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
I say we ask Theresa Heinz-Kerry if she thinks John can lick bush!
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"
No Bush and no Dick in '04!
Well then - they can have him.
This space intentionally left blank.
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.
Please tell me, what does a president have to do, to be remove from office ? Can you tell me what Bush haven't done yet? Is sex the only thing that can get you into trouble? ? ;)
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.
Given the current media attitude, this will no doubt be spun as "world wants a less firm, less studly leader than Bush so it can do its Francophilic walk-over our fine democratic values."
Alternative spins include "the world wants a nuanced leader who understands the issues", or "the world wants less war", or "the world wants to attack us so they need a senator in charge", or "the world likes red ties more than blue".
Hmm... it'll be interesting, but I think this is mostly a non-fact. World opinion doesn't count much within the US.
If the US takes an isolationist stance, that's not a bad thing. If we'd rather have more UN engagements (i.e. less US soldiers, easier for us to pull out and leave our allies holding the stick, et cetera), though, it might be worth paying attention.
"World wants to send soliders in to fight our battles, but only if we change leaders!" Now that's an odd spin we could try.
A.
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
Either that- or e-mail your politics story submissions directly to Pudge.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Ironically, I read this article yesterday stating how it is in India's best interest to keep Bush... http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/5922_1020531,00 15002200000158.htm
"What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on Earth, given the experience of the past million years? Nothing." -Bokonon
Honestly, who cares what the world wants? In the arena of American politics, only Americans matter. We don't dictate who should become President of France or Prime Minister of Australia. No one outside of America should have a say in who leads America.
Besides, what may be good for Europe may not be, and most likely isn't, good for America.
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." - Oscar Wilde
Slashdot posts articles submitted by readers. If you want to submit an article to "balance" things, go ahead.
I fail to understand why it should matter to me John Q. Britisher would rather I voted Democrat. In fact, given the general internation consensus on America, I think I'm more likely to consider the endorsement of John Kerry by millions of John and Jane Q. Europeans rather a negative indicator of his capability as President.
I suppose they liked Carter, too?
Canthros
like similar stuff for Kerry above?
Flush the Johns in '04.
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
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
I'm sure us geeks have an opinion on support from Nigeria.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
I should care why??
I wonder if there were any US presidents the world would have voted for in the past 50 years. Moreover, it took a poll of over 20,000 people to find out the leanings of America within a reasonable margin of error. How is 34,330 polled over 35 countries supposed to be accurate. I thought there were 140 countries in the world totaling 20 times the US population.
Latewire
Only people from the Phillipines, Poland and Nigeria clearly backed Bush,
Hey, those guys know what a strong leader really is:
Philippines: There's nothing like electing a President who committed human rights violations under the Marcos regime.
Poland: Well, you wouldn't think they'd go for invaders, but...
Nigeria: Come for the stonings, stay for the floggings, amputations, and beheadings under Sharia law.
In any event, what does it matter who the "world" would vote for? The only ones that count are the roughly 25% of the population of the U.S. that bother to vote. And Diebold. And the Supreme Court.
Here come da fudge!
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.
John Dean argues we already have a Head of State (George W. Bush) and a Head of Government (Dick Cheney) and that they serve as co-presidents.
It's certainly enough for me!
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Why exactly should we care? I really doubt the Mexican people care about our opinions of Vincente Fox. The same would apply to the British and our opinion of Tony Blair, or the South Africans and our opinion of President Mbeki. I thought the Spanish were quite silly for letting the Madrid bombing to affect their voting to such an extent, but I don't expect them to care about my opinion. It's their country, not mine.
The US is our country. We will vote for who we please, not who may or may not please people in other countries. If this is a problem please feel free to go pound sand.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
Put simply, the USA is in a unique position of power. With that power comes responsibility. Come November, that responsibility is in your hands.
I suspect thats true. Certainly Bush's response to 9/11 could hardly have pleased Al Qaeda more - we're an ineffectual occupier of Afghanistan (much of the country is controlled by the Taliban, by all accounts), we're stirring up Muslims all over the world by our actions in Iraq and with things like the Cat Stevens deportation. And more - civil liberties are under very real threats in the US, our stature in the rest of the world is dismal, we've put on more dept in three years than anyone could have anticipated.
The only thing that really surprises me is that Al Qaeda has not endorsed one or the other candidate.
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
Just in case anyone forgot, NONE of us get to vote for the president of the United States. He's picked by Electors.
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
The same poll also showed the rest of the world also wanted a weaker United States. I think that was what they had in mind when they were selecting Kerry as well.
Why is this IMO stupid article being posted on Slashdot anyway?
"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.
PDF - 8 pages
http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/GlobeScan-
Oh, goody! If the world gets to choose our next POTUS, does this mean we can all vote for the next CEO of MicroSoft?
Vote Linus!
Oddly enough, the CPUSA did endorse him (as they have all Democratic nominees since 1988 IIRC).
Actually, I was thinking al queda would rather have Kerry because Kerry's opinion seems swayable. Bush is a hard-liner and won't back down.
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
Someone on a non-political forum asked for UK voters to complete a short survey on their attitudes to Bush & the election, for a school project. The responses were remarkably similar. They're summed up by this response:
Q2) In brief explanation, what do you like about president bush? (good leader, crushing terrorism, etc)
A) His comedy value as president
Q3) In brief explanation, what don't you like about president bush? (war, lying, etc)
3) His comedy value as president
Fantastically concise - I'm not sure if its +5 insightful or +5 funny - I think it's probably both.
Read the news! Al Qaeda endorsed Bush. Here's the reporting from Fox News, of all places:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114489,00.html
The statement tells American voters that Abu Hafs al-Masri supports the re-election campaign of President Bush: "We are very keen that Bush does not lose the upcoming elections."
The statement said Abu Hafs al-Masri needs what it called Bush's "idiocy and religious fanaticism" because they would "wake up" the Islamic world.
"Whatever happened to fair use?"
