If Foreigners Could Vote in '08

[Emac44]

Originally Posted by mkloby

Race is a complicated issue in the US. One major problem I see in how the media "evaluates" race relationships in the US is they like to take white suburban neighborhoods or lofty professions or career fields and measure the percentages of minorities. Obviously you cannot force individuals to move to a certain neighborhood to acheive what you think is the definition of racial unity. Human beings have a natural inclination to want to be surrounded by those to whom they can more closely relate.

I think it can be definitively stated that pouring additional money through many programs in order to "level the career playing field" among various groups has been almost a total failure. If for some reason you think it works, just do a little research on the educational system in NJ.

I agree Mkloby. However I was using Race Relations as an example only with the US. And definitely not the be all or end all of the US or policies of the US or Domestic Problems. I could have choosen another area but I didn't as I was using Race Relation Problems as an example only. However my own country has problems with Race Relations so I hope you understand I wasn't singling out just one issue in the USA. As for pouring money into an ever increasing social schemes it to has been an untold unmitigated failure here in Australia as well. Which might I add the Leftists Loonies will never admit to. So much for Political Correctness. Just throw money at the problems believing it will heal itself. It has never worked and I dare say it hasn't worked in the US either

[Adolf Galland Fighter ace]

I guess my opinion is why would after 9-11 and the problem with Islam would Americans vote for a president hopeful with any Muslim roots?
Don't like Clinton either. If I had to choose I would vote Clinton, that being said if I was a dem.

[plan_D]

"Let me try to explain to you and others why I made the remarks I made about respect for and fear of the US. First, I don't believe that George Bush enjoys a lot of popularity in your country or in many foreign countries. As an aside I don't believe Tony Blair enjoys great popularity in your country either. One reason Bush may not be admired abroad is that he is not "refined" like Clinton was. Another is that Bush is regarded as a "cowboy" sort that may "shoot from the hip." He employed people like Rumsfeld who did not seem to revere the customs and culture of old Europe."

W. Bush is certainly not well liked in Great Britain for whatever reason. Being honest I think most of the people despise him because he's too easy to hate. He portrays himself as less than intelligent and has certainly made a few mistakes during his time in office. That's certainly not my point of view, but in this discussion that's irrelevant.

Tony Blair is old news; the British public generally has a hatred of the modern government making the leader of it largely unimportant. The British prime minister Gordon Brown isn't making any good impact on Great Britain and I don't feel the next prime minister will either.

You have warped conceptions of Europe if you believe that the U.S is disliked because it has its own culture that is not essentially European. The large part of the European population dislikes the U.S. for two reasons - A) You're more conservative and B) You're the world super-power. Super-powers have always been hated from the Roman Empire to the British Empire; it's the 'in' thing to do.

The fact of the matter is; it doesn't matter who's in charge in any government until they make an impact that pleases the populace. I haven't been following the U.S. elections closely because I have no need to. I have no control and to me (who lives 3,000 miles away) the U.S. government is the U.S. government whether it's a witch, crow or ogre running it.

"Well, perhaps the attitude some of us may have here in the US is that twice in the 20th century you people in Europe got your oxen in the ditch with WW1 and WW2 and we had to send our young men over to help out and many of them stayed forever. Check out the white crosses some time. What did we gain from that huge expenditure of blood, bone and treasure? If you checked nothing you are on the ball. We also lost many of our best and brightest keeping South Korea free from communism and we tried but failed in Viet Nam with huge loss of blood and dollars. Once again our gain from these efforts was zero. I might add that our British cousins have always stood with us to a more or lesser degree in these efforts."

Now, this paragraph does cause a lot of sensation in Europe. And the sentence in bold I find quite offensive. I have walked through the rows upon rows of gravestones marking the resting place of every man, of every nationality, that laid down their lives for the freedom of Europe from tyranny.

As a large power on the globe the U.S. was going to be pulled into both World Wars and it did so for its own good. It seems that European history only starts in 1917 when it comes to American history books. The European continent has had the blood of millions wash through its soil long before the U.S. was even a twinkle in Europe's eyes. Just because the great wars of the 20th Century are closer to home it doesn't make them any more brutal than the 100 Years War or War of Spanish Succession. Going by your logic, reinrich, Europe should be thankful of Britain for sailing across the Channel to save them all from the tyranny that was Napoleon and even earlier in the day there was Louis XIV.

The American people can hold on to the great deeds of their soldiers and what great deeds they are. The United States would earn a lot more respect if they did hold on to those deeds instead of trying to force them down everyones throat. It's not only the U.S. that has fought and spent the lives of its people across the globe.

