Slashdot Mirror
The Rest of the World Wants Kerry
Pentagram writes "A poll by GlobeScan Inc and the University of Maryland of 34,330 people from 35 countries found almost all of them gave a strong backing to Kerry; less than one in five backed Bush.
Only people from the Phillipines, Poland and Nigeria clearly backed Bush, whereas Norway gave Kerry the strongest backing with 74% to Bush's 7%. The UK, the US's most vocal ally during the Bush-led Iraq invasion, overwhelmingly preferred Kerry at 47% to 16%."
May be it's time the US has two presidents
One for the people of the US and the other for the world
Everyone'd be happy
The don't want Bush.
This may not be completely accurate.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say:
"The Rest of the World Wants Anyone but Bush"
Please do not say things like "the UK is Bush's most vocal ally". Most people here hate the Bush - it's only our stupid leaders who are buddying up to him.
Living in another country, you actually feel threatened by some of the stuff the US gets up to. I for one know I feel a lot less safe since the U.S started its war on terror, and not because of terrorists either.
We're not voting for head of the UN (perhaps Kerry should seek that post) this is our election and most American's don't really care what the rest of the world wants in our leader, how come we never see global preferences for Britian, China, Japan or other countries' leader selection.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
As I'm quite sure the rest of the world doesn't have our best interests in mind, just the opposite in fact.
If it had been up to me, Margaret Thatcher would have been appointed PM for life, but not being a citizen of the UK, nobody asked for my vote or my opinion. That is as it should be.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
No, Al Queda wants Bush. He's a great whipping boy to drum up support for their agenda.
You can spin this data any way you want to (assuming it is valid data - I would tend to assume that the voting population in the study was hardly randomized among all the various determinant factors). I'll provide an opposed spin (it's stupid, but no more so than any of the others) that makes the data pro-Bush:
In the current geopolitical scene, one country's financial loss is another's gain. Therefore smart people in the world would try to push for a candidate in the US who would cause the US to lose in the larger global fiscal game (not in a big de-stabilizing way that would backfire, just enough that the other countries can take advantage). Therefore the fact that people outside the US overwhelmingly favor Kerry means that they are predicting (in the market sense) that Bush would lead to a stronger US fiscal victory over the rest of the world.
11*43+456^2
It's funny, the second I saw this article I thought that there were going to be two basic responses from Amercians. Response A) The rest of the world gets no say (to varying degrees of rudeness). And B) See, Bush is undermining us abroad (with varying degrees of Bush-bashing).
It's funny because both are 100% percent correct, and each will be used to support arguments that disagree with each other. In particular, while I agree that the rest of the world gets no say, and wouldn't for a second suggest changing that, to gruffly deny that we don't all have a stake is laughable. The world is a small place, and getting - relatively - smaller. More people, more interconnected economies, better communication, more, faster and easier travel, shared environmental and social problems etc. What happens in the US affects the rest of us, just as what happens to the rest of us affects the US. Even if we don't live in the "Axis of Evil". The rest of the world sees the outsider looking in perspective of Bush and we don't like what we see. Also, the much of the rest of the world still has laws about media fairness and impartiality and so we don't get relentless repetition of the GOP's weekly talking points passing as news. Bias check, I'm left wing by the standards of a country that has been called Soviet Canuckistan by you Americans. So by American standards that places me three steps to the left of Psycho-pinko-commie-freaks. By Canadian standards I'm part of the third largest political party in the country.
I digress. We want to see Bush out because I, and most of the rest of the world, perceive Bush and the types of things that have happened under him as negative, destructive and dangerous. I frankly don't know much about Kerry, and thanks to the American media's relentless refusal to actually discuss issues and focus on election platforms, neither do most Americans. Ask yourself next time you see the media focusing on medals, ribbons, type setting etc - Do you really know anything about either candidate's platforms? Really really? Do you know Kerry's? Bush's? If not, why not? Shouldn't that bother you? This is an election isn't it? And as much as the spin machine wants to talk about easily misconstrued things like character and "flip-flopping", platform and issues matter. And shouting "Terrorist" over and over isn't an issue, it isn't a platform, and if you elect the candidate that insists on doing it...well, the rest of the world will have to wait four for years to get what we want and you'll get four more years of Bush. Enjoy them and try not to bomb anything.
