Obama/Biden Foreign Policy

In their campaign, should Barack Obama and running mate Joseph Biden advocate a clean break in U.S. foreign policy, or should they rely on continuity and experience?

Posted by Fareed Zakaria and David Ignatius on August 27, 2008 4:00 PM

Readers’ Responses to Our Question (53)

Lauladabfar :

knocker enlargement pills rating. aside from reviews, researches
breast enlargement
No Side Effects & All-straightforward manifest Results Within Weeks!

Lauladabfar :

chest enlargement pills rating. self-governing reviews, researches
breast enlargement
No Side Effects & All-straightforward manifest Results Within Weeks!

Anonymous :

mikey, mikey... we don't like outsourcing or mass immigration either. Nobody does. REAL Americans, conservative Americans voice their discontent through action. We VOTE for America First, an America UNDER GOD. While you liberals sit around whining and passing blame (like you are doing now). You don't have a high opinion of this country nor its proud people. Fine then leave, find some place where "intellectuals" like you are appreciated (like Eurabia), and don't let the door hit your bee-hind on the way out.

MikeB :

ANONYMOUS - What you fail to understand is that, if McCain somehow wins this election, there is no more America. It's over! Run amuck Wall Street traitors, corporations outsourcing jobs, governments encouraging foreign purchase of other companies, even ownership of our most basic infrastructure, means that this country will fail as surely as Rome failed, as pre-revolutionary France failed. Europe recognizes this. Heck, countries like India and China are fully aware that our displacing our own engineering and science workers with their own citizens makes us completely dependent upon them. The workforce here is rapidly being turned into nothing more than a collection of service workers - highly paid service workers as MBA's, but mostly low paid service workers. Neither has any sort of future. It's just a matter of time before the foreign owners of U.S. businesses replace American executives with their own nationals. They have already started doing this in hi-tech.

No Europe is concerned. It has a right to be concerned. The voters are so dense, so caught up in "image" and "show" that they have vote based on those things rather than on genuine issues, issues that will actually determine whether THEY and their children will even survive. I suspect that the average voter is just dumb enough to not "get it".

So, expect the rest of the world's "American policy" to become of vastly more important than our petty mishmash of foreign policies. The world is rightly preparing for the collapse of the United States. I know I am. I simply do not intend to be here when fools like "ANONYMOUS" loose their job, their health insurance, watch their brats drafted off in some new foreign adventure to die for nothing, and are told by some Fox News troll that liberals are to blame. We've already witnessed what these ignorant fools do, then. They pick up a gun and kill the very liberals that tried to warn them in the first place. I am going to leave and let you drown in your own filth.

Citizen of the post-American world :

@ Mikeb, re: your note to Bobl-va

What you refer to, I too find extremely painful to watch, for it is the real thing: Raymond Carver's Americans, the voting majority most enthusiastically (not to say hysterically) supportive of, therefore fully responsible for the United States of America's conduct at home and on the world stage. More than 58 million of them chose to re-elect the current ruler, last time around, in spite of everything.

If there ever was any need for a proof that we are now living in a post-American world, this is IT.

Perhaps we should not forget, however, all those who, behind the scene, stage such circuses, those who have turned our democracy into pure national and international entertainment so as to better serve their own interests. They would likely be the first to tell dissidents like us: "If you don't like it, you're welcome to leave! Support for your country should be unconditional. You will not be missed." That remains their ultimate argument, as dissidents leaving this country too would best serve their own interests.

Ask them, they'll tell you: THEY are America!

Anonymous :

What a typical liberal mikeb is, proclaiming to be a true patriotic American but ready to jump ship when things don't go his way. Support for your country should be unconditional, when liberals like mikey leaves America no one will miss them.

MikeB :

BOBL-VA - One thing I am taking note of is everyone else's American policy with regards to this election. I am amazed that the PM's of Britain and half a dozen other countries have gone so far as to endorse Obama! They read the polls and see McCain and his wooden sidekick with the designer sunglasses moving the inbred Wal-Mart Mom's (the crowd for whom a month copy of Soap Opera Digest constitutes "classic literature") into some sort of election frenzy and they are concerned that we are hell bent on committing national suicide. If it weren't so flat out dangerous, it might be entertaining, to watch the morons wreck this country, create a new Bangladesh right here. Oh well, I am making plans to exit this leaking boat if Palin gets anywhere near Washington and I expect Europe is seeing everyone with actual talent and knowledge claiming something like a right of return by a whole lot intelligent American's.

rotten-world :

If you are a citizen who are living in the democratic nation, democratic world then you are a damned lucky guy!. This is due to you are on the righteous side and fortunately you are living in the world where devils are least in number (due to nothing is perfect in this world)!

If you are a citizen living in a non-democratic or barbarous nation such as Russia or Iran or Burma for example then you are really not a lucky guy! due to Mr. Putin hitmen can visit your door at anytime and can freely give you some radioisotope poison to send you to Stalin "heaven" or crematorium! (please remember the UK assasination caused by Putin's criminal empire!)

In other words, this world which includes a place where civilized treats to offer you and respect you as a citizen who has all civilized rights to be given to you! while another side or place of this world countless murderous criminals supported by their ruling thugs such as the Kremlin-based killers who always bring deaths and bad luck to you and/or even their own Russians as well (happened in UK for example), then if you are unfortunate to be a citizen who are living in such risky land controlled by the organized murderers/criminals such as Russia, Iran, Burma!

In summary, please remember, this world always offers you a good ot better place to live in and can enjoy all your deserved protections and respects of a democratic nation's citizen!. And at the same time there is also existsing bad places to receive all sorts of bad lucks and/or even being killed easily in the hands of the nationally supported hitmen/murderers just like in Russia or Iran or Burma today!

Therefore, this "rotten world" always has good and bad pieces of lands to choose by yourselves folks! And to live in a civilized and democratic world and nations is still the better choice and anything else are quite risky and unpredictive to choose!

BobL-VA :


I have never understood what posts are held, and then vanish into cyberspace, and which ones go through. I have sent in posts that were very mild only to have them held and vanish. I have sent in stuff I never thought would make it on and it pops right up. As you so eloqently put it the Tin Hat Club doesn't seem to have a problem bombarding this thread. I have almost come to the conclusion there is no rhyme or reason as to what goes through and what is excluded. I'm guessing this has more to do with computer glitches on the site then any filter. If this site was really filtered a lot of these posts from a different galaxy wouldn't make it on.