If we were all to start comparing where our nation helped after World War II then we'd be here for a very long time - would it be wise for me to post this link? Operational deployments

I, personally, have great respect for the actions of the U.S. military during the 20th and 21st Centuries and if asked to their face I'm sure most British would agree once you broke their pathetic attitudes that keeps them with the 'in' crowd.

But I'm not here to compare national histories - feel free to open up that 'discussion' though.

As for gaining nothing; correct me if I'm wrong but didn't World War II make the United States the most powerful economy in the world? Didn't World War II give the United States an excellent reason to fully mobilise it's amazing industrial might? Didn't World War II bring the other great powers so far down that they couldn't hope to be reborn without U.S aid? Didn't World War II give modern Americans something to shove down Europes throat for the next 3,000,000 years!? I don't think one man on Omaha beach cared what Europe would think of them 60 years later and I certainly don't think they cared if Europe showed them gratitude. Nevertheless, the soldiers that fought for the Allies were shown gratitude but I don't believe all the 350,000,000 Americans today deserve quite as much respect as the men sixty years ago.

I agree, the U.S deserves respect, but then so does every other Western country.

"Let us now address fear. During the Berlin Airlift, I don't believe the Soviets respected us. In 1962, I don't believe the Soviets respected Kennedy. They allowed those C47s and C54s to land with their loads of coal and food and they pulled their missles out of Cuba because they feared us. The reason that North Korea has not invaded South Korea again is because they fear what we will do. The reason that communist China has not invaded Formosa is that they fear the US. We spent trillions of dollars and I and many others served in our military to keep the Soviets in check until their system crumbled from the pressure."

The Soviets did not fear the United States during the Berlin Airlift, nor did they fear NATO as a whole. The Soviet Union feared a war of any kind as did NATO. The Soviet Union had been severely bloodied by Germany, and another war was not something they were prepared for. In 1945 the Soviets were blocked by British forces on many occasions but I'm never going to claim that the Soviet Union feared Great Britain.

I think that the Soviet Union would have respected the Allies, they would have respected the massive industrial base of the Allies and they certainly would have respected the resolution of the British Empire. Respect for the United States would have been found when they viewed the massive amounts of stars in the daylight surrounded by silvery glows.

There's more to global politics than fear and friendship. The Soviet Union had nothing to gain by coming into direct conflict with the United States hence the reason they withdrew from Cuba in '62. Both sides tested each other throughout the Cold War but no matter how close it came neither side wanted an open contest.
The Soviet Union nor the United States truly feared one anothers ability to wage war, it was a 'fear' the pointless war that could come about at any moment. If you want to believe that the Soviet Union feared the almighty United States then so be it, but it just isn't true. The same applies for North Korea who have no reason to invade South Korea; it would never do them any good and they know it. China is not going to risk it's position in the global market by invading anywhere; it's not fear of the U.S military. If anything the U.S. military fears China for the massive losses that they would suffer during direct conflict!



"You claim that Saddam did not fear us. Perhaps he should have. I believe that one of the reasons that Bush and Blair decided to take out Saddam was to throw a scare into Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran and the rest of those middle eastern countries. If and when we have a stable government in Iraq with a semi-permanent US military mission there to impose stability in that region, you may thank Bush and Blair for that condition. We will have that if the democrats in our country don't screw it up. If Iran does not get nuclear weapons, it will because they fear the US and Israel, not because they respect those countries"

Perhaps he should have, but the Middle Eastern culture does not know fear. I will not thank Bush or Blair for anything that happens in Iraq - I couldn't care less if it was democratic or thrown into civil war. I just believe that Saddam needed to be removed.

The Middle East doesn't fear the United States; it doesn't matter if they should or not - they just don't.

I support most of the U.S. foreign actions in the last 20 years and they should just continue as the world power - irrelevant of fear or respect...hell, Europe did it for hundreds of years !