Put simply, the USA is in a unique position of power. With that power comes responsibility. Come November, that responsibility is in your hands.
We don't dictate who should become President of [...]
Yes, you doI agree that what is good for the rest of the world may not be good for the United States but the United States needs to realize that what is good for the Unites States may not be good for the rest of the world.
Specifically, Republicans who think that the rest of the world wants the United States to bring the world "freedom" and "democracy" aren't exactly basing their world view on reality.
The US electorate should give consideration to the opinions of citizens from countries, chiefly from Europe, that have left humanity with a legacy of global warfare, colonialization, slavery, exploitation and political instability, abroad in their former colonies, and at home?????????
Can the collective European electorates really have anything to offer the citizens of a successful 228 year old constitionally based republic? The history of France's civic history over the last 100 yrs alone will leave one's head spinning, and their colonial policies, along with Britain, led to the very situation in Iraq. We need not go into Germany's contribution to history and the decontruction of democratic government and human rights. Yes, Europeans really have led by example.
I think the world should focus on governining itself, and avoiding the necessity of more Marshall Plans. The US seems to do fine with it's electoral process w/o the involvement of the Old World. I seem to remember an American President (NOT a European leader) proposing the League of Nations to help the "Sophisticated Europeans" to avoid another global war.
That's just foolish -- we're not alone in the world. Globalization means that we're intricately interconnected with much of the rest of the world, and highly dependent on other nations. If American went isolationist tomorrow, we'd starve to death within weeks.
There's good reason why only Americans can vote in American elections. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't consider all of the facts, including the fact that the rest of the world is getting increasingly wary about the United States.
-Waldo Jaquith
"Slashdot's increasingly left-leaning story postings..."
People who work with computers have to think carefully and logically, or they won't be successful. There is nothing illogical about being Republican, but George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are the most secretive and corrupt administration in U.S. history, or at least in the last 100 years. They are Re-money-cans, not Republicans. Someone observant enough and able to think clearly enough to do computer work is usually able to see that.
Republicans, Democrats, generals, former government leaders, a Pulitzer Prize winner, political commentators, editorial writers, environmental organizations, and members of the public tell the story: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.
--
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to try to make his administration look good.
I fail to understand why it should matter to me John Q. Britisher would rather I voted Democrat.
Because like it or not, the USA is part of a world community. If you take that attitude, and don't give a shit about how your government treats others, then don't be suprised when you are spit upon when travelling abroad, or even denied entry to some contries.
Also, you should not be surprised when people from the rest of the world consider your country to be 'criminal'. Do you know why the US will not abide by the world court? Because it's already been fount guilty of 'international terrorism'. Many also think the war in Iraq is illegal.
Like it or not, you are constantly judged by the rest of the world. Your attitude, and the way you vote, confirms the opinion of people around the world who think that Americans are ego centric jerks.
Oh come on. We've unilaterally invaded two different countries in the last four years because "we" didn't care for who was running them.
And this time next year, it'll be Syria.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Clinton was (still is) pretty popular with at least some sections of the public here in the UK.
His implementation of foreign policy was far from perfect but he clearly meant well (for a US president anyway) and the general approach was fairly multilateral by today's standards. eg its conceivable that Clinton might have signed the US up to the "Kyoto Protocol" on carbon emissions.
The business with Monica Lewinsky didn't hurt him a bit. Actually I think many people saw the humour in the situation, or sympathised with this minor and clearly human failing of succumbing to a bit of illicit nookie. The roasting he got afterwards didn't play well over here (Kenneth Starr as a jumped-up, joyless pinprick). There was the further barracking via impeachment proceedings etc. and it all didnt reflect well on the republicans who were clearly just out to bring the man down by whatever dirty methods they could muster, no matter how hypocritical.
