An interesting article from the Guardian.
It says better than i could why most people in the world are interested in the US election.


"
(…)
Who could honestly describe the 2004 contest of George Bush and John Kerry as a domestic affair? There's a reason why every newspaper in the world will have the same story on its front page on November 3. This election will be decisive not just for the United States but for the future of the world.

Anyone who doubts it need only look at the last four years. The war against Iraq, the introduction of the new doctrine of pre-emption, the direct challenge to multilateral institutions - chances are, not one of these world-changing developments would have happened under a President Al Gore. It is no exaggeration to say that the actions of a few hundred voters in Florida changed the world.

So perhaps it's time to make a modest proposal. If everyone in the world will be affected by this election, shouldn't everyone in the world have a vote?

It may sound wacky, but the idea could not be more American. After all, the country was founded on the notion that human beings must have a say in the decisions that govern their lives. The rebels' slogan of "No taxation without representation" endures two centuries later because it speaks about something larger than the narrow business of raising taxes. It says that those who pay for a government's actions must have a right to choose the government that takes them.

Today, people far from America's shores do indeed pay for the consequences of US actions. The citizens of Iraq are the obvious example, living in a land where a vile dictatorship was removed only for a military occupation and unspeakable violence to be unleashed in its place. The would-be voters of downtown Baghdad might like a say in whether their country would be better off with US forces gone. Perhaps John Kerry's Monday promise to start bringing the troops home, beginning next summer, would appeal to them. But they have no voice.

It's not just those who live under US military rule who might wish to choose the commander-in-chief. Everyone from Madrid to Bali is now drawn into the "war on terror" declared by President Bush. We might believe that war is being badly mishandled - that US actions are aggravating the threat rather than reducing it - and that we or our neighbours will eventually pay the price for those errors. We might fear that the Bush policy is inflaming al-Qaida, making it more not less likely to strike in our towns and cities, but right now we cannot do anything to change that policy. Instead we have to watch the US campaign on TV, with our fingers crossed - impotent spectators of a contest that could shake up our lives.
(…)

Such a request would also represent a recognition of an uncomfortable fact. It would be an admission that the old, postwar multilateral arrangements have broken down. In the past, America's allies could hope to influence the behemoth via treaties, agreements and the UN. The Bush era - not just Iraq, but Washington's disdain for Kyoto, the test ban treaty, the international criminal court and the rest - suggests that the US will no longer listen to those on the outside.

(…)"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/comment/story/0,14259,1309890,00.html

:rolleyes:

Wow, that's a pretty radical position you're pushing there....that is, that the United States should lose it's right to sovereignty.

Let me guess, you and the author still believe that France should still be run by French citizens?

Think how much easier the Iraq situation would've been . . .

"Sorry Saddam, the world has voted you out of office . . ."

This is the dumbest idea I have heard in years.

We are a soveriegn nation.

I sure as hell do not want the rest of the world deciding who is going to run our country. Remember, we may be stronger but they have us outnumbered. - about 6 to 1.

DUMB, DUMB, DUMB, DUMB.

If Bush is defeated by voters and all the Worlds problems don't go away. What next?

In a way I hope Bush is defeated by Kerry. I then hope he brings our troops home from everywhere. Leaving all of you to fend for yourselves. Yes, then the mighty France, Russia, and Germany can show their stuff. We can send foreign aid in the form of cases of ketchup.
I love that thought. Four years of the world looking after itself and America taking the time to look after its own citizens for awhile.
Go Kerry Go, lets back off and really find out what these whining other countries are made of. No more big brother to keep the boogie man away.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
If Bush is defeated by voters and all the Worlds problems don't go away. What next?

In a way I hope Bush is defeated by Kerry. I then hope he brings our troops home from everywhere. Leaving all of you to fend for yourselves. Yes, then the mighty France, Russia, and Germany can show their stuff. We can send foreign aid in the form of cases of ketchup.
I love that thought. Four years of the world looking after itself and America taking the time to look after its own citizens for awhile.
Go Kerry Go, lets back off and really find out what these whining other countries are made of. No more big brother to keep the boogie man away. Rock on Dan the Man!!!