MikeB :

This foum is now, officially, a joke. You cannot post anything on it that the forum owners even remotely disagree with. If you try, it will be "held" and subsequently dumped. This, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with Washington, with this country in general. No one is willing to listen to an opinion that conflicts with their cherished belief's and, god help you, they will shut you up by hook or by crook, if you are so bold as to actually question their "expertise". Over the past few years I have noted that the average poster on this foum (with the profound exception of some recent recruits from the tinfoil hat brigades -- like the "rotten" tribe) shows more genuine understanding and intelligence than our leaders and has vastly better handle on those issues than the media pundits that merely posture.



O interessante é q toda essa euforia decorre da injeção d bilhões d US do povo americano no bolso de uma privilegiada minoria d especuladores financeiros internacionais que não geram e não produzem nada de riquezas. Uma minoria de empresas e de pessoas dão prejuizos de bilhões de reais, com as maracutaias das letras hipotecárias e de outros papéis ilícitos, ficando ricas da noite para o dia, imunes a quaisquer penalidades e hoje estão sendo premiadas com a socialização de prejuízos, tendo nos recursos arrecadados da sociedade americana o lastro para isso. É díficel entender que os americanos,vivendo no país mais desenvolvido do mundo, mas com o modelo capitalista falido, aceitem passivamente que o Tesouro daquele país transfira para eles uma dívida de quase um trilhão de dólares que não geraram e não usufruiram dos benefícios dela. E, pesquisa recente, no mundo inteiro, mostra que todas as riquezas do planeta já passam de 109 trilhão de dólares, sendo que 39% estão concentrados nos Estados e Canadá, logo, esses países nunca estiveram em crise, porque crises eles fabricam e muito bem. O maís sério é que somente pouco mais de 2% da população mundial é detentora dessas riquezas, manipulando negociações em bolsas e as comodities e 10% da população mundial vivendo em absoluto estado de pobreza. Socializando prejuízos, para atender uma minoria de cartéis economicos- financeiro, como fica a diferença entre o socialismo chines e o capitalismo americano?

E as bolsas continuam com as quedas e crescimentos virtuais e irreais,totalmente administradas pela especulação, sem dar a devida atenção aos portifólios que mostram a saúde das empresas, mas simplesmente com base em noticiários plantados na imprensa local e mundial. O que os americanos fizeram, foi uma demontração de que o Poder Economico já está se tornando maior do que o Poder do Estado. Até quando a socieidade civil vai agir passivamente, sabendo que um terço de suas rendas ou salários estão sendo utilizados para beneficiar a concentração de riquezas e no mundo todo ? E, finalizando, se as bolsas negociassem ações com base no patrimonio liquido contábil , indice de liquidez e rentabilidade, não existiria tanta maracutaia no setor e o mercado financeiro seria saudával e honesto. A ONU, em relatório recente, já se pergunta porque o capitalismo tem crise de 3 em 3 anos e os ricos ficam mais ricos e diz que é um sinal de que esse modelo atual está saturado.O mercado de ações, para sobrever , deve avaliar as ações pelo seu valor real e não artificial

deflag :

Rely on continuity and experience.

Anonymous :

BOB : as I mentioned the supply line for Afganistan is full of problems. Pakistan closede supply routes today.

A USA analysis of the supply situation can be found :


Read, weep and enjopy. The war is lost!

Anonymous :

Christians are being persecuted in Orissa, India for the last several days. None of the News Papers herwe have reported these in its gravity. Look like we don't want to embarass the Indian Government as the coming Nuclear deal is more important to us. If we don't help to form public opinion against this atrocity, help will come for them from elsewhere as it is written in the Book of Esther in Bible.

Rick Jones, Fredericksburg, VA :

A Failure of Leadership

It's official now: President Bush is the Keystone Kop-in-chief, disinterestedly overseeing a bunch of deputies who keep bumping into each other and falling down on the job.

Bob Woodward's new book, "The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2008," hits the shelves on Monday. Starting on Sunday, The Washington Post, where he is assistant managing editor, will run four days of excerpts. And based on the initial coverage -- which started after Fox News obtained an early copy of the book yesterday -- Woodward's ultimate conclusion is that Bush "too often failed to lead."

That's a far cry from what Woodward wrote in his first two Bush books. "Bush at War" and "Plan of Attack" were paens to the president's brilliant leadership. But 2006's " State of Denial" was all about Bush's refusal to see the true consequences of the war he launched in Iraq. And now there's this.

Woodward, for all his ability to get powerful people to talk to him, has recently served less as an investigative reporter and more as a congealer of Washington's conventional wisdom. When Bush was up in Washington, he was up in Woodward's narratives. And now that he's down, he's down.

BobL-VA :


An act of war is an act of war. Whether committed by the US against another country like Iraq, Panama, Grenada, etc. or by Afghanistan committing an act against us. Either way they are still acts of wars. I do not condone or support US acts of wars against sovreign states unless they committed one against us. The only case in may life that comes to mind is Afghanistan.

I didn't vote for Bush in 2000 because I didn't think he had the prerequisite IQ to be president. I knew by 2004 I was right and didn't vote for him again. I truly believe the man is a war criminal and should go directly to jail and never see the light of day again.

However, none of this changes the fact the ruling party in Afghanistan aided and abetted Bin Laden. That action alone constitutes an act of war the morning of 9/11. It's not like the Taliban didn't know who and what Bin Laden was. They knew exactly who he was and while they might not have known the specific plans to bomb the World Trade Center and the Pentagon they had no doubt he would at least try to do something that would result in massive US causalties. That is an act of war.

Hence, I agree with your position the US is guilty of committing acts of war on a far more frequent basis then Afghanistan, but that doesn't give them a free act of war to offset our transgressions.

mohammad allam :

Answer of your first question is that you also ask Russia to follow the American path of fighting an injust war of Terrorism ,Russia will destroy automatically.
Answe of your second answer is that in the end of this century there is still 91 years.Think about this century .In this century American and allies have no scope to dominant with natural resources.They are just militarising the world to follow the policy of might is right.This robbery of the world energy sources may give stability to American led economies.The only fault of Russia is that it has capacity to protect own sources.It is not like Islamic world which has abundance of energy sources without any security guarntee.which makes American allies to inter by force in the name of WMD and DEMOCRACY.Other wise in the century the future of America lies in the natural calamaties like Hurrican,gustava and finally turn into a regional power.

mohammad allam :

All the people here writng must know that when west talk about the "world" it means only western world not thw hole world.
Second when they talk about "civilized world "it means the western world excluding the rest of world.
so remove this misconception and then discuss with the people in this forum.

Rick Jones, Fredericksburg, VA :

Barack will have to get over his tendency to kowtow to the powerful Israeli lobby, AIPAC.