[renrich]

This discussion has gotten so broadbased that to attempt to answer all your points is too onerous for my "hunt and peck" typing skills. You make some good points although I don't understand what you are saying when you say something like "that is not my point of view but it is irrelevant to this discussion." I disagree that Bush portrays himself as less than intelligent. Although he was not born in Texas and he went to those "good" schools in Yankeeland, he spent most of his life around Texas and has adopted our plain spoken ways. Anyone who has spent time around him would not call him unintelligent anymore than they would call Colonel House or Sam Rayburn stupid. I disagree that the US was going to be pulled in to WW1, no matter what and perhaps it would have been better for all concerned if we had not. We certainly gained nothing from the experience. As for WW2, of my six uncles that served, two were in Europe and I am certain they and most of the others like them would have foregone the industrial expansion the war forced upon the country if they could have stayed home. After all the US was already beginning to arm itself long before Dec. 7 and putting Japan in it's place would have done nicely as far as building up our industrial might. I expect that even without Pearl Harbor the US would have gotten into the fray, as FDR wanted us to go to the aid of the UK, but any poll taken before PH would have shown that the average American did not want to get mixed up in a European war again. Some of my favorite books are Churchill's " A History of the English Speaking Peoples" and they begin well before 1917 AD. As for the average Arab fearing the US, I grant you that the demented suicide bombers don't fear much of anything, but if you don't think that the ruler of Iran with the unspellable name has not spent sleepless nights worrying about what the US or Israel might do if Iran got a nuclear warhead, then I disagree. That is fear, not respect.

[plan_D]

My view of the U.S. does not alter Europe's view so it is irrelevant in this respect.

During World War I the United States was being dragged into the European conflict by Germany's roundabout aggression towards it. The entry of the United States was going to happen sooner rather than later unless the Allies defeated the German forces before the U.S. could mobilise.

As for your points on World War II, I certainly don't disagree. But you must seperate personal needs and wants from those of a nation. People, unfortunately, must be sacrificed at times. World War II made the U.S.A the richest nation on the planet, it is unfortunate that it cost 400,000 lives but it had to be done. As for your uncles, I have great respect for them but unfortunately their feelings toward war meant nothing in 1941 - nor did those of the citizens. It's too easy to be afraid of war even beyond the point when war is a required evil.

As a power the U.S. could not and cannot seperate itself from the world. War is a terrible thing, but it will always exist as long as humans do.

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by plan_D

War is a terrible thing, but it will always exist as long as humans do.

Truer words have never been spoken.

[muller]

Back to the topic in the title.... Being Irish, I'd have to vote for O'Bama

[Emac44]

Originally Posted by muller

Back to the topic in the title.... Being Irish, I'd have to vote for O'Bama

You are not that IRISH are you Muller I am joking mate don't worry

[freebird]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Whats best for America is not necessarily best for the world.

The ignorance of foreigners about the US and its political system is astounding.

And vice-versa syscom...

Most Americans think that Canada is a lefist "socialist" country, but our political divide is similar to the US, with the liberals dominating the major urban areas, while the conservative hold sway in the rural areas.

Interestingly enough, if the Republicans lose the US election, then the conservatives in Canada have a good chance of forming the next government.

Originally Posted by renrich

First, I don't believe that George Bush enjoys a lot of popularity in your country or in many foreign countries. As an aside I don't believe Tony Blair enjoys great popularity in your country either. .

Yes Ren, but remember that he supported Bush & the war, even though his labor party is the farthest left of the 3 major UK political parties...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by freebird

And vice-versa syscom...






..

He has a point syscom. Most Americans dont know anything about politics outside of the US as well, so the ignorance is there as well.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

He has a point syscom. Most Americans dont know anything about politics outside of the US as well, so the ignorance is there as well.

The difference is most Americans dont care about the other countries and who they would vote for. Its better to say up front you dont know and dont care, rather to pretend to know and bloviate about it.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by syscom3

The difference is most Americans dont care about the other countries and who they would vote for. Its better to say up front you dont know and dont care, rather to pretend to know and bloviate about it.

As an American I say that is pretty ****** up.

Which is more ignorant now? Really....

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by syscom3

The difference is most Americans dont care about the other countries and who they would vote for. Its better to say up front you dont know and dont care, rather to pretend to know and bloviate about it.

I think though that some know more about US politics then some Americans although those that vote by opinions based on the 10 second sound clip are universal

[ToughOmbre]

I can't comment on the political awareness of the voters of other countries, but I can say that the average American voter leaves a lot to be desired.

Too many Americans vote "party"; i.e., father was a Democrat, grandfather was a Democrat, family history etc.

Others vote based on looks, religion, ethnicity, novelty, age, gender, you name it.

IMHO not enough vote issues or philosophy (i. e., secular progressive liberal vs traditional conservative).

Problem is, most people rely on the media in this country to define candidates, and the main stream media is corrupt.

Cynical? Maybe.

Tell you this though, if I could have voted for a foreigner, Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir would have gotten my votes.

TO

[pbfoot]

The fact is your primaries are in every newcast up here , and I doubt most in the US know when elections and who is running in other lands simply because it isn't newsworthy in the grand scheme of things