None of the events would have happened under Gore? Are you pshychic?

interesting proposal. don't think it should happen, but the shock value of it does carry it's message: what the U.S. does effects the rest of the world in a bery big way. though they shouldn't be able to elect our president, it's importnat to think about our foriegn policys efects on otther countries.

America first and foremost. Not much incites me to this level, but the very idea that anyone other than registered to vote American citizens should have a say in our government is abhorrent. No American should even entertain the idea that such a thing is remotely favorable to our society. Why in hell should I give a damn about what someone not living, voting & paying taxes here thinks of our duly elected leaders?

Maybe because we all live on this planet, and we should be concerned with everyone? And the fact is, without our trade with the world, we wouldn’t survive. We all depend on each other, and if we have an arrogant attitude, like the Bush Administration is forcing, we won’t survive.

Yes, we should keep in mind that we have a major effect on the rest of the world. We should also keep in mind that the rest of the world wants us to act in a way that would benefit them the most. They're no more noble than we are.

Originally posted by es347fan
America first and foremost. Not much incites me to this level, but the very idea that anyone other than registered to vote American citizens should have a say in our government is abhorrent. No American should even entertain the idea that such a thing is remotely favorable to our society. Why in hell should I give a damn about what someone not living, voting & paying taxes here thinks of our duly elected leaders?


because we're all people and being divided by nationality is stupid?

I' not saying they should vote in this country, I'm saying we need to watch out for people's needs besides our own. we are capable of having a huge effect on the world becasue of our superpower status. with privelege comes responsibility.

Thank you Whammybar for understanding my point (and the point of the author of this article). Of course nobody seriously asks for the entire woprld to vote in US elections. The idea is to make american people understand that their vote won't only affect their lives but many global issues.

I don't buy the usual rhetorics about all american interests being oposed to foreign interests. We all need a stable middle east. We all need clear and efficient intarnational trade rules. We all fear environmental disasters and global epidemics. We all want to fight terrorism.

Think about local elections. If all the small or middle sized towns near New York are interested in the result of NY elections, it's not beacause they want the worst candidate to be elected.

I think americans should get to vote in French and german elections

Originally posted by Travh20
I think americans should get to vote in French and german elections

I think you're being a dumbass and not understanding the purpose of the article or post.

Let's see other nations really step up to the plate & put as much of their GNP into Foreign Affairs as the US does, rather than offering opinions about how & where it should be spent. Some nations feel content to sit on the sidelines & attempt to direct when they're not even playing the same game.

Granted, when the United States sneezes, the entire planet gets double pneumonia. If we Americans choose a leader the rest of the leaders don't like, tough. They're all diplomats & smooth talking politicians, they should know how to communicate effectively with one another & not just cave & cry when the inevitible difficulties arise.

Originally posted by THE REF
None of the events would have happened under Gore? Are you pshychic? there would have definitely been a different approach.....one that doesnt end up SOUNDING so dumb ...:bike:

Originally posted by WhammyBar
I think you're being a dumbass and not understanding the purpose of the article or post.

of course you do. be that as it may, do you think the US should get to vote in French and Russian elections?

Originally posted by Travh20
of course you do. be that as it may, do you think the US should get to vote in French and Russian elections?

of course I don't think we should get to vote in French or Russian elections, but i don't think that french and russians should get to vote in ours. I'm saying that we should consider how our actions effect pther countries, becasue all countries should do that, and especially because we're the worlds only superpower.

Because we are the only superpower, they have to deal with U. S..

Originally posted by es347fan
Because we are the only superpower, they have to deal with U. S.. be careful of what you ask for.......arrogance is a perfect candidate for murphy's law

Everything invites murphy's law. Arrogance just makes it more poetic.

At this point in time, it's reality.

Sorry to jump in on this late, but heres my short take.

