Bush Versus Kerry Interland Instant Poll
- Thread starter AcrobatMan
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
angel_of_L.A.
Refugee
I'm non-partisan but I'm voting for Kerry.
BAW
The Flower
American- former Bush supporter- former Republican- current Independent- leaning toward a vote for Kerry.
odowdpa
The Fly
ThatGuy, you've been posting rational ideas throughout, so I respect what you are saying. But take a look at the head line of that story you posted:
"Iraq at Risk of Becoming 'Failed State'"
It takes time for these types of things to materialize. Iraq hasn't even been handed over for three months and these writers are saying its possible for Iraq to be a failed state. C'mon now. Please tell me you're not with these guys who are jumping the gun...This is going to take years, not days, or in this case, hours.
"Iraq at Risk of Becoming 'Failed State'"
It takes time for these types of things to materialize. Iraq hasn't even been handed over for three months and these writers are saying its possible for Iraq to be a failed state. C'mon now. Please tell me you're not with these guys who are jumping the gun...This is going to take years, not days, or in this case, hours.
odowdpa
The Fly
They are now modeling the Iraqi Gov't after America's. They are in the process of implementing this. Now give the process time and let's not give up on it.
If they were modelling the Iraqi govenment after America's Iraq would likely have a majority-elected Shiite government. Just like our friend, Iran. Probably not what we want.
But I agree, things in Iraq are going to take lots of time. Neither I nor the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, nor John Kerry is suggesting that we give up. But it wouldn't hurt to modify our approach.
But I agree, things in Iraq are going to take lots of time. Neither I nor the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, nor John Kerry is suggesting that we give up. But it wouldn't hurt to modify our approach.
odowdpa
The Fly
Thats what the Gov't is doing, however - modeling it after America
odowdpa
The Fly
Colin Powell has been speaking about this for the past 6 weeks. America is in the process of setting up the Iraqi Gov't like Americas. Obviosuly, they are putting someone in charge to begin with (I am sure we all know as well that several Iraqi leaders have been taken out) It takes time for things to appear like they are here though. Just give it time and you will see and don't be like those two writers you pointed out.
I have serious doubts about whether or not democracy can be imposed upon a people, but that's not really the point here.
The two writers of the article aren't anti-Iraqi democracy. Did you read the article?
It's not about democracy, it's about getting in more international support to stabliize the region.
The two writers of the article aren't anti-Iraqi democracy. Did you read the article?
It's not about democracy, it's about getting in more international support to stabliize the region.
ThatGuy said:
So tell me, who is John Kerry going to get to commit troops to a mission in Iraq that Bush has not? Please name the country and the number of troops! I remind you that 15 countries from NATO are already serving in Iraq.
I am not a world leader, STING. However if you think that foreign countries who did not support us before would not change their mind with a new president, then I really think you have blinders on to the sentiments outside of the US.
Now will you explain Bush's "peace president" policy? NBC must still be looking up sources for his rebuttal.
Now will you explain Bush's "peace president" policy? NBC must still be looking up sources for his rebuttal.
*ignores the arguing*
american, democrat, kerry. (though he was my one of my least favourite democratic candidates.)
american, democrat, kerry. (though he was my one of my least favourite democratic candidates.)
ThatGuy said:
Most countries are not going to simply turn 180 degrees in policy approach just because a new President comes into office. But if you think differently, please tell me which countries are suddenly going to participate in Iraq and exactly how many troops are they going to send. If your going to be critical towards Bush on this issue, at least explain which countries Mr. Kerry will get to come in, how many troops they will send, and how Mr. Kerry is going to achieve that. I know thats a lot more difficult than simply being critical of Bush, but if you think that this is an issue Bush has really failed on, at least explain specifically what results you think Kerry will achieve on this issue where Bush did not and how he will achieve it.
The best way to ensure peace in this world, is to capture or kill those that desire to ruin it such as Al Quada, Saddam and his regime which has been removed, and anyone else that would dare to attempt similar things. To continue to help countries develop into democracies as well as engaging in free trade and economic development which will help create a more peaceful and prosperous world. George Bush has done these things by launching the largest war against terrorism in history as well as removing a regime that posed one of the greatest threats to regional and global security. He is committed to capitalism and free trade and has committed Billions of dollars to the economic and infrusture development of Iraq.
