Improving our diplomatic relationships, yes. But taking a step back and realizing that we are NOT the rulers of the world would be nice. Refreshing, even.

Like it or not, the USA is a world leader. Obama is talking about leading by example, not force.

He also wants to up our foreign spending... But whatever, he is still a better option than McCain.

"This is where Obama's foreign policy starts to look like W's"

Um, not until he invades the wrong country.

Really? Because actually a whole lot different if you actually look at their policies.

If you see a child or any human being struggling and you have the power to help them you should this is whay we have adoption and other similar charities. The U.S. has the power to make a difference, its just that lately we've been lying about what our intentions are and were just going after oil. We may not be the "ruler" of the world but we are the #1 superpower so we either need to step up to the plate or turn it over to someone else.. North korea looks pretty eager to try..

I love Obama, I have recently finished reading his book and I watch many of his speeches. He has been amazingly consistent in his message, and I really think he will change politics in the US like no one else has in our lifetime.

I also really hope that canadian politicians will learn from this guy.

If you don't have a general intolerance of invading countries that have not attacked us, then it's hypocritical.

What I mean by that is if you support Obama's plan to attack Pakistan, but you don't support Bush's plan to attack Iraq, then you're hypocritical. This is why I say the two foreign policies are looking very similar, because even though Obama hates the Iraq War, as so many of us do, he has no plans to change our foreign policy of "America the Empire."

Actually not. Their policies are nearly identical, with the small exception of the Iraq War. Remember that foreign policy is not just one war, but a relationship with every state in the world.

See, I actually disagree with you, because I feel that he's been amazingly inconsistent in his message. Sure, he keeps the whole hope/change message consistent, but the details he has have become very inconsistent, and he's constantly having to go back and change what he said.

I think we're being fooled by someone who has the ability to pull on the heartstrings of Americans to vote for him...because he's not all that different from any other politician.

I could be terribly wrong, but it feels to me like we're not seeing all of Obama, and that we're going to be shocked if he becomes President.

You're forgetting one big item that Obama brings .. HOPE
Will you vote "Hope, or No Hope"?

"Ron Paul for VP" :-)

I could make quite a few comments about your lack of understanding of the world about you but I'll resist and just ask you for your source that truthfully shows that Obama actually plans to invade/attack Pakistan.

Please no BS blogs, just some facts OK mate?

Obviously he's not going to say "I want to invade Pakistan," but he has made threats and when elected President I believe he will follow through.

Anyway here's a link to what he said from the Washington Post: Pakistan

Sounds a lot like Bush and Iraq to me.

I can't believe that you read that complete article, from August of 2007, and came away with the sole message that Obama was going to invade/attack Pakistan.

He did state, along with other candidates, that he would not rule military options out in dealing with terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Afghanistan was the predominant home base of Bin Laden and the AlQaeda terrorist group responsible for the 9/11 attacks. You might be one of the few people in the world that don't think he was responsible but that's another issue.

We should have sent all our troops into AlQaeda territory, not into Iraq for trumped up issues, and we may have captured him by now. There apparently is some intelligence that indicates he may now be in Pakistan thus Obama's inclusion of that country. Even "W's" father had warned against the folly of invading Iraq.
But he did say he was told by God to invade so I guess that trumps intelligence.



All of Obama's focus was predicated on many big "IF's." All intended to circumvent any political forays into his so called "weakness" which Republicans like to smear Democratic candidates with relentlessly.

I'm very surprised that none of this was obvious to you but you do have a hatred for Obama that seems to blind you to accepting the possibility that there is anything positive about him.[/quote]

Yes, but my question was how is that any different than Bush and Iraq? Bush used unilateral force against a country which he thought posed a threat based on intelligence that most of congress voted for. Now tell me how that would be any different that Obama's plan to use unilateral force against a country that he thought would pose a threat?

Actually, not even giving my position, the majority of the world actually believes our government created 9/11.

I think Iraq was a horrible decision, and I was one of the few people against it from the beginning, and in fact was ridiculed for it.

Right. Iraq was a big IF. What is the difference between Obama and Bush? Obama's a democrat? That's the only difference between the two in the case of foreign policy. It has nothing to do with Republican/Democrat for me. It has to do with me seeing something dangerous that no one else is recognizing, because everyone is in love with this motivational speaker.