It is insane to think of letting other countries vote in our elections, however, we should defanately think how our vote will influence International Relations and the way of life for both our allies and our enemies.

Originally posted by es347fan
Let's see other nations really step up to the plate & put as much of their GNP into Foreign Affairs as the US does, rather than offering opinions about how & where it should be spent

Funny you raise that issue, and in these terms since the USA are the bad pupil according to this criteria.


"Although the United States consistently ranks first or second in absolute amounts of foreign aid, it falls last among industrial countries when aid is measured as a percentage of GNP. The DAC has set an annual target for foreign aid of 0.7 percent of GNP. But this target has no bearing on the quality of aid projects, their effectiveness, or their impact on economic development. The idea of a fixed percentage dates to 1958, when the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches called for countries to devote 1 percent of their national incomes to international development. Over time the target was modified, but there was little discussion of why a fixed 0.7 percent contribution is preferable to a strategic approach designed to provide aid for the right projects in the right countries at the right time. Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden are the only countries ever to have achieved this target. "

more on
http://www.usaid.gov/fani/ch06/objectives03.htm

Let's blur more international lines so we can all emulate the great success of the European Union.

Originally posted by es347fan
Because we are the only superpower, they have to deal with U. S..

this is why we have a terrorism problem. arrogance on our part will only make other countries hate us more, and make the world a worse place. why not imporve the world, and have other countries be fond of us?

Kiss the world's ass even more than we do already? We sanitize movies, welcome cultural diversity throughout the nation, allow any number of diplomats crap all over our hospitality, take verbal abuse from just about every nation on the planet & yet we continue to do business with them, and oh yes, provide less than .7% of our GNP to Foreign Aid. Still you complain?

You can beat a dog into submission - and he will do as he is told as long as you are watching.

You can treat him kindly and he will respond with gratitude and be your friend for life.

One you can turn your back on, one you can't.

Echo, I understand what you mean but I'm not sure the comparison with a dog is really very nice !

ES 347, it's not about anybody kissing anybody's ass !
My point is that the world, including the USA, needs more cooperation that confrontation. Even if our countries sometimes have conflicting interests (as any competitors), most of the problems they have to solve need global cooperation.
That's why no country, even the more powerful, can act alone and take decisions alone.

Originally posted by Echo2
You can beat a dog into submission - and he will do as he is told as long as you are watching.

You can treat him kindly and he will respond with gratitude and be your friend for life.

One you can turn your back on, one you can't.

theres also this analogy: The Scorpion and the Duck.

a duck is swimming along one day and spots a scorpion along the river bank. the scorpion looks sad and dejected, so the duck, being his caring self, asks whats wrong.

"I nedd to get to the other side of the river, but cant" said the scorpion.

The duck, seeing the dejected scorpion offers him help. "I will take you across on my back, but you have to promise not to sting me"

"I promise not to sting you duck, thank you for the help!" so the scorpion jumps on and the duck swims across the river. once across, the the scorpion prepares to leap off, but before he does, he stings the duck on the back. The duck, bewildered and in pain asks the scorpion why he would do something like that to someone trying to help him. the scorpion replys:

"silly duck, I am a scorpion"

that's an exceedingly simplistic view of the situation trav. yes, of course the u.s. could be takne adavntage of by other countries. but simple cooperation will not result in that. copperating helps everyine, not just the other countries. again, many of our problems are ones that other countries are also dealing with, and one's which we can work tobgether to solve. for instance, the envionment is something that every country should be concerned about, and it benefits everyone to work to improve it. things like a more peaceful middle east, less nuclear weapons and fair trade fall in this category. nobody is saying the U.S., or any other country for that matter, should let other countries walk all over them. we're saying that copperation between countries, and consideration forv each others situations will make the world a far btter place then general hostility.

you know, as much as you say I simplify things, you also overcomplicate things. some things are simple, not everything need to be analyzed to death. Take saddam, he was a threat to us. you have to dig pretty deep and do a hell of alot of explaining to try to convince someone he wasnt.

