I don't know - I do know that the US leads the world. Maybe they wanted to be like Bush, or ,maybe they went further right in response to Bush being so trigger happy.
I think we can all agree that we want a safer world, and we all value liberty. I'd personally rather have a safer world by reducing threats, than by arming myself to the teeth. It makes for less luggage.
I see reducing threats as doing things like reducing nuclear stockpiles and having transparent relations as much as possible (inspections and whatnot, fair and so on). I think a pre-emptive war on faulty intelligence certainly does not reduce threats. It scares the shit out of the people around you, and they start arming up as well.
I did like Obama's line, that McCain said he would follow bin Laden to the gates of hell, but that he won't track him down to his cave. Kerry also ran on getting rid of bin Laden. Removing bin laden would reduce threats, and probably in a way with minimal collateral damage. Overthrowing a stable (if nauseating) regime is a messy business and risky considering Iran next door may be able to capitalize on it, etc - Not a good way to reduce threats in general.
But I only get this stuff off the news and don't really know much about it other than that.
I too think that the world would be much better off without war Cali, I sincerely do. This question is more a general question though for everyone.
Do you think that if the U.S. decided to pull back from Iraq and Afghanistan and closed all its military bases and then , said we are going to destroy our nuclear stockpiles even if no one else does, that the world you follow suit and then all the sudden there would be peace in the world?