International law does not permit the acquisition of land by war and considers unilateral annexation as inadmissible. Therefore, the League of Nations had no right to seize the Palestinian territories following WW I and to establish the British Mandate of Palestine. The British had no right to in turn give Israel almost half of this land in accordance with the illegal Balfour Declaration of 1917: “His Majesty would view with favor the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine”. Israel had no right to seize all but 22% of the land in the war of 1948 and the remainder in the War of 1967.

Hamas is correct to refuse to recognize the illegitimate “State of Israel”, which is a temporary, imaginary, construct of the West. With the decline of the West…and with Russia, Iran and China now beginning to arm the enemies of Israel…the days of this illegitimate state are growing short. There is no need to haggle over such inconsequential matters as the boundary of Jerusalem, water rights, Palestinian right of return, etc.

R2D2 :

To answer the question, Obama and Biden should make a clean break with past policies and start fresh. Why?, because in the real world, the USA sits on top of the worlds largest volcano( A Caldera )that is overdue to errupt. If a nuclear bomb was to prematurly cause it to erupt, it would possibly mean the end of all life on the planet. Keep in mind that it is past due and could go off anyway.So therefore all of the nuclear weapons are NOT an option, and it could only take ONE to literally set the world on fire. The time to start talking and looking for a fresh start is NOW!

Rick Jones, Fredericksburg, VA :

Hot or Cool on Russia?


“In the days after the Russian invasion of Georgia, the world had a chance to examine the different foreign policy styles of John McCain and Barack Obama. It was a telling comparison that offered some clear signs of how the two candidates would react to crises.

The contrast was between hot and cool; between quick action and cautious deliberation; between a man with his eye on military and strategic issues and another who is focused on diplomacy.

Listening to McCain, you sensed the beginning of a new Cold War; hearing Obama, you felt a desire to prevent that Cold War from taking root. McCain's advice could be summed up as "get tough" to deter the aggressor; Obama's tone suggested a desire to go slow until it was clear what moves made sense...”

“Within hours of the Aug. 8 invasion, McCain was voicing his indignation and demanding that Russia unconditionally halt its military operations and withdraw its troops. Three days later, he called the attack "a matter of urgent moral and strategic importance to the United States of America" and urged a series of measures to check Russia. Most important, he argued that NATO should reverse its April decision and approve Georgia's request for prompt membership -- a move that would commit the alliance to go to war if Georgia were attacked.

Obama's first reaction was more measured: "Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint," he said on Aug. 8. He had sharpened his tone by Aug. 11, but the focus was still on diplomatic solutions. "Let me be clear: We seek a future of cooperative engagement with the Russian government," he said...”

“The notion that we are locked in a new Cold War is the most dangerous misjudgment of all. That's what is driving Putin: He feels threatened and encircled by a NATO that, in fact, has no hostile intent toward Moscow.

Rather than matching him in this march backward, the United States should lead its allies in a careful but firm process of containment. In drawing lines, we need to make sure they are realistic and sustainable -- and that the promises we make are ones we can keep.

Because of Putin's inability to escape Cold War thinking, the next president will face a serious Russia problem. Does America want a leader whose instincts in this new test are aggressive and confrontational, or deliberative and diplomatic? There's no obvious right answer yet, which will make this debate interesting.”

[How do you like your president...hot or cool? I think I prefer cool.]

Salamon, NM :


Please think before you make noises about acts of war and retributions thereto:

It is the USA which has commited acts of war at least 20 times since the 1950-s. Possibility that USA armed personel were involved in Georgia's attack on RUSSIAN CITIZENS -recall Russia has A bombs

It is the USA which has attacked Pakistan yesterday, and Pakistan has A Bombs. When you can not control your border vis-a-vis tons of drugs, a bomb could be smuggled in also.

With respect to your dream of stone age bombing in Afganistan, please recall your efforts in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia re the Ho Chi Minh trail -totally ineffective, you lost the war.

The real possibility that the USA-s decline from "self announced Superpower" to a loss of hegemony will not be as peaceful; as the collapse of the USSR was, is what keeps cerain people on edge.

For some reason not the Pentagon Leaders, nor the Federal Politicians, nor ignomarous citizens have grasped the notion that the USA is in finacial meltdown, which within 10 years will lead to bankrupcy, or the total collapse of ALL SOCIAL SERVICES - regardless of pentagon spending or non spending.

Remember that the Afgan war broke the USSR, and they had shorter supply lines than your nation [or NATO] has. Mr. Putin already noted that more noise etc from NATO might cause review of Azerbaijan being a supply route to Afganistan [see the long CNN interview at INFORMATION CLEARING HOSE 23 min rather than the 2 min CNN aired]. you keep bombing Pakistan, you will not be using it for supply line. The USA can not afford another assymetric war in another geographically challenged area: Pakistan.

Wake up please, and persuade your government to look for peace, and the rebuilding of USA infrastructure, renewing energy supplies [including the high voltage net] and look after your poor and injured VETS.

mohammad allam :

No body can detect the real foreign policy of any president of America.American foreign policy is not chalked out by this representetive of business tycoons but by the PENTAGON<CIA<ARM DEALERS<OIL TYCOON AND BUSINESS HOUSES.so,whatsever is announced in the rallies of the coming president is just to attract the vote not the real intention of the leaders.Inspite of all these i am not seeing any major shift in American foreign policy.
The Iraq will remain under controll of america for 25 to 30 years till Israel become the sole power of middle east by subduing Iran,syria and saudia Arabia.
The question of balkan areas now is very tough and complex after Russian adventure in georgia.The Europe is not going to Crush Russia for the American will.
The question of Iran is very tough after maliki goverment .
the question of pakistan is more problematic for the American policy.this is the nation which challenging the foe and friendship theory of America.the question of Taliban is more important for the American establishment after the civilian goverment of pakistan.This goverment is going to put hurdle in the way of American incursion in tribal belt
The policy of climatic change is going to face big problem from the rising economy.What the west will want these will not happen.
The question of declining American economy in case of Asian roaring is biggest threat to policy of stability to American hegemony on the world.
The five doctrine of Russian president shows that it decided to revolt against the American led wolrd order and want to restruct on its own basis.This side will be greater challange for any American president.
The policy of anti-terrorism is now in more trouble as more and more country join the force against American led anti Islamic steps.The russian responce now will force America to reconsider the policy and win the masses of islamic world before they turn towards Russian side and creat the problem for American led arrangment around the world.

James R. LeCato :

It's time for a NEW way of getting from point A to point B!! All the history of man and his wars, killing, not talking and out right unholiness!!!! Lets make the 21st century about LIFE and the well being of mankind!!