-- Duff-Man
Quote from the article : "But why does the foreign policy establishment want Bush -- a man regarded by most educated Indians with a mixture of hostility and a derision that borders on contempt -- back in the White House?"
Outside of the U.S., Bush and Cheney are the most disliked U.S. president and vice-president in history. A Canadian government leader called Bush an "idiot".
Bush and Cheney are also the most arrested U.S. president and vice-president in history. George W. Bush was arrested once for the crime of DUI and Dick Cheney twice:
George W. Bush DUI, 1st record of arrest
George W. Bush DUI, 2nd record of arrest
George W. Bush was arrested 2 other times in his life, also.
Dick Cheney DUI, record of 1st arrest
Dick Cheney DUI, record of 2nd arrest
Many Americans have a hard time accepting that their government has become, in some ways, corrupt.
The U.S. has a difficult time getting good people to run for president:
For example, engaging in inappropriate sex is one of the characteristics of ACOAs, Adult Children of Alcoholics. Former U.S. president Bill Clinton was not an alcoholic, but his parents were violent alcoholics. The book, The Dysfunctional President: Inside the Mind of Bill Clinton, discusses the fact that Bill Clinton's misuse of sexuality is typical of the children of alcoholism-influenced families. The behavior of such children is so typical that every U.S. city has ACOA support groups.
Clinton has a strong interest in government and government policy. He at least has the knowledge to make informed decisions.
Bush, however, is a recovered alcoholic, and acts exactly the way recovered alcoholics usually act: The psychological effects of alcoholism provide a framework for understanding the Bush administration.. See points 1 through 13. Bush has never shown a strong interest in government and government policy.
--
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to try to make his administration look good.
I'm reading lots of comments saying "but the rest of the world's opinion in this doesn't matter, because they aren't American citizens".
Do you really think that America is in its own little box, and it has NO effect on anything other than America? Like it or not, the United States has a huge effect on every other country on the planet and naturally, people want what is best for them. If people are going to affect you, you're going to want to make sure it's in a positive way - and so voicing your opinion does matter. We're in a global world now. If a country of ~300 million affects the other ~5 billion people on the world, why should the other 94% of the world not have a say in it?
Chris
aterr - an open source threaded discussion board.
MOD PARENT UP!!!
Most people in the U.S. know little of the activities of their government. The U.S. government has bombed 24 countries since World War 2. The system of violence works by creating fear in U.S. citizens so rich people can profit. The problem happens largely because the U.S. government has a break-the-law department called the CIA. Secret government cannot be not democratic. How can you know what you are voting for, if you are not allowed to know what the government did?
The problem is with secret actions, not with secret information gathering.
--
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to try to make his administration look good.
My two cents as a Canadian:
In general I don't think much of the "Bush-bashing" is warranted or useful. I don't think Bush is a particularly bad President, but from a philosophical standpoint I would rather see a Democrat than a Republican in the position of President.
So, it seems that I'm in agreement with the rest of the non-US world. There's a catch, though: Although I prefer Kerry as a candidate, I realize that he's going to lose. Badly. The best synthesis I've ever heard of all the information in the campaign was from Jon Stewart on the Daily show. It was (paraphrased):
"It never ceases to amaze me that Bush comes off as a nice guy while he's lying his face off while Kerry comes off as a dick while he's telling the truth."
Certainly food for thought.
PS: Yes, all of us in Canada are watching this election very closely, just like we did last time. And the time before that. In fact, there's a significant portion of the population that cares more about the US elections than our own.
...Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter.
Churchill
Dr. Freud
Technology meets Transportation.
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!)
Where I come from, was not included, but it was on television the other day: Kerry 85%, Bush 5%.
:)
This does not mean that Denmark doesn't like the US (we supplied troops to Iraq, not because it was right but because you asked).
Neither does it mean that we want Kerry or a weaker United States.
What we want is a smarter US. Less selfish and with a broader horizon.
A US that believes in its own principles of fairness and free trade, instead of trying to make everybody else adopt the rules they like and support their companies.
A US that does not invade random countries because they just do not like the guy. - How about North Korea or Zimbabve or Sweden (joke)..
A US that tries to end the war on terror. Not through force, but through negotiation. I sincerely does not believe that the war can be won. How can you defend yourself all over the planet?? The natural result of the current strategy is that all US allies are getting hit and are withdrawing support since nothing is done to end the war. Certainly the Iraq war was not the answer, the Afghanistan war was much more so. I do not think that Bush want's the war to end at all.
So, here we are. Danes owes a lot to the Allied forces, but Bush does not stand for the principles that we believe in here.
Strangely I saw a story about a Serbian minister which compared creationism and darwinism and suggested that they both be given equal time in the science classes. He (or was it a she) was publicly ridiculed (there was laughing involved) and had to leave office immediately. Now there's a difference for you. Bush would never be elected to any position in Europe, Australia or SE Asia. Only in the US
And so he's got to go.
Ps. in such a big country as the US one would suppose they could find 2 more suitable candidates.
The poll is misleading - speaking from the UK you will find that most people don't particularly care for Kerry - we just hate Bush.
Literally anybody but Bush in the next election would be great. The guy is a moron.
My not holding Europeans' opinions about our Presidential Election high doesn't mean I'm supportive of Bush, or Kerry, it just means I believe they are the last people on Earth I would look to for insight about the middle east, or for insight into the best choice for President of the United States.
so head over to: www.johnkerry.com
if you'd like to know more about Kerry.
I don't claim I know more than I know, and if you know you know more than I know, then by all means, let me know.
How many of those people lived in countries that were making billions off of Oil For Food, I Mean Money? How many of those people lived in countries that were manufacturing weapons and selling them to Iraq? I won't name names, but their initials are France, Germany, and Russia. And how many of those people lived in Mexico? Probably some of them, as long as the poll wasn't conducted on the internet.
