Why the U.S. elections concern more than just the U.S.

I don't think I need to tell you that the foreign policy of most of the candidates involves more "securing the Middle East", more intervention and more (or stable) defense spending. Then there's Mr. Paul, who would want less/none of all those.

Incumbent president Obama's foreign policy isn't that different from the neo-conservative Republicans, except perhaps for a decreasing open interest in the Middle East and spending.

Now that all the positions are generally defined, apart from Ron Paul, one does have reason to concern oneself with the results. Why? Remember Afghanistan? How all those countries went along with going to war? Well, the same thing could happen with the new punching bag of foreign policy: Iran. In a previous post I have likened terrorism and communism, Iran to the Soviet Union. That comparison still applies here. Everyone but Ron Paul wants to stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon. Of course, because of the IAEA, we'd know if Iran was close to having one, but it's good to have a bogeyman. Nothing brings people together like a common enemy, even if the enemy is somewhat construed. But stopping Iran from having a nuclear weapon in their language does not mean contacting the IAEA, it means going to the U.N. for a resolution and bombing the out of the country either way.

What that means for U.S. allies is a possible call to go to war. And with a lot of conservative governments around, it is likely to happen. There shouldn't be a conscription unless China and others get in on Iran's side. However a shift in spending towards defense for U.S. allies would be inevitable if a war were started.

And that's how and why, unfortunately, the decision of one part of the population of one country could mean a war for dozens of nations.