Rick Jones, Fredericksburg, VA :

Hello BobL – VA. I believe that you and I think alike. The so-called strategy of “clear and hold” is a loser. The doctrine of overwhelming military might cannot defeat the insurgent who swims in the sea of the people. We cannot take and hold Islamic land, nor should we. And to install and/or to endorse a particular leader is the kiss of death. Any leader who supports the US in the Islamic world will be handed his head. This is why Maliki’s message to the US is to get out in a date certain, in no uncertain terms.

Your idea of pulling out of Afghanistan immediately if not sooner is one that I endorse, and make it clear, that a repeat of 9/11 will bring down as massive a retaliation as before.

Hello Vic Van Meter. I believe that your idea of bringing Georgia and Ukraine into NATO is not a good one. Poland of course has been in NATO with the Czech Republic and Hungary since 1999. And if we tried to ring Russia with offensive missiles (And are there any other kind?), they would just be destroyed immediately and what could we do about it? This is sure to happen when and if we go through with our plan to place them in Poland. So called defensive ABMs are offensive in nature because they negate the opposition’s nuclear deterrent. And if they aren’t directed against Russia, why did Poland ask for them immediately after the invasion of Georgia?

Your idea of cooperation with Iran is the right idea, but it is doubtful that Iran will want to cooperate with us. They hold all the cards with Iraq, China and Russia eager to do business with them. With their strategic chokehold on the Persian Gulf, they will not tolerate the occupation by our 5th fleet for long.

Rick Jones, Fredericksburg, VA :

The Medvedev Doctrine and American Strategy


[1] The United States has been fighting a war in the Islamic world since 2001. Its main theaters of operation are in Afghanistan and Iraq, but its politico-military focus spreads throughout the Islamic world, from Mindanao to Morocco.

[2] On Sunday, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev… stated Russian foreign policy in five succinct points, which we can think of as the Medvedev Doctrine.

[3] Globally, the Russians want to use this new regional power — and substantial Russian nuclear assets — to be part of a global system in which the United States loses its primacy.

[4] The Europeans are heavily dependent on Russian natural gas supplies over the coming years, and Russia can survive without selling it to them far better than the Europeans can survive without buying it. The Europeans are not a substantial factor in the equation, nor are they likely to become substantial.

[5] The U.S.-jihadist war was waged in a strategic framework that assumed that the question of hegemony over Eurasia was closed.

[6] The United States now faces a massive strategic dilemma, and it has limited military options against the Russians.

[7] At the moment, the United States faces the strategic problem that the Russians have options while the United States does not.

[8] The U.S. government is trying to think through how it can maintain its commitment in the Islamic world and resist the Russian reassertion of hegemony in the former Soviet Union.

[9] The Russians have the ability to use weapons sales to Islamists and covert means to deteriorate conditions dramatically [As in Vietnam].

[10] American national strategy is in crisis.

[11] The United States has insufficient power to cope with two threats and must choose between the two.

[12] Continuing the current strategy means choosing to deal with the Islamic threat rather than the Russian one, and that is reasonable only if the Islamic threat represents a greater danger to American interests than the Russian threat does.

[13] It is difficult to see how the chaos of the Islamic world will cohere to form a global threat.

[14] But it is not difficult to imagine a Russia guided by the Medvedev Doctrine rapidly becoming a global threat and a direct danger to American interests.

BobL-VA :

Sorry Salamon,

You lost me with the statement Afghanistan wasn't responsible for committing an act of war. Any nation that knowing aids and abets groups whose purpose is to commit acts of war is as guilty as the groups that actually do it.

Second, I agree the US has committed acts of war against soverign nations and Iraq would be on the top of my list. However, when have 2 wrongs ever made a right?

Third, the US would not have to use nuclear weapons to blow Afghanistan back into a pre-historic state. We have the conventional weapons to do this. However, such a campaign would take out the vast majority of the civilian population as well.

Finally, OBL, with the assistance of the Taliban, were guilty of 9/11. OBL needs to be brought to justice. Bush obviously wasn't the man for the job. I hope the next president whoever it is will bring OBL to justice. I agree we need to get out of Afghanistan and the sooner the better. I also firmly believe there should be no doubt in anyone's mind on this planet if Afghanistan harbors and supports violent groups in the future that unleash deadly attacks they will cease to exist as a society. I am not a turn the other cheek liberal. Negative actions should always be met with negative consequences.

Salamon, NM :

BobL-VA :

Afganistan did not commit a war crime against the USA. The War Crime if such [Twin Towers] was organizede by an ex-CIA financed and armed leader of Suadi extraction with the help of mostly Saudi personnel, as far as the USA has revealed [I am not a believer of conspiracy theories as far as the destruction nof the Twin Towers is concerned by USA personel].

That the USA has commited numerous WAR CTRIMES in Afganistan is on international and USA admissions. It was not the Taliban that organized financed or made the Twin Tower catastrophy [though it must be kept in mind that the USA murders ANNUALLY 10x as many people within the 50 states as were killed in New York attack, similarly about 15x get killed on USA highways annually].

But my argument was not whether the USA/NATO Afganistan attack was justified or not, it was that you can not win in Afganistan under the present military/economic mileau, for the supply line is too long [therefore too expensive] and that you will not have the armed manpower without the draft, something the USA Congress will not enact.

The only way you can bomb Afganistan into the Stone age is nuclear weapons --- UNFORTUNATELY PAKISTAN ALSO HAS THEM, where the main tribe of Afganistan is one of the largest groups, with certain amount of political and military involvement.

It is suicidal too wage atomic war next door to nuclear artmed nations, be they Pakistan, Russia, or anyone else, for the outcome is the end of civilization.

Were you among those who look for the RAPTURE then pray for nuclear war, I do not believe that you belong to that group, though your patronism is ill directed in your last remark.

BobL-VA :


Considering Afghanistan committed an act of war against the US there are at least compelling arguments for intervention. Add to this fact the perpetrator of 9/11 used Afghanistan as a staging ground and still does today bolsters arguments for intervention.

That being said, I have always viewed armed conflict as the least desirable form of intervention. I still do. Frankly, I think we (US) blew our chances for any meaningful change in Afghanistan when we failed to go in with enough troops to have any realistic probability of bringing Bin Laden to justice. Now it's 7 years years after the fact and we're still stuck in a quagmire. Obama's two brigades will make little to no difference.

Intervention can have many faces. At this point I would be much more comfortable with positively stating to the Afghani's that if there country is guilty of committing another act of war against the US then both God and Allah have mercy on their souls. If we are forced to come back we will blow Afghanistan to a pre-stoneage condition. Leave the choice to them. This isn't my idea of an optimal approach, but given the 7 years of ineffective policy we've engaged in I don't see much of a choice. We have the right and the duty to protect ourselves from acts of war. However, unless we're willing to turn Afghanistan into a US territory we need to get out.