It didn't hurt that Clinton had an easygoing manner, played the sax in his off hours, and that he had treated the world to a Fleetwood Mac "Rumours" line-up reunion concert at his inaugural ball (utterly priceless - thanks Bill!)
Carter
Carter's presidency, while marked with practical difficulties (like his micromanagement of White House tennis court schedules), will be remembered 100 years from now as more moral and principled, especially after the Watergate scandal ridden presidencies of Nixon and, to a lesser extent, Ford.
Carter's stand on human rights violations by tinhorn dictators in the 3rd world was particularly admirable. And, yes, foreigners I met overseas in the late 1970's were impressed with Carter.
Every president since Carter has sacrificed moral principles to greater and various degrees, usually to friendly financial interests, be they Marc Rich or Enron.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
GWB, Rudy Giuliani, and all those people are reminding us of something bad, the 9/11 attacks and the following wars. Many nations were forced to take a stand, and they don't like that. If Bush went away, maybe terrorism would go away as well?
That's on a subconsious level.
On an intellectual level, there's the impression that the U.S. broke away from the U.N. The world would have wished for a unanimous Security Council resolution in the style of Operations Desert Shield&Storm, instead the U.S. is basing the legailty of the invation on cease fire violations by Saddam Hussein's regime. The U.S. is such a ferocious military power, that seeing it operate outside its old patterns scares other nations. And what kind of precedent does it establish? If you feel that a country presents a danger, you're allowed to attack it first. Pre-emption. What if China or Russia does that to a country that we like. (Ignoring all the WMD resolutions.)
Plus, we have heard allmost nothing about the econimic interests France and Russia had in Iraq. And the food-for-oil corruption is a non-story.
Although the situation on the ground in Iraq would be just as bad with a U.N. force, the situation in the rest of the world would be better if there was a clear Security Council mandate for the action.
And shouting "Terrorist" over and over isnt an issue, it isnt a platform
No, but protecting your country from terrorism is a serious issue.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
Actually, President Clinton DID sign the Kyoto protocol... he just did not bother submitting it to the Senate for ratification, because he knew that it would never pass. Even leading Democratic Senator Robert Byrd wrote President Clinton urging him NOT to sign the protocol, and noting that signing it would be contrary to the terms of a Senate resolution passed by a vote of 95-0. After leaving office, a number of Clinton aides spoke out against the protocol, acknowledging that it would be both more difficult and more expensive to comply with than they thought when they were in office. And the Democratic Party has dropped support for the Kyoto protocol from their party platform this year.
Why is it that when President Bush obtains the advice and consent of Congress to go to war he is criticized and ridiculed, but when President Clinton signed the Kyoto protocol in defiance of a unanimous Senate who tells him it will not consent to the treaty, he is praised?
Non-Americans don't like American candidates. In related news, Americans don't like non-American candidates. Not to mention that pesky legality issue...
It's a non-story because everybody knows that the world's socialists, communists, and terror enablers are against American values. I would like to see a poll that included the millions of dissidents and people of the "wrong" religion or party that dictators have locked away from the outside world and see if they would support Bush and his liberation schemes.
It's a troll since it's a desperate attempt to show support for Kerry who is falling behind in the polls of legal voters.
It's a dupe , and both stories were posted by CmdrTaco!! Can you smell an agenda? Hello, Dan Rather.
The problem with your analogy is that Mexico is not the global Super Power the US is. The actions of the United States have reprecussions for the rest of the world because, let's face it, the US essentially runs the world. When was the last time Mexico invaded a country half-way around the world?
While I agree that the citizens of the UK, Germany, whatever should not vote in US elections, it's very short-sighted to think that US elections have no affect on the global population.