Country: Kerry, Bush, neither
Kerry
Germany: 74%, 10%, 16%
Norway: 74%, 7%, 19%
France: 64%, 5%, 31%
Canada: 61%, 16%, 23%
Italy: 58%, 14%, 28%
Brazil: 57%, 14%, 29%
Indonesia: 57%, 34%, 9%
China: 52%, 12%, 36%
Kerry, no mandate
UK: 47%, 16%, 37%
Japan: 43%, 32%, 25%
Too close to call, no mandate
India: 34%, 33%, 33%
Bush
Philippines: 32%, 57%, 11%
Neither, no mandate
Spain: 45%, 7%, 48%
Mexico: 38%, 18%, 44%
Nigeria: 33%, 27%, 40%
Thailand: 30%, 33%, 37%
Poland: 26%, 31%, 43%
2000: Gore, Bush, other, none of the candidates
None of the candidates
USA: 22.0%**, 21.8%**, 1.7%, 54.5%*
* Eligible voters
** Gore, Bush, and other's percentage support of eligible (I hope)
My comment had too few characters per line, my comment had too few characters per line, my comment had too few characters per line, my comment had too few characters per line, my comment had too few characters per line, my comment had too few characters per line.
Agreed, I think that is fair, but
1.) it goes both ways
2.) when the US "gets into others business" diplomatically, it's always demonized. Why is "European" intervention so morally superior and ethical, legally defensible as opposed to our intervention.
And when "Big Daddy United States" sits out a situation, it receives 10 fold the criticism as it's so called "European Counterparts".
LOL..I don't know which phrase I like better "illicit nookie" or "joyless pinprick."
I say mod the parent up if not for anything but his illustrious use of the English language. Good show chap. Jolly good show.
-----
One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
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!
It could have been worse. It could have been "illicit pinprick"... or "joyless nookie".
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?
Some observers also think that South Africa conducted a nuclear test in the Indian Ocean in 1979, though this is very often disputed.
Sometimes it matters what your friends think. They might have a different perspective on things, being not so close to them. Lots of times, listening to your friends can save you a lot of grief. Years ago, a friehd was going to marry the Wrong Girl, Really Wrong. You didn't need to be psychic to see the huge train wreck coming. After several deep conversations and some excellent herb, we decided that one of us had to tell him. Short straw has to do it, and thank all of the gods it wasn't me. It was a bad scene, and the marriage happened on schedule, as did the train wreck divorce a year later. Time heals all wounds, and our friend started talking to us again, but a lot of misery could have been avoided. If most of Europe thinks the US is making a mistake, it might be a good idea to listen to the reasons why they think so.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Apparently neither you nor the people who gave you positive moderation have been to Kerry's website where Kerry (or his staff) outlines his positions on a number of issues, very few of which appear to have anything to do with Vietnam. I suppose doing a little research is too much trouble though.
-- $SIGNATURE
Remember that Anzar also tried to blame the bombing on ETA, when clearly it was AQ. It was an obvious, and crass lie about something horrible in order to score political points.
That definetly would have cost him my vote. Not that I would have voted for him anyway.
The other issue is that voter turnout was huge. People who normaly wouldn't give a fuck about politics suddenly said "WTF have we got ourselves into!?"
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Thanks for the link (didn't know a US Communist Party existed). If you'd bother to follow it, you'd see that. '2. The CPUSA does not endorse any candidate for President in the 2004 election.'.
Um, and no, I am not and have never been a member of the Communist Party.
That argument might hold some water if Bush's "hard line" wasn't pointing in the exact directon that is most beneficial for Al Qaeda:
All they had to do was prick us with a needle (in the form of a few 747's); Bush took care of the rest.Hence my sig:
"Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - Orwell
I've decided to run a very informal and unscientific survey as to the reasons that Bush's supporters continue to stick with him. Please share your reasons by following up to this message or send email to feedback@aliensforbush.comNo joke... I'm really trying to make sure I hear all the oppinions and stay informed.
The Bolachek Journals
I find it interesting that voters with passports support John Kerry over George Bush (58% Kerry, 35% Bush according to a Zogby poll). Perhaps this represents something similar to the international poll numbers; the more global your perspective, the more likely you are to think Bush is screwing things up. Anecdotal evidence collected from my foreign friends seems to support this idea.
The Bolachek Journals
I wonder if there were any US presidents the world would have voted for in the past 50 years.
Kennedy? My mother (in Poland) told me that she cried when Kennedy was shot. He was really popular. I think all Eastern Europe would vote for Reagan, too.
"Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
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.
Not likely. Kyoto Protocol would have been economic suicide for the US and much of Europe.
-- $G
just food for thought.
. America is a wonderful country, but why do so many of us think we must enforce our values on everyone else ?...
boycott Olympics in China, because they eat dog ?
When I was in Frankfurt airport,, an American walked out of his way into the smoking area,, waving his hands in front of his face clearly offended..
Think people... not everyone has the same values.
Cultural differences are ok and interesting !
I am an American, but I check out the news from many other countries.... I have an opinion, If asked I would give it for what it's worth
I guess all I am saying is .. ego check people !
regards
. dbcad7
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
It's just ridiculous that someone defends Bush. Anyone who wants to take the time can show that the problems are far, far worse than a Slashdot comment can possibly say. Check Google for Bush idiot Canada
Carolyn Parrish did not call Bush an idiot, apparently. She said Americans were a "coalition of idiots". And she is not sorry.
I guess that seemed like strong language to you. No, it is weak language. Look at the other links:
Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien called Bush a "buffoon". Is that high enough in the Canadian government for you?
Jodine Chase, a media adviser to Ralph Klein's Alberta government apologized for referring to the US President as "that idiot" in a memo. According to the article, there is a new government policy in Canada: "These words cannot be used in reference to President Bush:
-moron
-idiot
-wanker
-idiot
-wanker
-dufus
-President of dumb
-Leader of the stupids
-that guy with Dick Cheney
-Commander-in-Comma"
Also see this in the same article: Francoise Ducros has resigned as Prime Minister Jean Chretien's director of communications after the media reported on a private conversation in which she called U.S. President George W. Bush a "moron."