Rick Jones, Fredericksburg, VA :

Understanding Russia


Today’s WP editorial tries to explain why it is O.K. for the US to invade and occupy Iraq, but it is not O.K. for Russia to invade and occupy Georgia. It does not hold together logically.

As if the Russian measured response to the unprovoked shelling of Russian allies and citizens and soldiers in Tskhinvali, the provincial capital of South Ossetia, with heavy artillery and mortars by the Georgian president, is in any way comparable to the death and destruction and misery and loss of national wealth and prestige wrought by our unprovoked invasion and occupation of Iraq, driven by the unbounded hubris and greed of our leaders for Iraqi and other Middle Eastern oil.

Vic van Meter :

Of course, Obama is brought up rather than McCain. Why? Because Obama has international renown already. I like to think people are smart enough to see this as simply an intrepid move before becoming president. He is already solidifying his hold in Europe by touring abroad extensively.

Having read the statements, it is clear that most people have no idea how the political arena works. On the one hand, Bush has weakened the United States international front considerably. But he has done it through missed opportunities. There are several ways this could be improved.

Georgia, the Ukraine, and Poland should be consoled and allowed into the NATO fold. Russia's best retaliation, at that point, would be to join a few anti-American countries close to our borders. But that move would pale in comparison to having border nations setting up legitimate missile defense systems. on the border. Russia, in their dust-up with Georgia, created a golden opportunity for America. Bush, of course, isn't smart enough to act on it. But if it is acted upon before the memory of a Russian invasion fades, America will have made much more significant gains at Russia's gambit. Russia, for now, is a country to play some hardball with.

Iran, on the other hand, is not. Iran and America in conflict is nothing but disastrous for America, and Obama should rectify this trouble (McCain won't). Iran is bordering Iraq, has close ties in Iraq, and is a major player in the Middle East. At this point, America needs to be mending its fences there. Iran provides many opportunities. If America plays nice with Iran, we could create another center of interest working somewhat in our favor (so the Saudis can have some competition). We could foster their nuclear power ambitions and curb their weapons programs by being involved. In fact, our government could be making a fortune in political capital if we could get in on the Iranian action. It is one of the keys to the Palestinian crisis, the key to oil troubles, and should not be overlooked. Bush chose belligerence. Obama might try to take the long and difficult path to change opportunity into reality.

Obama is already doing his best in one arena, Europe. Europe has a perpetual love/hate relationship with America personified in Obama/Bush, respectively. Any opportunities America wants to capitalize on will require the Europeans to be more unified and more trusting of us.

Our neighbors in South America present other opportunities. Most have been able to be anti-American without really having much purpose in their hate. Luckily for them, Bush has given them more temporary political fuel. Obama may not do the same. Time will tell what happens in places such as Venezuela and Cuba, but all are providing opportunities at this point that can be realized.

All of these opportunities have been cast aside by former American constituencies. It does not need to be the case. In foreign policy, our involvement is expected and somewhat necessary, given how much even domestic decisions can affect the world. But to win in the game of international politics, you need to know how to take advantage of the tools you have and the opportunities that are made. Support or condemnation are not effective tools of foreign policy. We will need to see what the next president will do with the tools he is given. With eight years of poor policy decisions behind the country, it will take some time and work to bring America back on track in global affairs.

Rick Jones, Fredericksburg, VA :

Obama should: (1) bring home the troops from Iraq in 16 months as promised. (2) He should renege on his plan to increase our presence in Afghanistan and withdraw from there as well. (3) He should lead NATO to stop pressuring Russia in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus. (4) He should focus on a settlement in Palestine, telling Israel to pull back immediately to pre-1967 borders or lose US foreign aid. (5) He should stop pressuring Iran to halt there nuclear power capability development (unless he wants to do the same for the US and Israel). The whole world should be ramping up the switch from fossil fuels to nuclear and other alternative energy sources as fast as possible. (6) He should spend all that save treasure on balancing the budget and doing some nation building in America; e.g. new power grid infrastructure so we can get all the new wind mills that are now standing idle plugged into the grid.

Anju Chandel :

They have to; they have no other choice as they are going to inhabit the White House in a Post-American world - a precedent which found fast establishment under George W Bush's presidency.

The recent "action" of Russia - and "inaction" of the US, and the EU, to show expected "reaction" - in Georgia is a testimony to this changing world order.

The America of today is significantly weaker on its economic front and, as we know, it is basically the monetary might of a nation which determines its strength - even militarily. Remember the "Almighty Dollar"?! A resurgent Russia with strong petro-dollars is a live example. And so are the increasing geopolitical powers of emerging economies like China and India.

Nevertheless, the world should be rest assured that Barack Obama will be a much better president for the US as he will espouse policies - both domestically and internationally - which would be inclusive and acceptable to all. His recent foreign trip and the unprecedented response to his speech in Berlin proved that he is indeed the leader which has the abilities to bring back America at the center of the global politics once again - a status which got eroded significantly under GW Bush's terms.

kent G anderson :

we should more look at USA and the people behind monopliles.. of our country and our law was set up for the Rich ..
The USA was for the individual rights ...
see... No were in the history of our country , has there been such Fraud cover up set ups trikery theft ..of Global IP Peoples FUTURE . By ..Chantecaille , Ostrolenk,Faber ,Gerb & Soffen LLP Of NY ..; There rich and powerfull so they can get a way
with Fraud cover up set ups theft of Global IP . Rich own our world , Lawyers dont caire about the poor Im seeing I have
reached out to so meny , even to file a complaint .. ; Cover up excusess . The Fraud agreement of sept 2004 Chantecaille
see .. on my web page ..; There stealing my ideas that are for the people Global FUTURE . Chantecaille .. agreement of sept 2004 is destroying me and Our country it set up our country FUTURE and our world FUTURE . No one cares . My ideas Lifes work will be used to destroy attack people Global FUTURE .. ; I would not wish on any one person country to be me and what there doing to me and our world . Chantecaille ..will destroy our foundation of our country FUTURE ,
I dont know who is invloved in Fraud cover up theft of Global Ip sept 2004 FBI wont help may be our new USA President will help ? I will also reach out to him and our Gov ... ; Reach out to all people all countries To stand with me ... for and by
all people Global FUTURE By www.futurevisionaries.com

D.H. :

Obama and Biden should indeed break cleanly from the previous administration's policy. However, They should tackle the problems they would inherit by first choosing the best political advisors for each of the problems, establish a constructive approach for each, with a spirit of diplomacy rather than with a fighting spirit. Also, they should try to have around them people who know the local language of the countries involved and the mentality of each, to avoid to judge with a mentality totally foreign to the one they have to deal with.
An important item would be to have intelligence units who provide good and solid information.