Fair enough on the peace president bit. I have issues with almost everything you said, but I can understand why you're saying it.
Regarding your first paragraph, sheesh. Come on, STING, I don't have a crystal ball here. I do believe that countries will do a 180 degree turnabout when new presidents take office. Look at our relationships with other countries in the Cllinton years compared to the ones we have now. If you wnat specifics, I'm afraid I can't offer any. But can you give me specific numbers regarding Bush's plans for the future of Iraq? How many more troops is he going to need to send in to stabilize the country? How many more billions of dollars are we and Britain going to have to shoulder on our own? Given the choice between someone who has the chance of building a true coalition to help ease our burden, and someone who has no chance of doing so, my choice is clear.
Regarding your first paragraph, sheesh. Come on, STING, I don't have a crystal ball here. I do believe that countries will do a 180 degree turnabout when new presidents take office. Look at our relationships with other countries in the Cllinton years compared to the ones we have now. If you wnat specifics, I'm afraid I can't offer any. But can you give me specific numbers regarding Bush's plans for the future of Iraq? How many more troops is he going to need to send in to stabilize the country? How many more billions of dollars are we and Britain going to have to shoulder on our own? Given the choice between someone who has the chance of building a true coalition to help ease our burden, and someone who has no chance of doing so, my choice is clear.
U2Fan101
Refugee
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2000
- Messages
- 1,197
I was pro-Kerry for the longest time since I am democrat and a classical musician - thus, Democrats support government programs and republicans do not. And since the National Endownment of the Arts is a government program, I was gonna do Kerry.
But....
With terrorism and all of that, "10 out of 10 terrorists want Kerry to win. 10 out of 10 Democrats want Kerry to win". This was a bumper sticker I saw.
Bush has brass balls, and the terrorists know this. Kerry is a dove, Bush is a hawk.
If I want National Endownment of the Arts, then I want security, and military.
So....after this long winded explination -
I am American. I am voting for Bush.
But....
With terrorism and all of that, "10 out of 10 terrorists want Kerry to win. 10 out of 10 Democrats want Kerry to win". This was a bumper sticker I saw.
Bush has brass balls, and the terrorists know this. Kerry is a dove, Bush is a hawk.
If I want National Endownment of the Arts, then I want security, and military.
So....after this long winded explination -
I am American. I am voting for Bush.
ThatGuy said:
I can give you specifics on Bush's plans for Iraq. Currently, the United States has about 140,000 troops in Iraq which includes 18 Combat Brigades. This force will level will continue for the next 18 to 24 months. During this time, training of the Iraqi Police force and Iraqi Army will continue. The Iraqi Police Force and Iraqi Military will grow in size and capability through continued funding and training from the United States and other Coalition members. Within 18 to 24 months, IRAQI's not US troops or Coalition troops, will beging to take on a much larger role in protecting the Iraqi people and Iraqi society from the Terrorist and Saddam Loyalist hiding in the Sunni Triangle. As these Iraqi forces take over more of the security task, US and coalition troops will be able to withdraw.
Under Bush the United States will continue to spend 20 Billion dollars a year specifically on growing and developing the Iraqi government, society, economy, police, military and other security services. In doing so, the Iraqi's will be able to take over the security effort for their own country. Completely rooting out all the terrorist and Saddam Loyalist in Iraq is going to take years but the Iraqi people are up to the task if they are GIVEN the opportunity and the support needed to succeed. In January 2005, Iraq will hold the first democratic elections in their history. The only reason this is possible is because the United States and the Coalition removed Saddam from power out of necessity to insure regional and global security.
Please explain to me what a "True Coalition" is and give me a historical example. Can you tell me anything that Kerry can and will do that Bush can't and why that is, in more detail?
What was our relationship like in the Clinton years with other countries that is so fundamentally different now?
U2Fan101 said:
I urge you to read this editorial.
And remember, Bush is the only candidate officially endorsed by al-Qaeda.
STING2 said:
STING, you do not have a crystal ball, either. If Bush wins I really hope what you've written here comes true. This is the best case scenario, and as we've seen, that doesn't often happen.
What I mean by a "true coalition" ... More than the half-assed "coalition of the willing." Bush couldn't find support from our traditional, strong allies, so he drafted countries like Mongolia who could provide only minimal troops and resources. Perhaps you can enlightne me more with troop numbers for the first Gulf War. Were they anywhere near as skewed as they are today?