Sorry, I don't have time to continue with the words the German and French government leaders use for Bush.
Call an AA chapter. Ask someone there if it's true that "once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic".
Few Americans realize how really, really bad the present administration is. U.S. media writers are afraid they will lose their jobs. Those from other countries can tell the truth about what they see.
Ask someone at AA if alcoholics are abusive, as the Prime Minister of Canada said. See this: The psychological effects of alcoholism provide a framework for understanding the Bush administration. Check the list of points 1 to 13.
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.
Kennedy had a 37% approval rating in America when he died. He was also seen as yet another warmongering American with his fiddling with vietnam and the whole cuban missile thing (regardless of whose fault it was).
Latewire
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Could you explain?
I notice that your username is GOD ALMIGHTY. You are exactly the being I wanted to ask: Is it really true that God is against Bush?
--
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to try to make his administration look good.
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.
I hear Kerry has locked up 100% the Viet Cong vote according to a recent Ding Dang Dong poll.
Respect the Constitution
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien called Bush a "buffoon"
Mr Hans Blix, whom you might remember as being 100% RIGHT when Bush and friends were lying to the whole world about the WMD- and you now ALL acknowledge that FACT, dont you ? - , well Mr Blix called the bush administration "Bastards" .
Then he decided it would be better to call them "Weasels" instead.
This is in a documentary about Bush that goes much deeper than the Michael Moore pamphlet. It's sad to see that people in the US would prefere to argue hours about Moore's movie rather than see this one which is much more "objective" (there's no "narator" it's only interviews from different people like Blix, the husband of the CIA spy, the guy that writes the speeches for bush, and so on ...)
This is in an amazing documentary called
With that aggravating beauty, Lulu Walls.
Wow, so much crap to debunk, so little time...
Sounds like a lie (aka perjury). This is the thing that Bill Clinton was impeached for: not having sex with Monica Lewinsky, but lying to a judge
Wrong! He asked the court to define "sexual relations", as the prosecution wanted to define it as just about anything under the sun. The court defined "sexual relations" to mean "sexual intercourse". As blow jobs are not intercourse, Clinton did not lie. As a matter of fact, if he had said yes, that would have been a lie, as oral sex is not intercourse. Suck on that one for a while.
And secondly, even if he did lie, a lie is not perjury if its not relevant to the case at hand. Whether or not Clinton had consensual sex was irrelevant to the question of whether or not he harrased Paula Jones. And this isn't just my opinion, that's what the judge ruled. So regaurdless, no perjury was commited.
and potentially obstructing justice (having Monica Lewinsky lie about their affair in an attempt to escape punishment for his actions with Paula Jones).
Wrong! Even if he did ask her to lie, just what justice would that be obstructing? And the only thing that's on record as far as him suggesting to her what to say, was that he didn't harrass her (Monica).
However, the collosal failing of the judge was to allow a definition of sex that *excluded* oral sex!
If you knew this already, then wtf are you saying Clinton committed perjury when you already know that he did not?
Perhaps, though, I would even agree that the impeachment was motivated by an extreme dislike for Bill Clinton's character.
It was the only motivation, and it started before Clinton was even an official candidate for President. The GOP couldn't smear Clinton as a big spending liberal, since he had centrist policies. They couldn't smear him as an elite out of touch liberal, as he was from a rural state and spent a great deal of time on rural issues. The only thing left for them to do was to go after him personally, and that didn't stop after he was elected, or re-elected.
Think about it for a second. The GOP spent tens of millions of taxpayer money on countless congressional investigations, two independant consols, and the worst dirt they could come up with was forcing him to make misleading statments about his sex life, which was nobody'sfuckingbusiness as long as there was no evidence that criminal acts took place? And what's that called when you try to force someone into commiting a crime? Oh yeah, entrapment, and that's illegal.
The whole scandal was a national disgrace all right - but it was only the GOP that behaved disgracefully. If there was any justice, Ken Starr and a bunch of Republican Congressmen would be sitting in jail right now after being convicted of malicious prosecution.
Bush is a hard-liner and won't back down.
Yeah, he sure kicked China's ass when they were holding one of our Air Force crews hostage, wanting an apology for a crash that was clearly the fault of the Chinese military. And North Korea is sure quakin in their boots right now.
Ask your Iranian friend how he would feel if a country run by 13th Century religious fanatics that are well known sponsors of worldwide terrorism decided to make nuclear weapons.
"A Kerry presidency will leave us drifting and crippled for four years at a time when we could ill afford it."
The president does not run the country directly. The White House staff numbers about 5,500, for example. A president assures that the government follows the needs of the people. A president guards against corruption. I think Kerry is an honest and decent person. I think very few decent people know what to do when they are being constantly attacked. Kerry has been in the Senate for 20 years, as I remember. If there were something seriously wrong with him, I think the voters would have noticed it by now.
On the other hand, Bush and Cheney are the most secretive president and vice president in U.S. history. For example, read Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush, a very well-written book by a man who is definitely in a position to understand corruption at the top. It is possible to read enough to get an understanding of the secrecy while reading the book in a bookstore.
Bush and Cheney are the president and vice-president most affected by conflict of interest in U.S. history.
The U.S. government's war with Iraq is an example of "drifting and crippled". Both Bush and Cheney and friends and family benefit from situations where there are more weapons contracts, as the 3 movies and 35 books reviewed the article Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government discuss. The Iraq war has made enemies of tens of millions of moderate Arabs and Muslims. Before, Saddam was killing his people. Now, the U.S. government is killing Iraqis, and destabilizing the government. Is that and improvement? Should Iraqis be proud that they are being killed by the U.S. government? A lot of foggy-minded people in the U.S. seem to think that.
--
Bush's education improvements were partly fraud
It gets irritating to constantly read through the badly regurgitated talking points that the right wing parrot crews typically spew out as substitution for an actual argument... BUT nothing is quite so loathsome as the shameful leveraging 9/11 for political gain.
