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.
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.
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
There are plenty of extremely intelligent people I know who are voting for Bush (or against Kerry, as the case may be). There are plenty of extremely intelligent people I know who are voting for Kerry (or against Bush, as the case may be).
Only very insecure people and fanatics convince themselves that people who disagree with them else must be stupid.
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!)
Because most other countries don't take on a self-appointed role as global policeman.
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?
Comment removed based on user account deletion