Philip Chasen :

Western governments should step back from attacking their four biggest potential sources of threats - Russia, China, Islam Internal. Let us look at them individually:-

Russia - This is a country that has never had what we in the west call democracy. Twice in its relatively recent history it has fought off invasion from megalomaniac Western leaders in Napoleon and Hitler. It lost millions of its people in doing so. The fact that one of its own, Stalin, inflicted even greater numbers of deaths does not prevent it from being paranoid about Western intentions towards it. It is perfectly understandable that it objects strongly to U.S. missiles being located in Poland and The Czech Republic, at a time that there is a madman in The White House and Germany running the EU.

China - Although it too does not have any history of democracy, it is an ancient civilisation that has given the world so many things that we now take for granted. It is a completely different culture to ours, with different values on what is and is not acceptable. Whilst we may rail at what we term human rights abuse, they could point to the abuses that our citizens have to endure with the authorities not lifting a finger to address.

Islam - In the minds of many Muslims this is a "nation" and a state of mind as much as it is a religion. Like all religions it has different factions. At present it is the voices of the minority factions in Islam which are being heard and which the West is responding to.

Internal - Europe - Are we really free within the EU? We are governed by laws and directives thought up by unelected commissioners in Brussels. Our everyday lives are blighted by the cost of Brussels bureaucracy. We cannot properly protect our society from a tiny minority of criminals who are sheltered by The Human Rights Act. Our judges hands are tied from imposing justice. We are dependant on the US for our defence.

Internal -US - Where do we start. To begin with - getting Americans to understand that they do no live in the "land of the free". America is the "land of the free if big business says so". Big business rules the coridoors of power in America and the biggest of these is the Defence Industry, who's interest is to have a world full of conflict, with America leading the fight on everyone who is not "free". Never mind that it does not provide widely available and affordable health, justice, education and housing. 10% of the US Defence budget spent on these areas of social need would dramatically reduce the rate and cost of crime and increase America's understanding of itself and the outside world.

Summary - Just as we would strongly resent Russia, China or Islam trying to impose their values on us in the West, we should acknowledge the history of these different cultures and the danger of them seeing us trying to impose our culture on them. We should be joining forces with them to help eradicate the scourge of drugs, preventable diseases and high level corruption. We should be sharing ideas and costs in bringing all African countries into the 21st century. The United Nations no longer fills this role. Unfortunately for us all, there are no great statesmen and women in the world today capable of understanding this concept or brave enough to take the first step in delivering it. We should all pray that Obama is that person.

Salamon, NM :

Your analysis is mostly correct, but it seems to me you back Obama/MacBush idiotic notion that Afganistan is the military place to be.

There are two [and a TWO halves] things wrong with this notion [aside from desire to make war]:
1., supplying the troops is far more expensive and depends on questionable cooperation {Pakistan Azerbajan]. A similar troop level in Afganistan as in Iraq [350 000 including your merceranies] will cost more than $20+ billion per month [if you can get supplies in without Berlin Airlift type effort - then the price is higher.
2., You do not have the 400 000 troops necessary to subdue Afganistan, and you will not get them from NATO..

the half: God help the US ARMED FORCES, if the "resistance/insurgent" [take your pick] get hold of anti-aircraft weaponry, as did Osama when fighting USSR [curtesy of USA DOD, CIA, etc straight and via Pakistan].
the second half: will the world underwrite another war, or will the USA Fed Reserve print more cash, thereby wrecking the USA economy?

My personal opinion is that the best choice is Obama, but I am only an observer, not a voter.

Good luck to the citizens of the USA, they shall reap as they sow.

Citizen of the post-American world :

I want to emphasize a point I made earlier. It has to do with our personal and collective responsibility, under freedom.

I would be the richest man on earth, were I to get only one cent for each time I have heard it said that only Bush and the Bush administration (not the American people) were responsible for the predicament the U.S. now finds itself in. How often have readers insisted, here, on the importance of not confusing the United States administration with the American people, it being suggested Americans were clearly against the conduct adopted, internationally, by their administration. How could they not be, it was asked?

What strikes me these days is this:

1. Why is there not an overwhelming majority of Americans espousing a clear alternative to “moving forward” with more or less of the same, in the coming years, whatever the label?

2. Why are there not millions of Americans demonstrating in the streets, all over the U.S., demanding this country respects international law, human rights, the Geneva conventions etc. in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Guantanamo, in all countries where we have been known to indulge in our so-called “rendition programme”? Presumably, given how critical those issues are for this country's future, now should be the best time for those millions of American dissidents to rally publicly and make themselves heard. Don't those matters concern them directly? Is it not true that they and they alone can, collectively, make this country change direction and behave responsibly on the international scene?

Where are all those millions of supposedly politically and morally outraged Americans, these days? Are they anywhere to be seen, debating the fundamental issues, fighting forcefully for freedom, democracy and human rights?

It seems to me that on fundamental issues, those millions are remarkably quiet, these days, deafeningly, pathetically quiet. Was not the noise level rather more impressive, prior to and during the Beijing Olympic Games, blaming China, Chinese authorities, often even the Chinese people, on those very same issues?

That makes me conclude that while that big show, that masterpiece in national and international entertainment called the U.S. presidential election is taking place, we, Americans, are making it frightfully clear that we are much more complicitly, or actively supportive of what the current administration stands for, on our behalf, than we care to admit.

Assuming I be right in my evaluation of the situation, our personal responsibility, as individuals, as well as our collective responsibility, as a people, with regard to what the current administration stands for, are now more clearly at stake than ever.

So are our moral credibility, reputation and standing in the eyes of the whole world.

Tom Wonacott :


Thanks - and some good points - see ya

BobL-VA :

Tom Wonocott,

Hope you enjoy your wilderness experience.

I confess you were right about the talking point. It just irked me that a 72 year old man with a history of cancer selected a woman from Alaska with about as thin of a resume as could be possibly be imagined. At the same time his campaign has been hammering home Obama's lack of experience. I know there is all kinds of spin that can be put on this issue. We can give her credit for 6 years as a part time mayor of Moosehead with a population of zippo and say that translates into experience when anyone with an IQ over 40 knows otherwise.

What else irks me about the McCain campaign has been how far he has strayed from his roots. His pandering, and Sara Palin is no exception, to the right wing conservative segment of the republican party has reached new highs.

Let's go back to experience for a second. If experience was really a requirement for president Bob Dole would have won. Al Gore would have creamed Bush. Even Kerry would have buried him. In our life time experience has never been the central issue. Vision, personality and preception seem much more germane then experience in winning the oval office.