The very fact that Bushco. is invoking the memory of such a devastatingly tragic event to somehow bolster his re-election hopes is decidedly putrid but the fact that weak minded idiots soak up that powerful but agonizingly irrelevant sentiment and use it to somehow DEFEND that idiot president you got down there is baffling. What happened on September 11th was a tragedy- but let's not forget that it happened on HIS watch (...of which most of that time he spent on holiday!) The Bush administration's 4 year record is riddled with incompetence, deceit, irresponsibly and rampant stupidity. Since that horrible day Bush and his evil minions have managed to bankrupt substantial international goodwill and evaporate any credibility America might have had in leading a global war on terror with their insane occupation of Iraq.
Yet half of you seem eager to let this fascist nut bar continue his rein!
What's WRONG with you people?
OK... we know there are lots of smart Americans down there. Its time for you to take time out of your selfish apathetic little day to stroll over and interrupt Clem's afternoon nap, sit him down and SOMEHOW get it though his thick skull that his "president" is a high functioning retard.
Tell them that you KNOW it sucks that y'all got it so completely and utterly wrong the first time- but the fact is: despite how many times he TELLS you to the contrary, he is a miserable failure of a leader and you simply can't let him continue embarrassing you on the world stage any longer.
Yes, we know that Kerry is rather unlikable... kind of stuffy and arrogant with a horribly monotone voice that just drones on... and... on....
Fine.
BUT he has some good ideas and a pretty good plan- plenty of integrity and is really quite smart and... and...um...
Tell them to get off their lazy brainwashed asses and read up on him- heck it might even be refreshing to actually have an understanding of this person they have been so successfully programmed to dislike. Besides, it certainly wouldn't kill 'em to read up on it... as foreign as it might be to get information NOT spoon fed to them by Mama Fox.
Its high time that the smarter more conscientious portion of America steps up and takes control of the bus.
Because quite frankly, if Bush gets back in it's fully YOUR fault.
Of course, if that is the case... the world is pretty much hooped.
So smarten up folks.
I really wish you could.
I hate SUV's, and think they should be made illegal in some way. Either that, or they should make it mandatory that the tires be more than 6 feet in radius. That way, I could drive my small car under them without having any problems.
Damn SUV's. Hard to see around, and people drive them like maniacs. I'd like to drive with a big ramming pole jutting up at an angle, so I can roll them off of the road.
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
... because he's shown he's willing to stand up to other countries for the benefit of the U.S. and its citizens, even if it means taking a beating abroad.
The fact that the rest of the world wants a change in leaders here in the U.S. is reason enough to vote for G.W.Bush for four more years!
Its only slightly relevant here in the U.S. what the rest of the world thinks with regard to U.S. politics. The rest of the world knows Kerry as the do-nothing politician (see for yourself - his 20 year career in the Senate is summed up in 2 sentences on his own site http://www.johnkerry.com/) - exactly the kind of man they prefer in the White House, so the rest of the world can continue to do as they please.
Do you think France, Germany and Russia had the Iraqi people's best interests in mind when they were using the Iraq Oil-For-Food program to rob Humanitarian Aid from the people of Iraq?
Do you think France has the best interests of the Iraqi people in mind when they repeatedly blocked NATO help for training Iraqi Security Forces in Iraq?
Did Koffi Annan's obviously politically motivated 2-years-too-late statement about how the Coalition invasion of Iraq was illegal helped anyone at all? (Oh, of course it did help the terrorist's recruiting effort in the Middle East.)
How about the Darfur region. Do you honestly think that Russia or China have the best interests of the people of Darfur in mind when they oppose a strong resolution by the UN Security Council?
My point is, every Country is looking out for themselves and their citizens first, and the rest of the world comes second. Just as it should. Just as it is here in the U.S.
The world's gonna be dissapointed when we re-elect G.W. for another four years. But it'll be a safer world because of it.
My affinity for hyperbole knows no bounds
OK, you want the U.S. to negotiate with Terrorists ...
I'm nominating you. First, you and your immediate family have got to meet with the terrorists personally ...
My affinity for hyperbole knows no bounds
Das Riech ist Kaputt. Verstehen sie?
My affinity for hyperbole knows no bounds
There is a whole world out -- that doesn't mean we should sit there and take a beating just because they'd like us to!
We know we effect the world. We work hard to work within the world. The U.S. is the top supplier of aid worldwide. We're the top contributor to the United Nations. We're the top contributor to NATO. We're the top contributor to the World Bank. We're right out there, providing more aid, more assistance, more help, more money, more medicine, and more food than any other nation in the world.
We're at the fore-front of technological advances in many scientific areas. We export technology like crazy.
But, if the world asks us to sit down from a confrontation because they're busy lining their pockets with booty from Iraq, while Iraq shoots at our Pilots, Provides cash bounties for Terrorists and their families, destabilizes the Middle East and just in general kills hundreds of thousands of innocents WE'RE NOT GONNA LISTEN TO THEM!
Neither should you!
And if the world thinks a do-nothing like Kerry would make a better President, maybe they should invite him to their country and have him run their country! WE DON'T WANT HIM HERE!
My affinity for hyperbole knows no bounds
... the U.S. won't have to be the only ones to organize the application of justice in the world!
My affinity for hyperbole knows no bounds
So, our civilization is worse than the ones which condone killing women for the crime of not wearing a veil?
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Had anyone been willing to act preemptively, most of those 55 million lives would have been spared. And no, military action does not need to be the "first solution". Diplomacy should always come first, and with Iraq it did. Twelve years of it. That's a plain and simple fact.
I didn't bring it up as justification. I brought it up because it was a mistake that we all must learn from and because the U.N. was created for the sole purpose of preventing such a disaster from occurring again.
This is irrelevant. I could dig up many facts to show that other coutries provided vehicles, weapons, and technology to Axis powers. Iraq obtained most of its weaponry exclusively from the Soviet Union. Does that make the Russian's responsible for the invasion of Kuwait?