I am curious. Specifically, how was sadam a threat to us?
He had no weapons of mass destruction. He had no connection to Al Quida. He had no nuclear power plants. All he had was a ragtag army that we defeated in less than three months. If he had truly been a threat, how is it that we overthrew his country and defeated his army so easlily and with minimum casualties. Even now, the insurgents that are still fighting are fighting with small arms and homemade bombs. How is that a threat to the United States? Wouldn't a country that is a threat to the U.S. be able to fight us off with more than old toyotas with guns lashed to the back of them and molitov cocktails?

OK, lets start at the beginning for the mental giants who cant seem to see anything unless its uber complicated. we got hit on 9-11 by islamic terrorists. islamic terrorists have been hitting us for years, but it always seemed to be no big deal, as no action was taken to prevent another attack, instead action was taken to simply aprehend those responsible fo that one attack. 9-11 was an attack on a massive scale, and a wake up call to us that simply arresting individual terrorists responsible for individual attacks was not going to cut it. we had to go out and find them, and their supporters, and deal with them BEFORE they had a chance to strike us again. we did that in afghanistan, where the majority of al qeada training bases were. We had to take out their government as well, because they were sympathetic to al qeada and supproted them. Now, since it is a war on terrorism, not a police action to just get those responsible for 9-11, we had choices as to what to do next. many americans thought that dealing with the taliban and al qeada in afghanistan was enough. others did not. there are a whole host of countries that wish us harm, Iran, Iraq, Syria, North Korea and others. We had to deal with each of them. when looking at the list ofpotential threats, you ahve to use some brain power to decide who is the biggst threat. Lets start with N Korea. Yes, they have nukes, thanks to Kimmy carter and Madelin Albright. yes, tehy dont like us. they are not islamic fundamentalists. they do spout war rhtoric when they want attention, but thats about it. theri leaders are to scared to rsik their power by actually attacking anyone, think fo them as the old crazy guy in the corner who yelss every now and then. Then there is Iran. They ae islamic radicals, and dangerous. they supply terrorists. Tehy will be next. they have not attacked anyone or laucnhed any missles or used any WMD's, Syria is low on the poll, but will be dealt with. then you get to Iraq. Saddam hussein hated us too, more so then all the others. he supplyed and funded terrorists. he was a known user of WMD, a liar, he attacked iran, took over Kuwait, attacked into Saudi Arabia, launched balistic missles into israle in hopes of starting a mid east war, he tried to assasinate a US President. If you get your head out of the partisan hole you keep it in and lok at the threatsagaisnt us, you can see who the biggest threat was. yes, they are all threats, but one was a glaring threat over the others. who else has the track record saddam had and the resources he had, and was known to invade his neighbors, laucnh balistic missles into other countires, use poison gas on the battlefield and on his own civilians, and tried to kill the president? If you dont see him as a threat then you cant see anyone as a threat. you can argue with hindsight that he wasnt a threat, but hind sight is 20/20. we didnt find any of the WMD's. that doesnt mean they are not in syria, or buried. saddams own top scientis says saddam wanted tostat his WMD program again,a nd could have done so with the wave of his hand. the guy was unstabe, his sons who would have taken over were crazy too, and would have had accss to the WMD programs their father had. you cant convince me saddam was just some weak old man rotting away due to UN sanctions. he had all the money he wanted to rebuild his army and his palaces. his people suffered. and when he was gone, he had two kids crazier then him waiting to take over. the guy was a threat. more so then the rest. the rest are threats too however, and will be dealt with accordingly. the war on terror is not over.

I ask a simple question, and I get a barrage of nastiness back about my politics and how far up my ass my head is. I was hoping to get a reasonable answer but alas, nothing but partison rhetoric.

I would like to hear from someone more level headed and informed. Can anyone else tell me why Saddam was a threat?

