A Soldier Posted September 9, 2004 Report Posted September 9, 2004 A new poll in 35 countries suggests that people around the world would prefer Democratic challenger John Kerry as US president over George W Bush. Full article @ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3640754.stm POLL RESULTS (KERRY-BUSH)Norway: 74%-7%Germany: 74%-10%France: 64%-5%Italy: 58%-14%Spain: 45%-7%UK: 47%-16%Canada: 61%-16%Mexico: 38%-18%Brazil: 57%-14%China: 52%-12%Japan: 43%-32%Indonesia: 57%-34%India: 34%-33%Philippines: 32%-57%Nigeria: 33%-27%Poland: 26%-31%Thailand: 30%-33% Thoughts?
MasterDrake Posted September 9, 2004 Report Posted September 9, 2004 umm yeah I will vote for who ever I want the world has no vote and I didn't see in precentage that wanted bush posted
A Soldier Posted September 9, 2004 Author Report Posted September 9, 2004 I didn't see in precentage that wanted bush posteduhh, if you mean the poll results, they are on the first post
shazbot Posted September 9, 2004 Report Posted September 9, 2004 The world does not have a say in who gets elected, fortunately.
Hackysack Posted September 9, 2004 Report Posted September 9, 2004 The world does not have a say in who gets elected, fortunately.I agree. I dont see a poll on who we want President/king/queen/Prime Minister/Dictator of other countries. Why? Because it doesn't matter what we think. They have as much say as we do. We vote based on what we see fit. But I must say, England would be way cooler with a king rather than a queen.
Guest Recombo Posted September 9, 2004 Report Posted September 9, 2004 Already stated, but to repeat, it doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks. If they really want to make their vote count, they can immigrate here, wait for citizenship, and vote. Until then, no one cares about the 'vote' of the rest of the world.
Bacchus Posted September 9, 2004 Report Posted September 9, 2004 agreed quit focusing on america well, if america would care less about the world maybe the world would stop caring about america, no?
MasterDrake Posted September 9, 2004 Report Posted September 9, 2004 shh go get laid or something its more fun
A Soldier Posted September 9, 2004 Author Report Posted September 9, 2004 shh go get laid or something its more fun kinda ironic coming from you.
MonteZuma Posted September 10, 2004 Report Posted September 10, 2004 ...it doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks.If this were true you would still have 2 World Trade Center buildings in New York city. If you are American, and you want to help stamp out terrorism - Vote for Kerry.
Guest Recombo Posted September 10, 2004 Report Posted September 10, 2004 Any idiot can destroy a buidling. T. McVae proved that by destroying the ss building in Oklahoma. Does it mean he's right and we've all been fooled by the US as a whole? And I guess if Kerry wins the election but fails on terrorism, we should all blame it on someone else and burn the flag? Is that how things are done?
Tenet Posted September 10, 2004 Report Posted September 10, 2004 ...it doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks.If this were true you would still have 2 World Trade Center buildings in New York city. If you are American, and you want to help stamp out terrorism - Vote for Kerry. Ever study history? When people like Hitler or Osama Bin Laden decide to do something, they will do it regardless of any appeasement policies. In fact, such policies are likely to promote the war instead of stopping it, as was the case in WWII and the current WWIII. If Clinton would have dedicated more attention to modernizing the US security and intelligence organizations, and employed a more effective policy of tracking down and fighting terrorists - we would indeed have 2 World Trade Center buildings in New York City, and over three thousand innocent civilians alive. If you are an American, and you want to help stamp out terrorism - Vote for Bush who makes decisions based on strategic considerations and not populist politics. Sir Winston Churchill was also often criticized and hated for his decisions, but he had the resolve to continue policies that eventualy won the war. Some people still continue to criticize him, regardless of the victory that was achieved. Bush may need a staff of professionals to provide the analisys and list the possible options - but in the end he is much like Churchill in his ability to make the decision regardless of what people in France or Germany think of it. (IMO France and Germany and other european countries still didn't learn enough about appeasement policies after their failures in WWII, and returned to their previous ignorance)
MonteZuma Posted September 10, 2004 Report Posted September 10, 2004 When people like Hitler or Osama Bin Laden decide to do something, they will do it regardless of any appeasement policies.I agree. In fact, such policies are likely to promote the war instead of stopping it, as was the case in WWII and the current WWIII.Al Qaida isn't a country, so your analogy is pointless. Nothing like this has happened before, so there is only so much we can learn from history. This is not WW3. In any case, I don't advocate appeasement at all. I, like most people, supported the war in Afghanistan. I want terrorism to be eliminated. I think that the actions of the current US government are hindering the successful execution of the "war" on terror. If Clinton would have dedicated more attention to modernizing the US security and intelligence organizations, and employed a more effective policy of tracking down and fighting terrorists - we would indeed have 2 World Trade Center buildings in New York City, and over three thousand innocent civilians alive.I agree. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. The important thing to note though, is that the 9/11 attacks still would have occured if there was an invasion of Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. If you are an American, and you want to help stamp out terrorism - Vote for Bush who makes decisions based on strategic considerations and not populist politics.Bush's decisions are very much based on populist politics. Sir Winston Churchill was also often criticized and hated for his decisions, but he had the resolve to continue policies that eventualy won the war. Some people still continue to criticize him, regardless of the victory that was achieved.Churchill was not often hated. (IMO France and Germany and other european countries still didn't learn enough about appeasement policies after their failures in WWII, and returned to their previous ignorance)Most Germans learned more from WW2 than you or I or GWB ever will. This has nothing to do with appeasment. This is about understanding the relationship between cause and effect. PS: Do you seriously think that you can compare Bush and Churchill? Get real.