This to me sort of explains why there's so much of a disconnect between those who'd like to see Kerry win and those who hope Bush will be re-elected. If you think it's an utterly laughable premise that it's remotely possible to sit Osama bin-Laden down at a table and negotiate a solution, you're going to want Bush. If you think that Russia missed an opportunity to negotiate in Breslan and avoid several hundred deaths, you're going to be rooting for Kerry.
We in the U.S. (as well as quite a few other countries) have had just a little experience with this question. Carter: negotiating for the release of American hostages in Iran - result: 444 days of captivity. Reagan: threatening to do something about it - result: captives released within minutes of his inauguration. Right or wrong, experiences like this shape our approach to dealing with terrorism.
If there really is another, more effective way to deal with terrorism, perhaps some other country can step up to the plate and show us how it's done, by negotiating a solution to it's hostages in Iraq, or some other related issue. So far, there's not one example out there that I can see of a successful approach to dealing with terrorists other than aggressive confrontation and pursuing victory.
But if there's a proven alternative that's less expensive in human and dollar figure terms, I'm all ears, and would advocate changing the U.S. approach immediately. This wasn't what we wanted to do with these fine military people and all that money!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Probably because European countries have for some time lacked the military prowess the US has, and therefore require the cooperation of other nations to back up their diplomacy with force.
You see, there is a sort of checks and balances system that arises when you lack power; you are forced to make alliances with others who similarly lack power in order to pass muster. This means that another sovreign nation, whose views, politics, and media are different from yours, must agree with your stance. Usually, just one isn't enough; usually, you need several.
America, on the other hand (and I say this as an American), no longer needs to do this. We are a power unto ourselves. This is a good thing, in a certain sense -- it means that we cannot easily be manipulated into a position we'd rather not be in by others whose interests are different from our own -- but with it comes an incredible responsibility.
It means that we must instill a system of checks and balances in our own political system to approximate the dissent and debate that a smaller country would need to take part in before, say, deciding to invade some other sovreign nation.
Lamentably, this has been rather difficult, because no matter how fair and balanced we try to be, America is not the whole world, and does not represent even a sizeable fraction of it. We are one of the richest most powerful countries on earth, with an incredibly high standard of living. We do not (and I say this honestly) understand the plight of the less fortunate, in the same way that the rich often fail to understand the struggles of the poor.
It should come as no surprise to us that our views regarding "what's best" for the poor and underpriveleged nations in the world is met with some disillusionment.
Furthermore, we have the misfortune to be saddled with an administration that seems bent on eroding the checks and balances in our government designed to keep our foreign and domestic policy as representative as possible. While I do dislike GWB the man, I'll be honest and admit that, what with 9/11, Al Gore probably would have acted in a very similar way. Terrorism breeds fear in people (hence its name) and a terrified populace will give up its rights easily -- it will in fact demand they be restricted, in the name of greater security, if it can be convinced that those rights were abused by ne'erdowells. So it isn't GWB's fault, per se, although I do dislike the way his administration appears to have benefited illictly from the situation.
No, it's out fault, as Americans. For letting it happen. For allowing those that want power -- this includes anyone running for public office, Democrat or Republican -- to erode our rights. Rights taken away are hard to get back.
Kyoto Protocol would have been economic suicide for the US and much of Europe.
Ok, you choose :
...
- suicide
- economic suicide
Yeah right, let's not sign the kyoto protocol, i really cannot live without my S.U.V. anyway
With that aggravating beauty, Lulu Walls.
Apologies in advance to any Republicans...
But Dubya is generally regarded as a retard outside the US. The Neo-Conservative pre-emption strategy is wide open to abuse. I was talking to an Iranian friend of mine the other day and she said how would you feel if the world's only superpower invaded the country next to you and made threatening noises towards you?
9/11 was a terrible despicable attrocity but the fact remains that policies enacted by the current administration kill lots of innocent people too. Most people I know *like* Americans (as people) but hate their government.