Earnie Shavers
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
There are some pretty naive and ignorant views in this thread.
And some serious blinkers as well. Do you really believe that Bush has ANY real support among the world community?!? ANY?!?
Even the UK? Seriously?
Do a bit of reading first.
Bush does NOT have the support of the UK. He has the support of Tony Blair. Tony Blair does not have the support of his own party, let alone the people of the UK who were overwhelmingly against the Iraq war (90%+ AGAINST). Senior ministers from Blairs government are in the US right now helping the Kerry campaign. Tony Blair will not last in power, he will be axed before the next UK elections. Notice how he's spent the last few weeks apologising and backpeddling on anything and everything to do with Iraq? He knows he's in trouble and he's pleading for a 2nd chance. Blairs party is the Labour Party who have a long, long close relationship with the US Democrats. Blair will be axed. Whatshisname Brown will replace him. He will win the next UK election. He will NOT work with Bush the way Blair has, however he would have a great relationship with Kerry. As would Blair if by the most amazing miracle he held on to power.
The UK remember is your best ally in Iraq.
I can tell you all about how the election campaign is going here in Australia as well. Neck and neck. Too close to call at this stage. There are obviously a million domestic issues at play, but one thing that does get traction and create a clear seperation is one word: Bush.
Our current government is conservative, and basicaly just nods it's head and follows the US in everything. The conservative party here (called the Liberal Party just to confuse you) has a long standing relationship with the US Republicans, and there are some in our current government who have long personal relationships with people in yours (Cheney/Rumsfeld/Powell etc) back to the 80's and even the 70's. They scratch each others backs big time. The Australian population was 70+% AGAINST the Iraq war. Like I said, the election polls now are pretty much even. Bush however is hated with a passion here. Even during the build up to the Iraq war, the Australian government was admitting that they alone could campaign and push support among the population for the war up a few % points, but everytime Bush got his head on tv it would send that support crashing away again. The left leaning Labor Party, who have a strong relationship with the US Democrats and UK Labour Party, are using the relationship between our PM Howard and Bush to their advantage. All you need is a photo of the two together and people shudder. Labour are promising to convert the troops we have in Iraq into peacekeepers and rebuilders, as opposed to the more traditional military role they are playing now. If Labour are elected and Bush is re-elected expect a tense relationship. If Labour are elected and Kerry is elected, expect a very, very good relationship. If Howard is re-elected here in Australia he has promised to stick with Iraq 'until the job is done'. With either Bush or Kerry he will do this. Labour will only do it with Kerry. Bush himself has no support from the Australian population. Clinton and Edwards recent speeches were front page news here, as I have no doubt Kerry's will be tomorrow. Aside from A_Wanderer in this forum, I promise you I have never, ever met a pro-Bush Australian of any age or background. Even conservatives here are anti-Bush.
Australia is your 2nd best ally in Iraq.
Eastern European nations? Bush, Kerry, Monkey, Bar Stool. Put whoever or whatever you want in as US President and they'll be able to get these countries to jump behind him/her/stool. They are desperate for 2 things: Money and Identity. A war alongside the US gets them both. Especially when the US is in disagreement with at least half of the major European powers. It's the perfect time to get a little lovin'. Who's your daddy? So yeah, with either Kerry or Bush, they'll sign up to swim to the moon if you want them to.
Collectively they are your 3rd best ally in Iraq.
South East Asian countries? Forget about it. Openly supporting Bush is downright dangerous for them. Support for extreme Islamic groups is on the rise in SE Asia, spured on by pure hate for Bush. Despite a bunch of signatures and photo opportunities very little has been to combat terrorism in a region which could be called the War On Terror's 2nd front. Elections in SE Asia are in the process of booting one Bush supporting (and in this case I use the term 'supporting' extremely lightly) local president (Indonesia) and has brought another to the point where we saw the final straw get pulled a fortnight ago (Philippines) for fear of getting the boot as well. The domestic pressure on the leaders of these countries is huge. The pressure says, we hate Bush and any who associate with him. On the other hand, Clinton had a very, very fruitful and succesful relationship with leaders in this region. Anything "American Culture" was in a boom in this region in the 90's. The US was popular, it's leadership was popular. Now it's the reverse. The Bush Doctrine of "With Us or Against Us" and fear and hate has done a great deal of damage here.