I don't hate Obama. I never said I have. I hate his policies, and I think he's a liar.

But my feelings for Obama have nothing to do with whether or not I see positive issues with him. I am very proud he stood his ground on Iraq, and I commend him for not supporting the war from the beginning, even if it's for the wrong reasons.

The problem is that you think Obama is the new savior of the country and you can't accept the possibility that there is anything negative about him.

The people running for President are offering no change, specifically in Foreign Policy.

Big difference. Bush lied about the reasons for invading Iraq. he lied to congress and even fooled Colin Powell who embarassed himself in front of the UN and the world.



Majority of the WORLD?? Factual sources please.
You already gave you position on this in another thread.

Good for you. Don't know what happened to you since then.

His policies are not much different from Hillary's
different ways to get to similar places. Do you understand that all these political statements are just that...political statements. They are not policy and won't become policy unless congress is convinced they should be. Hopefully by truthful information this time.

I have no such feelings about Obama. I do have feelings on folks who twist statements, use smear tactics and try to obscure open discussion of candidates by spinning what they say. I would like to see an election based, as much as possible in this world, on trying to elect the best possible person. Again, not like the last two times.

So? That's Obama's fault?

The foreign policy that Obama has openly supported is like night and day to the current administration. Just to site one point is his stated willingness to speak to middle east countries now considered our enemies.

I think that's called diplomacy, something that's been missing for over 7 years.

McCain is the candidate that echoes most of the Bush line. He also is probably the least likely one who is open about what he really thinks. He has to appeal to the right wing and has changed many of his opinions that he held 6 years ago.
Question is, has he really changed.

A.) Just because he gave false information does not mean he lied. It just means that he was given false information. Could he have lied? Absolutely. But just because he pushed false facts? That's not lying, that's just believing something that wasn't true.

B.) Iraq DID have WMDs, because we gave them to Iraq in the 80's. Regardless, that's not a reason to invade, even if what Bush was given was true.

84% don't believe the official story
Muslims' beliefs
1/3 of Americans
And more i'll have to find for you later.

Nothing's changed. I didn't support the war because it was unconstitutional and we don't have the right to invade a sovereign country. Not because I didn't think they had WMDs, not because I didn't think they posed a threat, and not because Bush decided to invade.

Seriously, it has nothing to do about truthful information. Even if it WAS truthful information we shouldn't have invaded. That's my beef. Obama isn't saying "if they attack we'll respond," he's saying "if they pose a threat, we'll attack." That's the same thing Bush did with Iraq, and that's what pisses the f**k out of me. We need someone to say "No, we're not going to attack you unless you attack us first." Obama is not that person.

The problem is that I present you with stuff he says and you spin it to say "oh he didn't mean that." Obama is nothing more than a motivational speaker who's interested in politics. I only present you with stuff Obama has directly said.

Those are positions. There is a difference between foreign policy and a position on a specific war. Obama's foreign policy is one of intervention, as is George Bush's. Sure, they have different ways to go about it, but the foreign policy is barely different.

I don't know. I don't like McCain. I won't vote for McCain unless he's running against Obama. I'm a firm believer in "the lesser of two evils is still evil." But I despise Obama's positions so much that I will suck it up and vote for McCain in the event that Obama claims the nomination.

Oh please, just because some, even a majority, don't believe the official Bush administration version of 9/11 does not indicate that they don't think Osama BinLaden was the terrorist behind the deed.

I can't do this anymore, you just don't seem to be able to evaluate what you read. You are part of a group that sees conspiracy everywhere.

I'm just not interested in going on with these silly arguments. You really do hate Obama despite your protests, you just don't seem to realize it.
He's not any more of a liar than any of the others.
Vote for Bush 3 if you like, no one will be able to convince you of anything at this point.

No, I don't think there's a conspiracy. I don't believe the official story, but I don't think the Bush administration did it either. You don't seem to be able to evaluate what you read.

Well, because, you of all people can tell my motives and I cannot :

Right. They're all liars. It's just the media and everyone else paint him as this holy saint who can't do anything wrong. He's not. He's no better than the others ethically, and imo he's worse than them on policy.

I don't plan on it unless Obama becomes the democratic nominee, and I'm praying that the God I believe in will spare us from Obama the President.