About the world

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

What are the ideas and the projects of the main candidates on the foreign policy?

Are there ideas shared by GOP and Dems?

Is foreign policy an important point of debates?

Thanck you

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Ok gorkay. I appreciate your position about Irak war, for sure if they did not want us to say "NO", they did not have to ask us. Then, i also can understand that Irak war takes a lot of place in US debates, there are a lot of soldiers there, and, according to what i can hear in medias, it does not seem to be a honeymoon for US army there.

But, is there nothing on Iran? Russia? Venezuela? China? future of NATO? future of UNO? else? common positions on some these subjects?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Thanck you ilikeverin

I mentionned almost Iran, Russia, Venezuela and China cause i think these four countries are very important for the future of the world in the years to come, almost if they become allies. Position of the USA is important to know on it.

I also think that NATO and UNO could, and should, meet changes in years to come. Position of the USA is also important to know on it.

Then, for Darfur, thanck you for your precisions. What i feel now is that progressively the weapons could shut up in this part of the world, without any military intervention from abroad, maybe just a present force to make respect the law. Democrats really envisage to go there with the army??? Isn't it an electoralist position, in the way to be more pleasant with the ones who have been touched by George Clooney's fight?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

As far as I can tell, the Dems and Republicans pretty much agree on China and Russia despite the fact that Republicans are often considerably more bellicose in their rhetoric towards these powers. Also, counterintuitive as it may seem, the Chinese leadership actually prefers to have Republicans in power, because they have supported free trade much more consistently than the Democrats have, and China feels that it benefits from free trade with developed countries.

With regard to Venezuela, some of the leftist elements in the Democratic party might still have some sympathy for Hugo Chavez, but his over-the-top rhetoric is seen as off-putting by many, and both parties condemn his government quite forcefully now. His speech at the UN where he compared Bush to the devil was criticized by both parties.

Democrats tend to be a lot more pro-UN than Republicans.

Both parties, except for some isolationist republicans and leftist fringe democrats, support remaining in NATO.

Thanck you strangeland

It surprises me when you say that some democrats, even if they are leftits, have some sympathy for Hugo Chavez. Cause even if he takes more care of his country and of his people than others before him in Venezuela, and even if he is more for multi-lateralism, this man does not seem to be verry lit to me, but more illuminated, and I don't think he has verry lit projects as well on national plan as on international plan, I think these leftits should be aware about these sorts of thing.

Then, I think that the ones who have bellicos speeches should be aware that some politic leaders in the world seem to just wait for it.

I would also have other questions:

When both parties support remaining NATO, do they have ideas? what are main ideas?

When Hillary says that she wants "to finish it with the diplomacy of the cow-boy" or something like that, does she have concrete ideas? clear projects?

Thanck you