Collectively, they along with the countries of the Middle East are THE most important players in the 'War On Terror'.
Spain? In the lead up to and following the Iraq war, 90%+ of the Spanish public DID NOT SUPPORT their governments backing of the war. Their election campaign began and the conservative party did everything they could to steer the headlines away from iraq/war on terror and towards domestic issues. they clawed themselves back to an election winning position. Then there was the Madrid bombings. Iraq/war on terror is back in the headlines and became THE election issue. Not surprisingly the governent gets a strong boot out of there. Their troops are pulled from Iraq. I agree it was an extremely bad symbolic message, but the reaction of many saying it was 'a vote for Al Queda' or a surrender to terrorists are just plain ignorant. The seeds for that election defeat were sown when that government ignored 90% of their population.
On Iraq, never believe any spin that makes you think that with only a little more fighting and a few small manouvres and "hey presto" Iraq will be a lovely little democracy looking and acting much like suburban America. That will never, ever, ever happen. At the very best a democratic system of government will work there, but violent opposition to it will remain for a long, long time. The government, no matter how truly elected, will always look to be (and most likely will be) a puppet to the US. It will be target number 2 behind only Israel. The best case scenario is that a working government will be in place, Iraq will function well, but we will forever be seeing car bombs/suicide bombings etc in the news for years and years to come. Made more difficult because they will come from within the community. Hard to build a wall around hey? That government will never be accepted, there will always be opposition, and a lot of it will be violent. The worst case scenario is that it all collapses into who knows what. Absolute disaster. The truth is, Iraq will probably end up somewhere in between. The point is, Iraq is going to take a lot of work for a long, long, long time. I have no doubt in 10 years problems within Iraq of some kind or degree will still be an issue.
The Bush Administration decided to attack Iraq. It was a huge mistake. But, it's been done. It has to be followed through, no matter who is in power. A bunch of countries followed the Bush Administration in. A bunch of other countries made a lot of noise against the war. A third group just stayed clear all together. The bunch that stayed clear continue to stay clear. The bunch that did not agree with the decision have been so ridiculed by the Bush Admin, the US conservative media and a good percentage of the US public that I would say the chance of them ever doing Bush a favour are long gone. They HAVE said they'd jump in if it were under UN control. They HAVE said they'd jump in if the US had a different approach to the problems there. The allies are paying for their decision to go into a war that their populations all were STRONGLY against. You can't go against the will of 90%+ of the population and not expect a backlash. As each of the first round of elections come around for the members of the "Coalition of the Willing" you are seeing apologies, backflips, "Willing" Governments getting booted, troop withdrawals and policy changes. The governments that are getting elected in their place have very different ideas that do not run alongside the Bush Doctrine.
Iraq however does not deserve to be abandoned. It would be extremely dangerous to abandon. And the US can not handle it alone. Re-elect Bush and see how his "With Us Or Against Us" policies work with the new round of governments being elected all over the world, or the old anti-Bush governments still in power. Or those who have pulled out of Iraq all together now, and those that will following their next elections. You'll find the UK will have a differing opinion to Bush. Australia may have as well. The countries are dropping away from Bush's point of view at a pretty rapid rate.
At the same time you cannot begin to underestimate the level of Bush hate there is in the world outside the US. Since 9/11 I have been to Asia (Thailand and Indonesia), Europe (UK, France, Italy) and the US. The Democrats are wrong on one thing. Bush is NOT a divider. The whole world is unified: They hate the Bush Administration and it's policies and attitude. You can search through any online newspaper from any city in the world if you want. Tune into any radio station in the world online. Get in a chat room and ask anyone. Travel around the world and break down language and cultural barriers! Start a conversation with "Maaan, I hate George Bush!" New friends instantly! Sadly in both Asia and Europe I've seen other US travellers get treated like crap, simply for being from the US. This IS something that has changed since Bush has been in. Hate breeds hate.