As to the VP choices themselves historically there really should be only two criteria. First, would this person make a good president in the event they were called on to assume the presidency. Second, is this a person the president can live with.

Dick Cheney may be an exception to this rule in his first term. However, in the second term of Bush's presidency you can see how his influence has been diminished considerably. Hence, even when it comes to foreign policy I think it fair to assume Obama, if elected president, will consult with Biden as well as others and then make up his own mind.

On a broader scale this is an interesting turn of events for you. Now all of a sudden there is little difference between the Dems and Repubs so take your pick. Where was this new found love of the Dems a year ago? Are the Repub's in so much trouble in this election that it now has come down to we're all the same so vote for us? That is going to be a very hard sell after 8 years of Bush. Good luck in trying.

Yousuf Hashmi :

There is a consistency in core US foreign policy inspite party changes.

Elections are the season of promises. so that is what every body do it according to the mood of the voters.

But once he is in office and see the actual files and confronts with the reports which are not made public he has no other choice but to continue status-quo

I do not see any big change in US foreign policy for next 2 years. If a change takes place then it will be due to external forces which will dictate the governments to look for another options.

After 2 years the governments will be more experienced and seasoned and will be in a position to divert its course

Tom Wonacott :

BobL, Salamon

There is absolutely nothing wrong with dreaming….

The last Democrat in office got the US involved in two wars, bombed the heck out of Iraq, imposed sanctions on Iraq that basically killed 1,500.000 people (I blame Saddam, however) and sent the seventh fleet to China when the Peoples Republic of China threatened Taiwan. None of these actions were because America was threatened (Iraq the possible exception).

Obama has already suggested he will send more troops to Afghanistan, and the US will undertake a responsible withdrawal of troops from Iraq (read: he will follow the advice of the commanders on the ground). Notice that NATO began their expansion east during the Clinton administration as well. This is why many pundits (especially foreign) say that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Obama is, in every sense of the word, a “mirage“ when he says “change“ regarding foreign policy. Obama campaigned on changing the status quo, but talk is cheap. He chose the foreign policy specialist Joe Biden to be his running mate. He was selected to ease the public’s fear of Obama’s inexperience. Biden, like McCain, is an insider - thirty five years in the Senate. Biden and McCain travel together and have a great deal of mutual respect. Biden recommended McCain become the running mate of John Kerry in 2004. If he really disagrees with McCain on foreign policy that much, how is that possible? If McCain wins, it wouldn’t surprise me if McCain chose Biden for some position in his administration(?). Trust me, I am sincerely much more comfortable with an Obama administration because of Biden, although I much prefer McCain. Surprised? Obama might be able to enact more change domestically - where he is more comfortable.

Do I expect another Iraq? No, but I did say the "last four years of the Bush Presidency" - which were driven by diplomacy for the most part (North Korea, for example).

“At no time in life Basically, with McCain/Palin America will get more war and economic depression. With Obama/Biden we at least have a chance at peace and prosperity.”

That’s as close to a talking points democrat as I’ve seen you get, Bob.

By the way, the selection of Palin by McCain is a brilliant move despite undercutting McCain’s main criticism of Obama which is lack of experience. Still will be a very close race at this stage.

Sorry I won't be able to answer your post as I am being rendered to a wilderness area for the next week for some hiking....

Politicartoons.com :

Well, they should probably not try to quickly redefine the entire US foreign policy, as this will make the US seem unstable.

However, if it's broke--fix it. The world can't wait much longer.

Salamon, NM :

What They promise during the electioneering time, is not necessarily what they will do.

To promise complete change, may open them for visious irrational [dream based] attack from McBUSH, while following the present MCBUSH bomb bomb bomb, deal with Russia, etc, would certainly lead to the economic collapse of the USA, as Afganistan did for the .

So promise slight change [diplomacy] nothing big [must keep AIPAC HAPPY] and win the election. Once safely encosted in White House, then the action that benefit mankind and the USA most:
1/. get out of wars [Iraq, Afganistan, Somalia]
2., Settle the Israel Palestinian problem [by diplomacy and trade sanctions if requisite, no more war!]
3., get NATO dissolved, ere it makes fatal error for the world, by baiting the NUCLEAR ARMED BEAR.

BobL-VA :

Tom Wonacott,

Oh contrare my conservative friend. Obama has been record since day one saying Iraq was a huge mistake. He was also on record saying the US should be talking to all the people we're now talking to.

Bush did come around. In public his rhetoric is still one that sounds like the old Bush. In practice today he is at least making an attempt to let Condi pursue something that resembles foreign policy. Even I, a devote Bush Basher, say better late then never.

As to your attempt to lump Biden in the Bush camp for foreign policy it was a valiant try, but no cigar. It's a quantum leap in logic to say since Biden voted for the war he's in Bush's camp. That both the House and Senate was seriously misled after 9/11 about Iraq had more to do with it then anything else.

At no time in life Basically, with McCain/Palin America will get more war and economic depression. With Obama/Biden we at least have a chance at peace and prosperity.

Anyway, while I understand your desire to lump them together there is a world of difference between them. Nice try though.

Tom Wonacott :


The question that PG proposes is irrelevant.

Obama has little foreign policy experience, thus he selected the respected Joe Biden to reassure the public that American foreign policy will be in capable hands - which it will be. Joe Biden is a true representative of the status quo in Washington. Biden also supported the war in Iraq.

Biden’s selection clearly sends the signal that American foreign policy will not change appreciably if Obama is elected. In addition, the “agent of change” has been shaped and molded by Washington insiders to get elected, for example, his pandering to AIPAC. Obama is too weak and inexperienced to change US foreign policy appreciably.

I fully expect a continuation of the Bush policies of the last four years which, in my opinion, resembled Jimmy Carter more than Dick Cheney.



