage for the oil and gas exporting autocracies. The US needs to wean itself off oil faster. Europe needs a comprehensive energy policy so that Russia’s oil and gas monopolies cannot behave as agents of political influence.
The bottom line is that none of us can act as if our only concerns are within our own borders. We cannot define our national interests so narrowly that we fail to see how intimately our fate is bound up with that of the rest of humanity. There is such a thing as good international citizenship. If we wish to be models for others, we must be model citizens ourselves.
Certainly the US must be that model country. Leadership today means something different than it did in the years after the second world war, when Europe and the other democracies were recovering from the devastation of war and the US was the only democratic superpower. Today, there is the powerful collective voice of the EU, India, Japan, Australia, Brazil, South Korea, South Africa, Turkey and Israel, to name just a few of the leading democracies. And there are the struggling young democracies, such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon, that need and deserve help – more, in fact, than we have been giving. In Russia, democracy has been temporarily suppressed, but we all have an interest in seeing this great nation return to the democratic path soon.
This is not idealism. It is the truest form of realism. It is the democracies of the world that will provide the pillars upon which we can and must build an enduring peace.
The writer is senator for Arizona and is the Republican nominee for the 2008 US presidential elections
One more time—I am not a Hillary supporter and have no intention of defending her slimy comments. I was familiar with her touting nuclear power as I saw her say so in snips on the news. I am not familiar with all the gory details of her energy policy, nor would I support it in its entirety.
As to nuclear waste—that is an issue for all candidates. McCain has said he wants to ‘store it” but offered no specifics that I know of. He has said that he wants to revisit Yucca Mountain. That may be the “political objections” that Hillary is referring to—I don’t know.
McCain does support nuclear power—he has said so on the campaign trail and it is mentioned in the body of his op-ed on this thread. He thinks it is “clean” and will control global warming.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mccain+nuclear&search_type=
I wasn't threatening violence, I was using a metaphor, just like the metaphor of "bitch slapping" used many times on FR, and BTW hitting someone with a 2X4 to get a point through is a gender neutral metaphor but makes the point, so don't go all al sharpton on me Mr. "true conservative".
maybe the 3rd or 4th time , you’ll get an answer..
simple question Dane..
Are you for cap and trade vis a vis global warming?
No, I am not, but the political reality is that the greenies have made this a non-touchable issue, as being against abortion was in the 60's, thus Reagan signing the pro-abortion bill in 1967, being an example.
Things sway like a pendulum, and the green movemnet is at it's peak on that pendulum, and JMO, McCain like Reagan can be reasoned with on this green frenzy, as Reagan was during the abortion frenzy of the 60's.
hillary and obama, forget about it.
“OK, I’m going to have to smash a a 2X4 against your head calcowgirl.”
Nice try, Dane, but the above are your exact words.
You issued no attendant disclaimer, so your words stand.
Stop dissembling. Answer the question.
I was speaking to death2tyrants. It was their comment I didn't understand. Hence my comment that I did not understand their post. Your addition does not clarify anything.
hillary is a clinton, the same clinton in 92 who said they would initiate middle class tax cuts and change welfare as we know it, they did not initiate or do that, thus why should I believe she is for nuclear energy.
Okay fine. I'll just disregard anything that comes from her mouth or campaign or from her record and I'll rely on whatever you tell me--that's the ticket! /s (btw--WJC did change welfare as we knew it, with a lot of help from a Republican congress.)
Your arguements are specious, IMO, because of your hatred of McCain.
Once again--I don't "hate" McCain. I just disagree with much his platform, particularly many of the things he mentioned in this op-ed (global warming, league of democracies, bending over to get along, etc).
Seriously, Dane. We are talking about electing a president. Senator McCain wrote a long Op-ed that included a lot of important things worthy of discussion. Your efforts to change the subject are not appreciated. Would you like to discuss the subject of this thread or would you prefer to talk about Clinton? If the latter, please exit here.
And one more time, Dane--Yes, or No:
Do you support global warming regulation, taxing greenhouse gases, or a cap-and-trade program?
so becuz of a swaying pendulum thingy,, this should then be a non-issue.. OK,, see that wasn’t so hard now, was it? ;-)
sadly, you know none of us want to see any of this stuff come to pass, regardless of how watered down it is or who is doing the watering.
altho, those who accept myth as reality are hardly cut out for the highest office of the land, one would think. it borders on delusional, imo.
you seem to think it will just get poopaaahed on once he is in office, much as he says he will secure the borders first, etc,,ad nauseum, who know the drill.
Oh and he will finish off the US auto industry with foolish and unreasonable CAFE standards.
but the world will love us so much more than we are loved today, I’m sure..
"Yankee go home and take me with you"
“Are you for cap and trade vis a vis global warming?”
As someone who is going to vote for McCain, I’ll answer the question. No. I oppose cap and trade. I have a question for you, however. McCain uses an unattainable precondition for U.S. entry to Kyoto (China and India as participants). What preconditions do Barak or Hillary have in regards to Kyoto?
So tell me again why I’m supposed to vote for McKook?
No, I am not, but the political reality is that the greenies have made this a non-touchable issue.
That is BS, IMO. The debate is NOT over. You may be ready to wave the white flag, most are not. If you are against it, why not speak out now and try to influence it instead of attempting to stifle conversation?
Things sway like a pendulum, and the green movemnet is at it's peak on that pendulum
McCain will not be swayed. He is no different than the leftists on this issue. With McCain at the helm, Republicans can look forward to having global warming regulation and a cap-and-trade program pushed in their name. They can sit by as McCain attempts to silence dissent and extort support from weak pubblies to advance this new-communist program. McCain does not listen to what voters want, especially not Republicans and conservatives.
hillary and obama, forget about it.
Under which two circumstances do you see the strongest U.S. voter opposition to a global warming treaty with a cap-and-trade commitment:
1. Introduced by President Hillbama2. Introduced by President McCain.
” I do not like Penny’s but that does not mean I like Victoria’s Secret (can you understand shopping analogies?).”
Let’s pretend that only one of these stores can stay in business after November. And the only factor for which one stays is by a public vote. If you favored Penny’s, wouldn’t it be in your interest to spread as much disdain against Victoria’s Secret as possible in the run up to the election?
She must still be looking for anything to support her accusations.
She could be gone a long time. ;-)
“I was speaking to death2tyrants. It was their comment I didn’t understand. Hence my comment that I did not understand their post. Your addition does not clarify anything. “
In that comment, I was making fun of the Democrats naive approach towards Iran’s nuclear ambitions in comparison with the hard-line approach by Mcain.
The answer to your question lies in the fact that preconditions to Kyoto are meaningless.
To have preconditions to meet a goal or an action, means that you believe in that goal or action.
All three candidates believe in global warming, which is a provable non scientific hoax.
If McCain believes that he possesess the trump card of the unattainable pre-condition to Kyoto, that of requiring China and India to join,then he doesn’t really believe in global warming, right? No, he has said he absolutely does beleive in global warming. So that means, that if China and India drag their feet and don’t join, McCain will not be able to restrain supporting Kyoto because our “allies” and the Dems will call for him to provide leadership, and besides, he believes in global warming.
So, either way, McCain is either a dupe or a hypocrite.Take your pick.
As for Her Heinous or Barack Hussein, either idiot will simply jump on Kyoto with no pre-conditions, which is the answer to your original question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.