If the US is to move forward in Iraq, and move forward in the 'War on Terror' it most definitely needs the complete support of as many countries as possible. The Bush Administration has damaged so many relationships and created so much hate in the world that it stands no chance. None. The US is currently well into the negative points in public opinion. Bush is a virtual leper. It doesn't even have to be a Republican/Democrat thing. A new Republican leadership would be lightyears better than a second Bush term. A new Kerry Administration would at the very least be a fresh start. Bring that opinion up to, at least, neutral. There is no way Bush can mend the divide between that stands between the US and many countries. Why? Because Bush created that divide. And what I'm saying above is that more and more countries are voting (or forcing their governments to switch to) anti Bush NOT pro Bush. How will the Bush Administration handle this? You've seen how they've handled criticism and difference of opinion so far.
STING, of course no-one is ever going to be able to point to anything that says "John Kerry will get France to dump X amount of troops into Iraq". You and I both know that a presidential hopeful conducting negotiations with a foreign country over such things would be crossing so many lines, and may even be illegal. You can bet private conversations are taking place though. And you can bet Kerry will be far more open to a change of tact, will not be the bully shouting down a difference of opinion, and will not resort to petty attacks. I can also bet that other countries will be far more open to listening to Kerry in reverse.
I think the Bush Admin has made too many mistakes, burnt too many bridges, and has now driven itself up a dead end it can't get out of, only make worse. Iraq and the War on Terror, needs a new direction, a new leadership and needs much, much greater cooperation from everyone. For that to happen, Bush has to go.
NONAMERICAN/KERRY
And some serious blinkers as well. Do you really believe that Bush has ANY real support among the world community?!? ANY?!?
Even the UK? Seriously?
Do a bit of reading first.
Bush does NOT have the support of the UK. He has the support of Tony Blair. Tony Blair does not have the support of his own party, let alone the people of the UK who were overwhelmingly against the Iraq war (90%+ AGAINST). Senior ministers from Blairs government are in the US right now helping the Kerry campaign. Tony Blair will not last in power, he will be axed before the next UK elections. Notice how he's spent the last few weeks apologising and backpeddling on anything and everything to do with Iraq? He knows he's in trouble and he's pleading for a 2nd chance. Blairs party is the Labour Party who have a long, long close relationship with the US Democrats. Blair will be axed. Whatshisname Brown will replace him. He will win the next UK election. He will NOT work with Bush the way Blair has, however he would have a great relationship with Kerry. As would Blair if by the most amazing miracle he held on to power.
The UK remember is your best ally in Iraq.
I can tell you all about how the election campaign is going here in Australia as well. Neck and neck. Too close to call at this stage. There are obviously a million domestic issues at play, but one thing that does get traction and create a clear seperation is one word: Bush.
Our current government is conservative, and basicaly just nods it's head and follows the US in everything. The conservative party here (called the Liberal Party just to confuse you) has a long standing relationship with the US Republicans, and there are some in our current government who have long personal relationships with people in yours (Cheney/Rumsfeld/Powell etc) back to the 80's and even the 70's. They scratch each others backs big time. The Australian population was 70+% AGAINST the Iraq war. Like I said, the election polls now are pretty much even. Bush however is hated with a passion here. Even during the build up to the Iraq war, the Australian government was admitting that they alone could campaign and push support among the population for the war up a few % points, but everytime Bush got his head on tv it would send that support crashing away again. The left leaning Labor Party, who have a strong relationship with the US Democrats and UK Labour Party, are using the relationship between our PM Howard and Bush to their advantage. All you need is a photo of the two together and people shudder. Labour are promising to convert the troops we have in Iraq into peacekeepers and rebuilders, as opposed to the more traditional military role they are playing now. If Labour are elected and Bush is re-elected expect a tense relationship. If Labour are elected and Kerry is elected, expect a very, very good relationship. If Howard is re-elected here in Australia he has promised to stick with Iraq 'until the job is done'. With either Bush or Kerry he will do this. Labour will only do it with Kerry. Bush himself has no support from the Australian population. Clinton and Edwards recent speeches were front page news here, as I have no doubt Kerry's will be tomorrow. Aside from A_Wanderer in this forum, I promise you I have never, ever met a pro-Bush Australian of any age or background. Even conservatives here are anti-Bush.
Australia is your 2nd best ally in Iraq.