Where did I say that the United States saved the world? I didn't. I said that the USA (and others) failed to act prior to World War II. That was an error -- gross negligence -- and something that hopefully we all can learn from. Literally the opposite of the "savior of the world".
And here you help me make my point that you do have a twisted perspective of history. I'd like to see you say that directly to the faces of the grandchildren of the 300,000 US soldiers that died fighting in Europe and the Pacific. This statement of yours only serves to show how ignorant you must be.
Iraq's army was almost solely supplied with Soviet weapons. The amount of military support provided to Iraq by the US is paltry to that supplied by the Soviets. Human beings make mistakes, and we cannot always predict the future.
Iraq expelled the weapons inspectors in 1996. Eventually in late 2002 they let them back in under extreme pressure from the U.N. Hans Blix eventually reported that the Iraqis were being evasive and that they were failing to comply with U.N. resolutions. Today, anti-Bushers like to pretend that the sole reason the US took military action was because of WMDs and connections to terrorists. This is nothing but political spinning and half truths. If Iraq had cooperated with Hans Blix's teams, then the whole world would have known there were no WMDs. Instead we had to forcefully enter the country to find out for ourselves. When Colin Powell addressed the U.N. prior to the start of military action he spent most of his time arguing that Iraq was disregarding U.N. mandates. He did mention the possibility that there may be WMDs. However, that was neve
Despite what EULAs say, most software is sold, not licensed.
From a statistical piont of view, the Philippines, Poland and Nigeria make an interesting combination of countries to take such a minority opinion. Personally, I can't think of much the three have in common (or any two of them, for that matter): a former US colony, a former Warsaw Pact member and one of the "more better" governments in Africa.
At any rate, the BBC article mentions that 35 countries were polled, but only list results from a handful (mostly G7 members and ahem "Old Europe," from the looks of it). Where are the rest of the numbers?
Despite what EULAs say, most software is sold, not licensed.
... that prefer Kerry over Bush are willing to invite John Kerry to their country to run it for 4 years?
My affinity for hyperbole knows no bounds
... exposed to too many cat turds. Its seems you've got brain damage. That, or you've lost your tinfoil hat ...
My affinity for hyperbole knows no bounds
Too bad the rest of the world does not get to vote for the President ot the US... Wait maybe that is because it is not their country?
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I think it's a little naive to think that the motiviation behind this war was the UN resolutions or the WMDs. Resolutions are ignored all the time (Israel has several against it that are never brought up), and WMD's? I'm sure Al Qaeda can find friendlier countries than Hussein to obtain them, especially when intelligence can't seem to be finding them. Plus, with the broad definition of WMD's, the fact that production facilities can have civilian uses as well, and how the manufacturing know-how is so widespread, I'm sure there are many, many more countries that have them available and would also be willing to sell them to whoever wants them.
My opinion on the war? Nice idea, abysmal execution.
Who wouldn't want to change the political landscape in the Middle East? Everyone does, yes, even Europe, though they (mostly France) try to promote change by educating the youth. They've been trying this approach in Syria for a while now, for example. It's the kind of approach that takes longer, and may not work, but has merit (hell, Brazil managed to shake off a military dictatorship and become a democracy without shedding any blood, so why not?).
But the Bush administration seemed to have a very disturbing lack of foresight and planning. The post-Iraq world is a dangerous, divided place, with the divide between the West and the Middle East bigger than ever. Seems a step back to me, at least until (if) Bush is vindicated and Iraq does become a shining beacon of democracy and freedom for the Mid East.
I think it was a stupid, impulsive move. 9/11 was still relatively fresh on people's minds, the war in Afghanistan was so quick and painless, so the timing might have seemed ideal in that sense. But nation building a country as divided as Iraq? Takes more than a summer to work out.
No matter what you think of the reasons for the war or whether it was right or not. The execution was so clumsy and irresponsible, that should be an in issue onto itself.
That is easily some of the lamest reasoning I have ever wasted my time trying to plow though.
I mean to be rude- you right wing morons are really just content to throw up a bunch of deflective nonsense aimed to frustrate and overwhelm the left and sound "smart" to the slack jawed yokels that so blindly support the blatant arrogance and rampant stupidity of your current administration.
Its weak. Its annoying and it simply CAN'T be allowed to be so effective any longer.
That's the worst part about this- is that this RIDICULOUS propaganda is actually working!
>"The fact that the rest of the world wants a change in leaders here in the U.S. is reason enough to vote for G.W.Bush for four more years!"
How does that make ANY sense at all? Are you in grade school? How childish can you possibly be to maintain that simply because the "world" says that you should vote for ANYone but Bush- that you should do the complete opposite? Were you the kind of kid that enjoyed running with scissors? I bet you were.
See, these are the kind of brainwashed morons that need to be sat down and educated by much smarter Americans. It is obvious that world opinion is categorically dismissed without consideration by these people- simply due to the fact that we are not "American". Talking to them from the outside is pointless- I mean its like a giant CULT and if there is any hope of averting 4 more years with that incompetent moron at the helm then you people on the inside have some serious deprogramming to do.
>"Its only slightly relevant here in the U.S. what the rest of the world thinks with regard to U.S. politics. The rest of the world knows Kerry as the do-nothing politician (see for yourself - his 20 year career in the Senate is summed up in 2 sentences on his own site http://www.johnkerry.com/) - exactly the kind of man they prefer in the White House, so the rest of the world can continue to do as they please." Riiiight...and what has Bush done in 4 years as president?
Of course, let's also consider that you aim to discredit John Kerry's service as a Senator by pointing out a summation on a website! How is that in ANY way valid? The purpose of a summation is to... gee, I don't know- BRIEFLY sum up? Ya dork.
And further to your last sentence- don't you really think that's the way it should be ANYways? After all that's the whole reason behind "sovereignty" in the first place.