It has been proven that he had no weapons of mass destruction. It has been proven that he had no connection to Al Quida. It has been proven that he had no nuclear power plants. Even mr bush has agreed that he was wrong (mislead) about those things. A country that had all these horrible weapons would have used them on us when we attacked. All Saddam had was a ragtag army that we defeated in less than three months. So why was he a threat?

He was insane. And he had the capacity to build WMD's which could have be available very soon. If he felt like it, he could have blown up the world. I still think that he had WMD's. I just don't believe that every intelligence organization was wrong. I'm betting on the sand. After all, after the first gulf war, he buried an entire air force.

Originally posted by Evil Homer
He was insane.
Like the leaders of NK? And many others in the Middle East? Yet, you don't see us attacking them....

Originally posted by Evil Homer
And he had the capacity to build WMD's which could have be available very soon.
Bush said he had the weapons and that we knew where they were. That was not true. To go on the assumption that he "could" create them is no reason for war. All of his programs were abandoned in 1996, along with all of his weapons.

Originally posted by Evil Homer
If he felt like it, he could have blown up the world.
With what weapons? We haven't found any....I suggest you keep up with the news...

With that comment i was referring to the previous statement, that If he did have them, he could do that.
And I do keep up with the news. I heard on the news, that an Iraqi scientist knows where the WMD's are.

If he did have them...well he did not have them past 1996.

But if we do find WMD's, I would support going into Iraq, but not the way Bush has managed this war. So, I'd hope your "scientist" is correct.

so just ignore what I said becasue it blew your ignorant left wing regurgitating ass out of the water, fine. i know you read it, and picked out the one thing that you could use to dismiss it. its my fault, I should have never added that and gave you an excuse to run away

Originally posted by Echo2
I ask a simple question, and I get a barrage of nastiness back about my politics and how far up my ass my head is. I was hoping to get a reasonable answer but alas, nothing but partison rhetoric.

I would like to hear from someone more level headed and informed. Can anyone else tell me why Saddam was a threat?

It has been proven that he had no weapons of mass destruction. It has been proven that he had no connection to Al Quida. It has been proven that he had no nuclear power plants. Even mr bush has agreed that he was wrong (mislead) about those things. A country that had all these horrible weapons would have used them on us when we attacked. All Saddam had was a ragtag army that we defeated in less than three months. So why was he a threat?


again, your knack for pure hindsight is extraordinary. its to bad we cant base all of our national security decisions on your hindsight

Originally posted by Overdose
If he did have them...well he did not have them past 1996.

But if we do find WMD's, I would support going into Iraq, but not the way Bush has managed this war. So, I'd hope your "scientist" is correct.

well you seem to place a lot of faith in saddams word, so why not his scientists?

When did I say I believed Saddam?

i know you read it, and picked out the one thing that you could use to dismiss it.

Travh, that was almost comical the way you spent all that time to explain how you see it only to have the entire paragraph dismissed so that Echo could focus on the insult. In any case, you wrote a good synapsis.

Echo, why ask a question if you don't want to hear the answer?

I do want to hear the amswer. But I don't want to hear the rhetorical crap that trav spews. His statements go against everything we know. And his pathetic attempts at insults get old and boring. I wanted to hear some well thought out and informed reasons.

Originally posted by Evil Homer
He was insane. And he had the capacity to build WMD's which could have be available very soon. If he felt like it, he could have blown up the world. I still think that he had WMD's. I just don't believe that every intelligence organization was wrong. I'm betting on the sand. After all, after the first gulf war, he buried an entire air force.
This makes some sense, he definately was insane on some level. And if he didn't have the capacity to build them he clearly was seeking it and would eventually have had them if left to his own devices. We know that he couldn't have blown up the world because he did not have the missles to deliver a bomb further than 300 miles. But he could have devistated Israel and a nuclear explosion disipates into the atmosphere and travels so he definately could have done some real harm to the entire mediterainian area. The problem I see with that is that the other countries in the middle east would most assuredly not tbe happy with someone setting off a nuclear bomb in their backyard. Though they would welcome an end to Israel.