MonteZuma Posted September 10, 2004 Report Posted September 10, 2004 And I guess if Kerry wins the election but fails on terrorism, we should all blame it on someone else and burn the flag? Is that how things are done?Kerry won't win the war on terror either. But I think that he is more likely to sew the seeds of victory than Bush. Bush is too narrow-minded. This is a long term campaign. Republican supporters want a quick fix. There isn't one.
Tenet Posted September 10, 2004 Report Posted September 10, 2004 Monte, you are an intelligent person but you keep talking about Bush as some lonely person who alone concieves the US policy. We can have different opinions on the war in Iraq, mine might be different then yours - but you must realize there is the US government, and a entire staff of professionals who analyze the situation and present Bush or any other US president with the choices of action. My comparison of Bush and Churchill may appear baseless, because the latter is obviously a superior politician and leader - however they do both share one very important quality - the ability to maintain a policy regardless of immediate public opinion. By voting Bush I will also be voting for the people that surround him. By voting against Kerry I am mostly voting against his staff and party, who are just not reliable enough in international politics and DO support appeasement policies. Why else would former president Carter be given an opportunity to speak at the Democratic national convention? (Carter is known for his failures in economy and on the international level - and his extremely defeatist policies when dealing with various tyrants and terrorists - and this is a view supported by many people in his own party) Its not just about the Candidate, but also about the Staff and the Party that will be the ones promoting the policies.
MonteZuma Posted September 10, 2004 Report Posted September 10, 2004 I think that everyone who posts here is intelligent. But even intelligent people get it wrong. We can have different opinions on the war in Iraq, mine might be different then yours - but you must realize there is the US government, and a entire staff of professionals who analyze the situation and present Bush or any other US president with the choices of action.Yes, but governments, including the US government, do make mistakes. I, along with over half of the citizens of the free world - and most of the rest - think that Bush and his government are stuffing up - big time. My comparison of Bush and Churchill may appear baseless, because the latter is obviously a superior politician and leader - however they do both share one very important quality - the ability to maintain a policy regardless of immediate public opinion.Maybe. But I disagree. Most of the free world supported Churchill. Most of the free world despises GWB. Why else would former president Carter be given an opportunity to speak at the Democratic national convention?Jimmy Carter is respected by a lot of people in the US and outside. He did win the Nobel Peace Prize. He is one dude worth listening to. Despite their rhetoric, GWB and his staff will never win a peace prize. That is for certain.
Petrajs_Killer Posted September 10, 2004 Report Posted September 10, 2004 Jimmy Carter signed a treaty with North Korea, which was supposed to restrict that country with no atomic power. But guess what, they have atomic power anyway. So yeah, Carter really should be heard of. His Nobel Award was deserved justly. Tenet, you forgot to mention Ronald Reagan. This great leader stood fast against his opponents (mainly Democrats and liberals) to defeat Russia and the expansion of Communism. He took the reins to make the USA a world leader to defeat this evil. Bush is no Reagan, but the world is in a similar situation. I'm actually surprised that the weak UN has been mentioned here. I suppose they are too unimportant.
Dr.Worthless Posted September 10, 2004 Report Posted September 10, 2004 I'm actually surprised that the weak UN has been mentioned here. I suppose they are too unimportant. If you ment "hasn't" been mentioned, I'm not. The UN is a s-*BAD WORD*- of the organization it was intended to become.
Guest Recombo Posted September 10, 2004 Report Posted September 10, 2004 Bush's decisions are very much based on populist politics. Pres Bush is quite possibly the exact opposite. You really need to keep focused on the issues Monte.
true_vision Posted September 10, 2004 Report Posted September 10, 2004 Bush Is an -*BAD WORD*-..Bush Want $$$ , he'S making a War and Stealing People Thing And Natural Ressource.....Bush 2 Die........Kerry will Own Bush -*BAD WORD*-........... :muhah: -BAH-
Aileron Posted September 10, 2004 Report Posted September 10, 2004 ugh...foreign populations don't vote in US elections for a reason. Suppose I was starting a small zone (which may actually happen, but...). Then, SSC said that everyone can vote who the zone-owner is for Trench Wars. Simply put, I would find the stupidest n00b I could find to run Trench Wars, so that they would collapse and I could get a chunk of that playerbase. Same thing here. Foreign nations want Kerry as president because Kerry is weak and stupid and our nation would be weakened by his leadership.
A Soldier Posted September 10, 2004 Author Report Posted September 10, 2004 ugh...foreign populations don't vote in US elections for a reason.Sigh... this article was made to show how much the world disagrees with Bush's overall decisions... of course they don't vote.
A Soldier Posted September 10, 2004 Author Report Posted September 10, 2004 Tenet, you forgot to mention Ronald Reagan. This great leader stood fast against his opponents (mainly Democrats and liberals) to defeat Russia and the expansion of Communism. He took the reins to make the USA a world leader to defeat this evil. Bush is no Reagan, but the world is in a similar situation.yay for reagan
Recommended Posts