So am I culpable for misinterpreting your words at face value if
this had been born out of your inadequacy in expressing
yourself?
As a matter of fact, you claimed Obama to have an
edge over Hillary on the basis that Africa
will feature heavily on the next administration's foreign policy.
So instead of darting and skirting around with what the average
chap in the South would think, why don't you shed some light on the
exact nature of the edge Obama is supposed to have over
Hillary?
Oh, and if it's not what you or I think that matters and this
should be a matter discussed solely by those entitled to suffrage
by their Constitution (a pretty familiar excuse I've heard upteen
times from a certain fascist regime which advocates unfavourable
political discussions to be a matter for its subjects 
), I suppose it's none of your business if
"Experience on Africa" is a criteria for the folks in Alabama, is
it?
Originally posted by Arapahoe:
The fight against terrorist will continue long after US withdraw
from Iraq. The scope of this struggle between Islamic terrorist and
US will expand. To top it off competing and influencing African
nations between US and PRC influenced will continue for
geopolitical dominance.
[b]Mr Gates said the new Africa Command would allow the US to
better co-ordinate action and counter potential threats.
The US gets more than 10% of its oil from Africa and is worried
about increased economic and diplomatic competition from China, the
BBC's defence and security correspondent Rob Watson
reports.
Terrorist, Oil and Geopolitical dominance over PRC, I do not see
these issues go away as the next President sit in the oval office.
Africa and middle east will continue to be the battle ground.
[/b]
While the war on terror will persist in some form, shape or way,
what's there to suggest the modus operandi and some of the
seemingly senseless and ineffective policies pursued by the current
administration will be sustained by the next one?
Just as you're entitled to your belief that "this struggle between
Islamic terrorist and US will expand", I see no reason why an
altered US foreign policy would not help ease the tensions
somewhat, instead of exacerbating the current situation. If
anything - and I'm not alone in this assessment as articles on this
are aplenty - the terrible PR job the current administration has
done has left an awful lot to be desired, indeed. Then again, it's
hardly any surprise that over the last 50 years, it's often the GOP
that has accentuated the divide between the Americans and the rest
of the world as far as cordiality goes.
And how does it matter what Robert Gates think if a Democrat should
hold the fort for the next administration and would basically be
undoing tonnes of the policies the Bush administration has churned
out? (As a matter of fact, I'm not even remotely convinced Gates'
ambitions would be realized even if the next President comes from
the GOP) If you need any precedence, just look at how few causes
the Clinton administration had actually advanced prior to leaving
the White House had actually been implemented by the incumbent.
After all, you should be expecting warmer ties between the White
House and PRC, DPRK and the Middle East had this administration
carried on from where the last one left off.