Eastern European nations? Bush, Kerry, Monkey, Bar Stool. Put whoever or whatever you want in as US President and they'll be able to get these countries to jump behind him/her/stool. They are desperate for 2 things: Money and Identity. A war alongside the US gets them both. Especially when the US is in disagreement with at least half of the major European powers. It's the perfect time to get a little lovin'. Who's your daddy? So yeah, with either Kerry or Bush, they'll sign up to swim to the moon if you want them to.
Collectively they are your 3rd best ally in Iraq.
South East Asian countries? Forget about it. Openly supporting Bush is downright dangerous for them. Support for extreme Islamic groups is on the rise in SE Asia, spured on by pure hate for Bush. Despite a bunch of signatures and photo opportunities very little has been to combat terrorism in a region which could be called the War On Terror's 2nd front. Elections in SE Asia are in the process of booting one Bush supporting (and in this case I use the term 'supporting' extremely lightly) local president (Indonesia) and has brought another to the point where we saw the final straw get pulled a fortnight ago (Philippines) for fear of getting the boot as well. The domestic pressure on the leaders of these countries is huge. The pressure says, we hate Bush and any who associate with him. On the other hand, Clinton had a very, very fruitful and succesful relationship with leaders in this region. Anything "American Culture" was in a boom in this region in the 90's. The US was popular, it's leadership was popular. Now it's the reverse. The Bush Doctrine of "With Us or Against Us" and fear and hate has done a great deal of damage here.
Collectively, they along with the countries of the Middle East are THE most important players in the 'War On Terror'.
Spain? In the lead up to and following the Iraq war, 90%+ of the Spanish public DID NOT SUPPORT their governments backing of the war. Their election campaign began and the conservative party did everything they could to steer the headlines away from iraq/war on terror and towards domestic issues. they clawed themselves back to an election winning position. Then there was the Madrid bombings. Iraq/war on terror is back in the headlines and became THE election issue. Not surprisingly the governent gets a strong boot out of there. Their troops are pulled from Iraq. I agree it was an extremely bad symbolic message, but the reaction of many saying it was 'a vote for Al Queda' or a surrender to terrorists are just plain ignorant. The seeds for that election defeat were sown when that government ignored 90% of their population.
On Iraq, never believe any spin that makes you think that with only a little more fighting and a few small manouvres and "hey presto" Iraq will be a lovely little democracy looking and acting much like suburban America. That will never, ever, ever happen. At the very best a democratic system of government will work there, but violent opposition to it will remain for a long, long time. The government, no matter how truly elected, will always look to be (and most likely will be) a puppet to the US. It will be target number 2 behind only Israel. The best case scenario is that a working government will be in place, Iraq will function well, but we will forever be seeing car bombs/suicide bombings etc in the news for years and years to come. Made more difficult because they will come from within the community. Hard to build a wall around hey? That government will never be accepted, there will always be opposition, and a lot of it will be violent. The worst case scenario is that it all collapses into who knows what. Absolute disaster. The truth is, Iraq will probably end up somewhere in between. The point is, Iraq is going to take a lot of work for a long, long, long time. I have no doubt in 10 years problems within Iraq of some kind or degree will still be an issue.
The Bush Administration decided to attack Iraq. It was a huge mistake. But, it's been done. It has to be followed through, no matter who is in power. A bunch of countries followed the Bush Administration in. A bunch of other countries made a lot of noise against the war. A third group just stayed clear all together. The bunch that stayed clear continue to stay clear. The bunch that did not agree with the decision have been so ridiculed by the Bush Admin, the US conservative media and a good percentage of the US public that I would say the chance of them ever doing Bush a favour are long gone. They HAVE said they'd jump in if it were under UN control. They HAVE said they'd jump in if the US had a different approach to the problems there. The allies are paying for their decision to go into a war that their populations all were STRONGLY against. You can't go against the will of 90%+ of the population and not expect a backlash. As each of the first round of elections come around for the members of the "Coalition of the Willing" you are seeing apologies, backflips, "Willing" Governments getting booted, troop withdrawals and policy changes. The governments that are getting elected in their place have very different ideas that do not run alongside the Bush Doctrine.
Iraq however does not deserve to be abandoned. It would be extremely dangerous to abandon. And the US can not handle it alone. Re-elect Bush and see how his "With Us Or Against Us" policies work with the new round of governments being elected all over the world, or the old anti-Bush governments still in power. Or those who have pulled out of Iraq all together now, and those that will following their next elections. You'll find the UK will have a differing opinion to Bush. Australia may have as well. The countries are dropping away from Bush's point of view at a pretty rapid rate.
