Comments on: Would Lib Dems be happy with a Democrat President’s foreign policy? http://www.libdemvoice.org/obama-and-clinton-foreign-policy-1932.html Our place to talk - an independent website for supporters of the Liberal Democrat party in the UK. Sun, 14 Mar 2010 19:02:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Anonymous http://www.libdemvoice.org/obama-and-clinton-foreign-policy-1932.html#comment-37684 Anonymous Tue, 08 Jan 2008 08:29:04 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/obama-and-clinton-foreign-policy-1932.html#comment-37684 Geoffrey Payne: <i>"Broadly speaking I support Barak Obama, but I hope that should he get into power someone can talk him out of this madness."</i> You <b>hope</b> so? And what if no-one talks him out of his madness? That's all-right, as well, as long as Obama will be president? Geoffrey Payne: “Broadly speaking I support Barak Obama, but I hope that should he get into power someone can talk him out of this madness.”

You hope so? And what if no-one talks him out of his madness? That’s all-right, as well, as long as Obama will be president?

]]> By: Geoffrey Payne http://www.libdemvoice.org/obama-and-clinton-foreign-policy-1932.html#comment-37645 Geoffrey Payne Mon, 07 Jan 2008 21:54:04 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/obama-and-clinton-foreign-policy-1932.html#comment-37645 It is unfortunately the case that the most important priority as far as Pakistan is concerned is to make sure that their nuclear weapons do not get into the wrong hands. If this happens, the consequences for the world are potentially devestating. This presents some very difficult choices. Democracy in Pakistan has a history of being unstable - the last thing we need. It is also true that dictators have also not lasted long either. In this context it is easier to say what not to do. Having rejected the neo-conservatism that led to the invasion of Iraq, it would be madness for Barak Obama to support it - or something like it - in a unilateral bombing campaign in Pakistan. Broadly speaking I support Barak Obama, but I hope that should he get into power someone can talk him out of this madness. The biggest problem with Barak Obama is his lack of experience, particularly on foreign policy. It is unfortunately the case that the most important priority as far as Pakistan is concerned is to make sure that their nuclear weapons do not get into the wrong hands.
If this happens, the consequences for the world are potentially devestating.
This presents some very difficult choices. Democracy in Pakistan has a history of being unstable – the last thing we need. It is also true that dictators have also not lasted long either.
In this context it is easier to say what not to do. Having rejected the neo-conservatism that led to the invasion of Iraq, it would be madness for Barak Obama to support it – or something like it – in a unilateral bombing campaign in Pakistan. Broadly speaking I support Barak Obama, but I hope that should he get into power someone can talk him out of this madness. The biggest problem with Barak Obama is his lack of experience, particularly on foreign policy.

]]> By: Cheltenham Robin http://www.libdemvoice.org/obama-and-clinton-foreign-policy-1932.html#comment-37643 Cheltenham Robin Mon, 07 Jan 2008 21:08:38 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/obama-and-clinton-foreign-policy-1932.html#comment-37643 Lets have a democratically elected Pakistan which allows terrorists to occupy areas of it. We can all hide behind the mask of democracy. Lets have a democratically elected Pakistan which allows terrorists to occupy areas of it.

We can all hide behind the mask of democracy.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.libdemvoice.org/obama-and-clinton-foreign-policy-1932.html#comment-37596 Anonymous Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:53:08 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/obama-and-clinton-foreign-policy-1932.html#comment-37596 Hmmm, tough choise. Choose Clinton and intervention in Iran, Choose Obama and intervention in Pakistan. Does anybody know about the views of John Edwards? So far my favourite would be the Republican Ron Paul a.k.a. "Dr. No", who advocates a non-interventionist foreign policy and voted against the Iraq War Resolution, but I know he doesn't have a realistic chance to win. Hmmm, tough choise. Choose Clinton and intervention in Iran, Choose Obama and intervention in Pakistan. Does anybody know about the views of John Edwards?

So far my favourite would be the Republican Ron Paul a.k.a. “Dr. No”, who advocates a non-interventionist foreign policy and voted against the Iraq War Resolution, but I know he doesn’t have a realistic chance to win.

]]> By: Nigel Ashton http://www.libdemvoice.org/obama-and-clinton-foreign-policy-1932.html#comment-37586 Nigel Ashton Mon, 07 Jan 2008 10:39:55 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/obama-and-clinton-foreign-policy-1932.html#comment-37586 Obama opposed the Iraq war from the start, supports diplomacy with Iran without preconditions, and says that he will "set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it". Obama gets my vote (so to speak). Obama opposed the Iraq war from the start, supports diplomacy with Iran without preconditions, and says that he will “set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it”.

Obama gets my vote (so to speak).

]]> By: Tristan Mills http://www.libdemvoice.org/obama-and-clinton-foreign-policy-1932.html#comment-37584 Tristan Mills Mon, 07 Jan 2008 10:21:24 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/obama-and-clinton-foreign-policy-1932.html#comment-37584 I don't think liberals would be satisfied with much from the Democratic candidates or the Republican candidates. At the moment the Democrats are the least worst option, but they are dominated by anti-liberal populism as much as the Republicans. They're just more socially liberal, but we know that means nothing when it comes to the broader picture. They are far more Labour like than Liberal Democrat like, except even more populist... I don’t think liberals would be satisfied with much from the Democratic candidates or the Republican candidates.

At the moment the Democrats are the least worst option, but they are dominated by anti-liberal populism as much as the Republicans. They’re just more socially liberal, but we know that means nothing when it comes to the broader picture. They are far more Labour like than Liberal Democrat like, except even more populist…

]]> By: Kevin http://www.libdemvoice.org/obama-and-clinton-foreign-policy-1932.html#comment-37580 Kevin Mon, 07 Jan 2008 09:36:11 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/obama-and-clinton-foreign-policy-1932.html#comment-37580 Mark raises a very important issue. Too often Democrats feel the need to behave tough to assuage domestic pressures. There is however clear water between Obama and Hillary on Iran, with Obama largely ruling out an attack and Hillary doing the opposite. Mark raises a very important issue. Too often Democrats feel the need to behave tough to assuage domestic pressures. There is however clear water between Obama and Hillary on Iran, with Obama largely ruling out an attack and Hillary doing the opposite.

]]>