>Do you think France, Germany and Russia had the Iraqi people's best interests in mind when they were using the Iraq Oil-For-Food program to rob Humanitarian Aid from the people of Iraq?" No of course not- but what does that have to do with the fact that as of right now the United States is responsible for the deaths of THOUSANDS of innocent Iraqis? Just because other countries were taking advantage of Iraq does not justify the death toll from your current occupation. That was then- this is now. I'm sure even someone of your limited capacity can appreciate that distinction.
>"Did Koffi Annan's obviously politically motivated 2-years-too-late statement about how the Coalition invasion of Iraq was illegal helped anyone at all? (Oh, of course it did help the terrorist's recruiting effort in the Middle East.)" YES! It should help you realize how wrong this entire campaign is. I mean you seem to acknowledge that it IS, in fact, an illegal war by international law- So your position is that the fact it came 2 years too late makes it irrelevant? That clearly makes no sense. (And throwing in some baseless correlation to the "terrorist recruiting effort" is just pathetic.)
> "How about the Darfur region. Do you honestly think that Russia or China have the best interests of the people of Darfur in mind when they oppose a strong resolution by the UN Security Council?" Again, we are talking about what is going on in Iraq RIGHT NOW. Using the "well what about them" argument is just plain ridiculous- especially in this situation.
> My point is, every Count
The fact that the rest of the world wants a change in leaders here in the U.S. is reason enough to vote for G.W.Bush for four more years!
That's despotism sympathizer reasoning. Most of the rest of the world wanted Saddam to go. Should that be a reason to vote for him, provided the Iraqis had a real choice?
Your first sentence made a lot more sense, while not all would agree with it.
On a personal note, a friend of mine caught me in basing an opinion on spite. That helped me think through it.
Did Kofi Annan's obviously politically motivated 2-years-too-late statement
Was that timing not the result of being pressed on the issue by a reporter?
The U.S. still cites the cease fire.
My point is, every Country is looking out for themselves and their citizens first, and the rest of the world comes second. Just as it should.
I don't agree. In some issues, you should care for other people, even if they are in another country. Like giving humanitarian aid. In some cases it's a give-and-take situation were both parties get more from a deal than they would without.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
You see, its the facts that are working to support Bush, not the liberal hyperbole that the likes of you spew. It looks like you're not an American -- simply against Bush, not for Kerry.
In the 20 years Kerry has been in the Senate, he's accomplished NOTHING OF NOTE! He's a joke here in the States! http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/001831.htm l. Read Kerry's bio -- there's almost nothing about his Senate Service BECAUSE HE'S DONE NOTHING WHILE IN THE SENATE! He can't even attend the Senate Intellegence Committee meetings (he's assigned to the committee) -- his attendance is somewhere near 25%!
The Invasion of Iraq was completely justified at the U.N. level, the U.S. Federal Government level, and the U.S. public opinion level. It was not illegal, and even the 'World Court' would find it difficult to find it illegal.
In the 4 years Bush has been in office he's:
Some of you are slightly dense and missing my point -- What's good for France AND Germany AND Russia AND China AND North Korea AND (insert every large country except the US here) is probably going to be BAD FOR THE UNITED STATES, and therefore we would naturally, TAKE THE OPPOSITE POSITION. I.E IF THE REST OF THE WORLD WOULD LIKE KERRY AS POTUS, WE'D BE WELL ADVISED TO VOTE FOR BUSH!
Get It! Its not spite! It's a logical argument.
Oh, I'm sorry, you've shown by example you don't know what those are ...
My affinity for hyperbole knows no bounds
Reading the subject of your post, I pondered about going for the "Oooh! I guess I touched a nerve!" response that morons give when they get hot reactions to their stupid statements. I won't, because I'm not sure what your response has to do with that first paragraph of mine.
I was musing about what might possibly be additional reasons for people's feelings; instead of just covering the same old ground.
I didn't get the talking points memo. Do you mean that I repeat talking points; or that I mentioned 9/11 and, allthough I didn't mention any talking points, that makes my post worse/"redundanter" than a talking point post?
shameful leveraging 9/11 for political gain
I know what you mean. I had hoped that there would be bi-partisan agreement about security policy, which there pretty much was over Afghanistan, but was not over Iraq.
I see 9/11 "leveraging" coming from both sides, in varying degrees and shapes, with the Republicans focusing on America coming together being strong and defeating the enemy, and the Democrats focusing on how Bush is falling out with foreign leaders. Then you have the loons that blame 9/11 on Bush, or say that Kerry wants to destroy America. (Maybe the loons are right, but I wouldn't bank on it.)
president you got down there
You're addressing the U.S. audience, but I think I have you beat for most northern latitude (~64 degrees).
(...of which most of that time he spent on holiday!)
New math AND bunk sources.
insane occupation of Iraq.
The occupation isn't that insane as occupations go, but the run-up to it was an international asylum. With Bush and Chirac as the loons of the month. I'll admit that. Really subtle of them.
Mama Fox
Do you get Fox News Channel down there in Canada? Except for the Rathergate thing, I think most network news are fine, but I don't have Fox to compare to.
Its high time that the smarter more conscientious portion of America steps up and takes control of the bus.
Yes, because those who agree with you are so 1337.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien called Bush a "buffoon" [geocities.com]. Is that high enough in the Canadian government for you?
I can proudly say that I never voted for Jean Cretin. And I can also proudly say that I don't put much faith in intarweb sites hosted on Geocities. Whatever.
Canadian politics in a nutshell:
NDP - Increase spending. More taxes. More health-care spending. More immigration. Blah, blah, blah.
Conservatives - Less spending. Less taxes. Two-tiered health-care. Immigrants are stealing Canadian jobs. Blah, blah, blah.
Liberals - Conservatives are racist. NDP are radical. No two-tiered health-care. Unless we have a slim minority, then maybe. Vote for us, we promise we won't hurt you. Everything the other parties said that you don't like - we promise we won't do that...
And we thought the Americans had it bad?
Is that a real poncho? I mean, is that a Mexican poncho or is that a Sears poncho?