At the same time you cannot begin to underestimate the level of Bush hate there is in the world outside the US. Since 9/11 I have been to Asia (Thailand and Indonesia), Europe (UK, France, Italy) and the US. The Democrats are wrong on one thing. Bush is NOT a divider. The whole world is unified: They hate the Bush Administration and it's policies and attitude. You can search through any online newspaper from any city in the world if you want. Tune into any radio station in the world online. Get in a chat room and ask anyone. Travel around the world and break down language and cultural barriers! Start a conversation with "Maaan, I hate George Bush!" New friends instantly! Sadly in both Asia and Europe I've seen other US travellers get treated like crap, simply for being from the US. This IS something that has changed since Bush has been in. Hate breeds hate.
If the US is to move forward in Iraq, and move forward in the 'War on Terror' it most definitely needs the complete support of as many countries as possible. The Bush Administration has damaged so many relationships and created so much hate in the world that it stands no chance. None. The US is currently well into the negative points in public opinion. Bush is a virtual leper. It doesn't even have to be a Republican/Democrat thing. A new Republican leadership would be lightyears better than a second Bush term. A new Kerry Administration would at the very least be a fresh start. Bring that opinion up to, at least, neutral. There is no way Bush can mend the divide between that stands between the US and many countries. Why? Because Bush created that divide. And what I'm saying above is that more and more countries are voting (or forcing their governments to switch to) anti Bush NOT pro Bush. How will the Bush Administration handle this? You've seen how they've handled criticism and difference of opinion so far.
STING, of course no-one is ever going to be able to point to anything that says "John Kerry will get France to dump X amount of troops into Iraq". You and I both know that a presidential hopeful conducting negotiations with a foreign country over such things would be crossing so many lines, and may even be illegal. You can bet private conversations are taking place though. And you can bet Kerry will be far more open to a change of tact, will not be the bully shouting down a difference of opinion, and will not resort to petty attacks. I can also bet that other countries will be far more open to listening to Kerry in reverse.
I think the Bush Admin has made too many mistakes, burnt too many bridges, and has now driven itself up a dead end it can't get out of, only make worse. Iraq and the War on Terror, needs a new direction, a new leadership and needs much, much greater cooperation from everyone. For that to happen, Bush has to go.
NONAMERICAN/KERRY
Klaus
Refugee
ThatGuy:
It's not only the troops - in Gulf War I many countries (eg Germany) supported the US with money.
This time the US supports some of their coalition members with money.
ok back to topic.
Im not living in the US and therefore i think i shouldn't vote because it's not my job to decide which government is your next one
Interesting quote from Kerrys Speech:
http://www.tagesschau.de/aktuell/meldungen/0,1185,OID3482304_REF1_NAVSPM1,00.html
"I will restore trust and credibility to the White House"
Can someone remember the exact sentence of Mr. Bush during the last election campaign? I thought he said something verry similar.
It's not only the troops - in Gulf War I many countries (eg Germany) supported the US with money.
This time the US supports some of their coalition members with money.
ok back to topic.
Im not living in the US and therefore i think i shouldn't vote because it's not my job to decide which government is your next one
Interesting quote from Kerrys Speech:
http://www.tagesschau.de/aktuell/meldungen/0,1185,OID3482304_REF1_NAVSPM1,00.html
"I will restore trust and credibility to the White House"
Can someone remember the exact sentence of Mr. Bush during the last election campaign? I thought he said something verry similar.
Last edited:
AcrobatMan
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FizzingWhizzbees said:
Drop the kiss part of that sentence and you've got a deal.
I liked the makeup part..but i would have loved the kiss part too
Anthony
Refugee
I'm non-American. Kerry gets my vote.
Ant.
Ant.
AcrobatMan
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Few of my fellow interferencers are arguing in the lines that popularity or majority is the same as righteousness.
I am not buying that argument
I am not buying that argument
LoveTown
Refugee
the argument that a strong war type president deters terrorism is a false one. Striking out with brute force such as we have, especially at ill-placed targets...also such as we have will only serve to breed more hatred against america and sully the world's image of us even further.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
ThatGuy said:
Don't get your information from a bumper sticker.
Similar threads
- Poll