But that doesn't get to the root of the question. Because even if he did have nuclear capabilities we know for sure that he did not have the missle power to deliver them to the U.S. Which makes him of no direct threat to us but a real threat to Israel and the surrounding countries.

The strange thing about this is that Saddam was not an overly religious man. He hated the U.S. but his hatred wasn't wrapped up in religious doctrine. Al Quida's hatred for us is wrapped up in religious doctrine. Maybe that is why the two never connected up.

I see Saddam as having been a possible future threat that needed to be dealt with but not an immediate threat. That is why I have difficulty with the decision to rush to war rather than to wait the 90 days that the U.N. was asking. 90 days, with U.N. inspectors climbing all over his countries facilities and the world watching, would not have been enough time for Saddam to have aquired, set-up, armed, and launched anything at anyone.

I just don't see a threat that required immediate and singular action. Though I admit that he was a developing threat. I see no reason why we couldn't have waited 90 days and gone in with a larger coalition. Costing us less money, less lives and more credibility with our allies.

ya, whats 90 more days after 12 years? what happens after 90 days? 90 more daays, then 90 moe after that. the peace at any cost crowd will always find a way to avoid war. They did it ever since saddam broke his first cease fire agreement after the war 14 years ago. Since then he has broken many stipulations set out by that cease fire agreement, all of which warranted his removal from power, none of which were followed up on. It is EXACTLY the path hitler took. Snub the league of nations (UN) and the treay of versailles (gulf War I terms of surrender), laugh at their paper threats and build up. Hitler was building up to a big conventional army, saddam, a small, potent N.B.C weapon. This 90 more days is a joke. Saddam could have hid WMD’s from 1000 inspectors for 90 years.

Originally posted by Travh20
you know, as much as you say I simplify things, you also overcomplicate things. some things are simple, not everything need to be analyzed to death. Take saddam, he was a threat to us. you have to dig pretty deep and do a hell of alot of explaining to try to convince someone he wasnt.


war shouldn't be simple. it isn't a black and white issue, yes or no, it's multifaceted and a thoughtful considerate approach should be taken to it. looking simplisitically at complicated things such as war will only get us into trouble.

oh really? tell that to FDR

Keep at it, Trav, eventually they'll get it - although your message is a bit garbled at times.

U.S. military history is riddled with errors when hindsight is applied. For example, during WWII, General Patton should have been allowed to take Berlin, and then chase the Russians back to their borders. Result? Perhaps, no Cold War, and maybe no Korean conflict. During that particular conflict, General Mac Arthur should have been allowed to beat the Chinese all the way back behind their borders. Result? Perhaps, no Viet Nam war. During the first Gulf War, when the iraqi idiot invaded Kuwait, my old friend General "Stormin" Norman Schwarzkopf should have been allowed to enter Baghdad and capture Saddam. Result? Perhaps no 9/11 and the resulting festivities. We're into this conflict and need to see it through & not change horses in the middle of the stream.

What do you mean Travh?

i would not want the world to vote on the U.S. elections. Thay have no say so on how are government is run and who is in charged. Since other countries want the U.S. to have a wimp for a President so that they can push around(allah Clinton). What we need is a strong President that would not and can not be pushed around by other forign dignitaries.

A la klinton? I like that. That walking, talking pile of crap hated the miltary so bad he even displayed his disrespect for them by insulting the very troops that guarded the White House. That buffoon was an insult to the reputations of each and every POTUS that preceeded him.

Originally posted by Overdose
When did I say I believed Saddam?

Overdose, I would just like to say that your signature photo exhibits the same sort of arrogance that makes Bush as well as many Americans like travh internationally dispicable.

the world only likes us when we have their best intentions in mind, if we look out for ourselves we are dispicable assholes. no one calls us assholes when we are writing checks do they?

Originally posted by Travh20
the world only likes us when we have their best intentions in mind, if we look out for ourselves we are dispicable assholes. no one calls us assholes when we are writing checks do they?

looking out for ourselves and looking out for others aren't mutually exclusive.