Você, conscientemente, sem nenhum lastro ou mesmo qualquer outra fonte de renda, compra um imóvel ou bem totalmente financiado, incluindo seguro e impostos, com valor real de X, + paga X + Y por esse bem, sabe antecipada e perfeitamente que está participando de um negócio ilícito e de uma maracutaia. E esse é um dos inúmeros exemplos para justificar as chamadas “Grandes Perdas” virtuais das empresas americanas. E o negócio prosperou tanto e com tanta facilidade, com a anuência das empresas de Risco e milhares de americanos adquiriram mais de cinco (5) imóveis, achando que a rotatividade da “bolha ” ou ” "corrente”, não teria fim, seria infinita. Não se pode avaliar patrimonio de empresa por suposição, poís, para isso existe legalmente a Reavaliação de Ativos Contábeis. Antes, e ainda tem residual forte, grupos financeiros A e B achavam que as ações de uma determinada empresa, com a mídia bem trabalhada, poderia chegar a um valor irrreal facilmente. Como interessava aos corretores, financeiras e bancos, poís ganhariam em todas as pontas e não tinham nada a perder, o irreal passava a ser real e somente o verdadeiro investidor corria risco. E não é impossível o Fundo A comprar ações do Fundo B e super avaliadas. É uma iniciativa de mão dupla e competentemente administrada.
Com absoluta certeza, a economia real não sentirá nenhum efeito, seja negativo ou positivo, com as hipotéticas perdas patrimonias. O efeito só está sendo sentido e com intensidade, pelos cartéis financeiros internacionais voláteis, que não estão tendo as mesmas facilidades de manipulação. A propalada crise americana, que realmente indica claramente nunca ter existido, de fato, decorreu exclusivamente das super avaliações irresponsáveis de ativos contábeis realizáveis do sistema financeiro. Não existia preocupação com o portefólio das empresas negiciadas em bolsas, mas existia uma propaganda enganosa para a liberação de créditos sem o lastro correspondente. E os bens que foram super avaliados, estão simplesmente voltando para o mundo contábil real, onde sempre deveria estar. É em decorrencia de exemplos como esses, q ñ dão valor a patrimonio líquido real, índice de liquidez corrente e rentabilidade, que muitos e muitos investidores desacreditam no mercado de ações, sem aparentar severa fiscalização da CVM e do BC.Precisamos de um mercado acionário sério, para alavancar as empresas e q as ações sejam o seu verdadeiro espelho e ñ uma simples fonte referencial. Seriedade é tudo para que se mantenha um mercado de ações como uma verdadeira fonte de recursos de risco para a alavancar o crescimento das empresas sadias e transparentes.E temos muitas.Obama deve promover uma mudança nesse modelo democrático capitalista que tem se mostrado falido e concentrador de riquesas.

BobL-VA :


If you've seen a cohesive foreign policy in the last 7.5 years help me out and tell me what it is? All I've seen is GW running around the globe with a sledge hammer and wasting lives and treasure. I hardly think that qualifies as foreign policy.

Let's look at the flip flopper in charge. I won't accept time in Iraq as it emboldens the enemy. Only treasonous democrats want time lines. OK, I've change my mind I'll accept time lines now. How about one of my personal favorites. I won't talk to Iran. They are a State Sponsor of terror and I won't talk to them. Hmmm, what is the administration doing today? Yup, you got it talking to Iran. Let's move on North Korea. I won't negotiate with another country that is a State sponsor of terror. What did he end up doing? Yup, he negotiated and has recently reniged on his negotiations. A pillar of foreign policy if there ever was one.

What is it with you neocons? Bush is more like a religion to you people. No matter how bad he performs, no matter how stupid his approach to issue after issue has been you'll defend this moron until you're dying breath. What has he done? Is our economy better off today? No, it is in the toilet. Did he bring the man responsible for 9/11 to justice? No, Bin Laden is still running around and still dangerous according to Bish. Did Iraq have WMD's? No, but that didn't matter to you at all. Did Iraq cost 50 billion dollars as Bush said it would? No, but that doesn't matter either. Did Iraqi's welcome the US troops as liberators? No, and I can't stop laughing at the thought anyone was dumb enough to think a Muslim country would welcome a bunch of "Christian heathen" invaders. Was the mission accomplished as state on the deck of the Abraham Lincoln? No, but to you that doesn't matter either. Has Bush overtaxed our armed forces to the point it would be virtually impossible to respond to any real threat on this planet? Yes he has, but this doesn't matter either I suppose. Is our country safer thanks to GW? Not even close. However, that doesn't matter either. Nothing matters except this incompetent nitwit is your president. It doesn't even matter that Bush broke a practice this country that had been put in place since George Washington. That practice was we don't torture people because it's barbaric. Bush not only put in place a system of torture he lied about it. He continues to lie about it today. Does this matter? Of course not becuase your Messiah can do no wrong.

Conversely, we have Obama. Try reading his web site and specifically go to the section on foreign policy. After you read that section, and I know your fingers will shake violently just typing it into a search engine, write me back and we'll discuss Obama's vision of foreign policy. Your post clearly showed you haven't taken the time to learn what Obama believes. Try it, you might find out peace and prosperity aren't a bad way to live.

blackkwahu :

too: BOBL VA:
Foreign policy?? What does Obama have to offer?
Nothing..He has idea's..But the only thing he has is a false promise of what he say's he can do. He say's he has a plan..What! What's his plan? I hear him speak of change?? What change? He is not specific on what he's changing..He rides the Fence
of politics..What ever he thinks the people want to hear..that is what he's going to Say! I have seen a shoe that make's the same sound (FLIP FLOP)

rotten-world :

Obana is a joker! No real capability to do anything except drumming up with big promises

daniel :

They should rely on continuity and experience. Read recent essay in Newsweek by Zakaria on Bush. Read recent essay in Wash. Post by Francis Fukuyama.

Citizen of the post-American world :

The Obama, Biden, McCain, Palin, etc. fraternity matters not; only the future of our country and of the world matters.

The relatively recent world order designed to allow us to rule a unipolar world economically, politically and militarily, has failed miserably. Forward and further on the road to American hegemony has only led to this country’s isolation and decline.

If we are to have a future, we need to lead in devising, with the rest of the world, a radically new world order for all, to be enforced by the community of nations. That new world order must provide for world disarmament and peaceful coexistence, for a healthy, sustainable environment, as well as for international cooperation, including an unprecedented sharing of world resources so all human beings can live a decent life.

This country lacks, therefore urgently needs, mature leaders who, with vision, openness and the highest human qualities of heart, mind and soul, can take us there, away from our present course leading to a dead end.

At present, both at home and on the international scene, the battle rages on between two types of Americans: the decent and the ugly. There appears to be many more who believe in the old jungle individualism than in cooperative efforts for the securing of a better life for all.

In tomorrow’s world, together we stand or together we fall.

Under freedom, we are fully responsible for the choices we are about to make.

Shakespeare: “Under which King, Bezonian? speak or die!”

BobL-VA :

What foreign policy do you speak of? I've been having a real hard time finding anything that resembles American foreign policy in the last 7 years.

Basically, you don't need to scrap something that doesn't really exist. Obama/Biden can develop their own foreign policy and I have no doubt the world will be happy to see the US actually have a foreign policy again.

Recent Comments

PostGlobal is an interactive conversation on global issues moderated by Newsweek International Editor Fareed Zakaria and David Ignatius of The Washington Post. It is produced jointly by Newsweek and washingtonpost.com, as is On Faith, a conversation on religion. Please send us your comments, questions and suggestions.