We've got Freedom
... and you are losing faster than anytime in you history.
... actually with the speed jobs are outsourced, the money will be owned by fewer and fewer people. They wont care to much about america, since they are not permanent residents of the US. ... or is the war on terror already won? the war on drugs?
we've got money
we've got power
Not enough for the problems you are facing
we've got bombs
Seriously, who hasnt? If your point is that the US has the best trained and well equipped military of the world you are right. But which war can be fought with this force? None of the ones that are the most serious threads to the USA. (Googleing for fighting the last war shows a nice forecast of the events in Iraq by a republian Col. in March 2003.
And we did it all in just over two and a quarter centuries. We're obviously doing something RIGHT.
No, you just didnt make to many things wrong. Other empires grew and fell faster nothing special about that. If the US is still around after another 700 years and plays in one league with Rome or the British and Chinese Empires we are talking.
It's kind of funny, here in a country, were moral relativism reigns and the mantra of the times is "I don't care what anyone else thinks!" , that we're so concerned about what the rest of the world thinks about us. We should *all* be shouting that from the mountain tops.
An american wrote once: Sometime they'll give a war and nobody will come.
A german poet completed this with the words:
"... dann kommt der Krieg zu euch / Wer zu Hause bleibt, wenn der Kampf beginnt / Und läßt andere kämpfen für seine Sache / Der muß sich vorsehen; denn / Wer den Kampf nicht geteilt hat / Der wird teilen die Niederlage. / Nicht einmal den Kampf vermeidet / Wer den Kampf vermeiden will; denn / Es wird kämpfen für die Sache des Feinds / Wer für seine eigene Sache nicht gekämpft hat."
Ignorance is very dangerous. Especially in a world of interdependant economies and interests. Im really hoping for an up movement of the economy and the stock markets (european or american, they sing their songs unisono anyway.)
You feel unsafe because of the war (and you should, because war sucks). Image how the US felt when terrorist flew planes into civilians targets. And it wasn't just 9/11, there were previous attacks on the US. So yeah we're scared too.
Now maybe Saddam wasn't a legitmate terrorist target, but he was an enemy target, and in war you take out your enemies, real and potential. Saddam invaded Kuwait, previously used chemical weapons, and did not complied with UN sanctions. We're well past the wait and see stage.
As I stated, this person clearly went out of his way to go into the smoking area..
My main point ... clearly skipped past, it that sure, people other than Americans should have an opinion as to what is going on with us in the US, and that is funny that all these posters against such an intrusion.. just can't see the hypocracy when ranting this, when compared with whole Iraq situation.
happy colon
dbcad7
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
Now, the U.S. government is killing Iraqis, and destabilizing the government. Is that and improvement? Yes. For far too long the United States has supported dictators and despots in the name of stability. The results of that were 9/11. Now we are bringing freedom and terrorists are bringing instability. It's going to be tough over the next few years or so, but in the long run a democratic Middle East where people can speak their mind without being jailed or killed will spawn less violent religious extreemism.
"Now we are bringing freedom and terrorists are bringing instability."
First, saying we is incorrect. The U.S. government would kill you if you got in its way. You are not part of any group that includes those U.S. government leaders who want violence.
Second, when Bush invaded an oil-rich Arab country on a pretext, particularly one not connected with al Qaeda, it was a very strong advertisement that brought more "terrorists", not less. ("Terrorists" are those who engage in war, but don't own airplanes.)
In fact, in the 24 times the U.S. government has bombed other countries since the Second World War, all have resulted in more instability and killing, not less.
Violence does not bring democracy. It brings more violence. I did a survey of the literature, and found that some people say the U.S. government was responsible for the deaths of perhaps 2,000,000 in Cambodia. The information given was credible to me. The U.S. government's bombing killed about 150,000 people directly. The destabilization caused the deaths of the rest. The 2,000,000 Cambodians died, but it is not possible to assign blame with accuracy.
The government leaders who say that they will bring democracy to the Middle East with violence are lying; they definitely know that is not historically likely. They are only taking advantage of the ignorance of U.S. citizens, and they know it.
--
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to try to make his administration look good.
Stay with me here... I'm ranting but I promise there is a point.
When they choose to watch American TV programs it's because they like them - not because it is good for America.
Yeah... right... love those American programs... all of them. I'm not saying all American programming is bad... but c'mon. Sure an Australian is to blame for some of it, but Murdoch is insane... so there you go. The issue with TV is the US using the cultural invasion method. Remember the Australian-US FTA?
When they buy American products it's because they like them - not because it is good for America.
Nah... it's because American companies keep buying our stuff. I mean, why buy Vegimite? Most Americans hate the stuff. The entire market for Vegimite is Australia (possibly a few strange Kiwis and Poms).
They are likely to choose who they think is best for them (being a non-American), based on whatever critera is important to them and their situation.
I'd hope that Americans would choose who they think is best for them too. But I know this isn't the point you are making. I don't know though, does David Hicks case fall under domestic or foreign policy?
They are making their choices based on what they think is best for them.
Exactly. But then this was the point of invading Iraq, right? "We think democracy is a good thing and Iraqi's don't have it. We'll give it to them!" Very noble. Given that the US is an occupying power I think that they at least have a valid argument in deciding who should be president (from what I've seen on TV [yay!] it seems that a lot of the election seems to be Iraq focused).
Australian politicians seem to get rilled when an important overseas type person states a preference towards a party. There's usually a huge outcry of "keep your noses out". But this, who cares? But I hardly think that a poll of web users really will effect the outcome of the election. That clause that only allows someone to be president for two consecutive terms is in your constitution right?
I promised a point... but that was a noncore election promise....
It's not that I disagree with Bush's economic policy or his foriegn policy, I believe he's a child of satan brought here to destroy the planet Earth. -Bill Hicks
... *ANYTHING* can acquire a Slashdot User ID.
My affinity for hyperbole knows no bounds
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1171176/p osts
My source seemed to be wrong.