Re: US Presidential candidates
 

I think Ron Paul is.

Re: US Presidential candidates
 

really?

wow

Re: US Presidential candidates
 

Re: US Presidential candidates
 

hmmm

saying it for effect? or is he a mentalist?

Re: US Presidential candidates
 

he's just a know-nothing as I said

"Look guys I can be tough on terror too"

Re: US Presidential candidates
 

Not sure if this has been covered but what is this obsession with the candidates' religion. As an atheist I find this very irritating.

Re: US Presidential candidates
 

And Clinton had no part in this? :zzz:

Re: US Presidential candidates
 

Blah blah blah!!! The lefts number one hit single. Play it again Sam! :p

Re: US Presidential candidates
 

I`m an atheist also.

Is a politican`s religion always going to influence their policies?

Should a persons religious belief`s be a factor in whether we should vote for them or not?

Re: US Presidential candidates
 

I'm not sure you can really blame Reagan for this, after all, he didn't do these policies for a laugh. The mujahadeen was an expedient to counter a greater threat, and he was hardly the first to sell weapons to the Iranians. On top of that the problems with Iran predate Reagan by some margin. In addition to this, the issues in Nicaragua and Panama directly challenged the Monroe doctrine, which effectively left RR no choice.

Re: US Presidential candidates
 

Indeed - all the way back to the Eisenhower administration

How so? Unless you're saying that the USSR was trying to colonize those countries? And the Reagan administration had no choice but to break the law and lie to congress and the American people? Remember the Monroe Doctrine is not actually enshrined in US law.

Re: US Presidential candidates
 

There is some evidence that Truman was considering some form of intervention in Iran as well, which pushes the date back even further. NSC 136/1 of November 1952 describes Iran's independence as integral to US interests, but unlike Ike, Truman's conclusion was that Mossadeq could be relied on to keep Iran safe. The upshot of all this is that Iran was a serious concern for Truman.

As for RR and the MD, my argument would be that presidential doctrines, while not enshrined in law, are seriously-followed guidelines in the manufacture of foreign policy and the consequent maintainance of continuity in it.

Also, you have to remember the broader context of Carter's foreign policy and the expectation of the public in terms of RR's commitment to protecting US interests and thwarting communism, etc. I'm not sure that the extra-legal status of FP doctrines has a lot to do with it because laws are for states, and the international system in a different kettle of fish.

Re: US Presidential candidates
 

Lieberman endorses McCain? :blink:

Re: US Presidential candidates
 

I'm just lapsed, but its probably due to the separation of Church and State thingy which means that some Americans tend to overcompensate. Be better off with a state religion here, then everyone could just calm down and get on with things like dinner.

Zoroasterianism or Druidism or Bank of America. Or something. :blink:

Re: US Presidential candidates
 

In 2007 America, it's embarrassing to say it but the answer is that a politician's religion is seen as one of the most important things.

Why else would the repug candidates have to out-Jesus each other?