by Richard Para

Created on: June 25, 2008   Last Updated: December 02, 2009

Negotiate with anyone; negotiate without conditions, set clear-cut, definitive timetables for pullout of troops deployed in hotspots such as Iraq or Afghanistan, let it become clear to all that the change in foreign policy is toward Pax Americana; this is the agenda of Barrack Obama as he appeals to all the reasonable people of the world.

Speak softly and carry a big stick, proclaimed Theodore Roosevelt, separate friend from foe and deal with each accordingly, would some up, albeit over simplified, the foreign policy of John McCain as he appeals to Americans.

Superficially the difference may not seem as dramatic as it truly is, but consider the fact that there are, on the world stage, those who are unapologetically committed to the destruction of our socioeconomic fabric in a manner not seen before, or at least not seen since the middle ages, and they are not subtle about their desires. Hence let us examine the differences of these policies and their ramifications.

Reasonable people of the world surely would welcome the softer side approach of the new American rhetoric rather than the overt harshness demonstrated toward those who have committed themselves toward brutalizing America and American citizens, reasonable people would applaud and praise any efforts directed at peace, peace in our time. A sharp contrast is set between the new softer Obama vs. the apparent continuation of the hard line of McCain. Without a doubt seeking peace through rhetoric is more appealing than any big stick approach; appealing, that is, if the world was made up solely of reasonable people.

Driving aircraft filled with tourists, business folks and children into buildings; strapping bombs on religiously fervent people and sending them into crowded, public places to explode; denying the holocaust and vowing to rid the world of Israel along with anyone friendly with said Israelis would, under any stretch of our imagination, hardly be considered acts of reasonable people. Any logic, therefore, directed at reasonable people may miss the mark if directed toward those aforementioned people.

America does have other foreign policy issues: weak dollar, climate control, a more belligerent Russia, and on and on, yet none of these issues seem to directly threaten the lives of Americans and, I presume, take on a secondary role versus the continued threat of another foreign attack.

Speaking in one language, the language of peace, to all the peoples of the world, reasonable folks or brutes, has yet to demonstrate any historic effectiveness; brutes don't seem to understand that language. As a matter of fact, those brutes misinterpret that language as a welcome sign of weakness that can, and will be exploited to their advantage. The Axis brutes never understood the softer side language, rather, they did, finally, understand their own brute-like language: counter brutality, which, in the end, not only brought about peace but converted the brutes of World War II into fine and productive citizens of the world.

What language must we speak to these current brutes committed to our destruction? What language will they understand? There is no doubt we all would hope and wish that they would understand the language of peace, which brings us back to the differences in foreign policy between Barrack and John, the differences are crystal clear.

Learn more about this author, Richard Para.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.