TheWorldVotes.org final poll results!

Napoleon · Post by **Napoleon** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 2:17 pm

Some of you may know theworldvotes.org which is basically a website where people not only from the US but also from the world can fake vote in the upcoming US presidential election. The final result is in, and it's a whoppingly unsurprising victory for Kerry:

THE WORLD VOTES FOR JOHN KERRY

THE HAGUE, 11/1/'04 - If the rest of the world could vote in the U.S.
Presidential election, John Kerry would win in a landslide. That is the
conclusion of an international election conducted by The World Votes
(www.theworldvotes.org), an initiative that gives people all around the
world a voice in the forthcoming U.S. Presidential Election.

According to the international election, John Kerry receives 81.6% of the
vote. George Bush is favoured by a 6.2% minority. Independent candidate
Ralph Nader gets 5.3%. The other candidates together receive less than 6%.
In total, nearly 10,000 citizens from countries all over the world took part
in this election.

The poll subsequently asked the participants about the expected outcome of
the 2004 Presidential election. More than half (57.1%) of the respondents
think that John Kerry will win the election. For this question, 42.3% thinks
that Bush serve a second term in the White House.

Most participants (43.5%) think that U.S. voters will consider foreign
policy as a major issue when casting their vote on November 2. One third of
the voters however say that Americans will not consider foreign policy a key
theme upon casting their vote.

The U.S. election is widely considered by the participants (91.4%) to be an
international event. However, almost half of the respondents (46.9%)
indicated that the rest of the world should not have a say in the election.
Only a mere 6.8% says that the U.S. election is purely a domestic issue.

Wow, luckily almost half of the respondents think that they shouldn't have a say in the election

That boggles me, honestly. More than 50% of the people that voted in thisp poll think that people from outside the US should be able to vote for the US president? There's something fundamentally wrong with their line of thinking, I think

Sure, it's an internationally very important event, but that doesn't mean us non-US people should get a say in it.

As I said above, the result is completely unsurprising, considering the anti-bush sentiment in the world, although that he got THIS little votes is a bit unexpected at least to me.

Kratz · Post by **Kratz** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 2:19 pm

How fast can you all immigrate? Say... 24 hours? :p

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 2:24 pm

I read this blurb earlier this morning:

In a nutshell, because living abroad I know first hand what the world thinks of America and it is not a pretty picture at the moment. I want people to think of America as the land of freedom and democracy, not the land of arrogance and blind revenge. I want to be proud of America again. The U.S. media do a spectacularly bad job of informing Americans about what is going on in rest of the world. After Sept. 11, the U.S. could do no wrong. The entire world was on America's side. The invasion of Afghanistan was seen as completely justified. After all, the Al-Qaida leadership had to be decapitated. No one questioned that.

But Iraq was a completely different matter. Bush, Cheney, and Powell said they had conclusive proof that Saddam had WMD and could attack at any instant. The rest of the world wanted to see the proof. No proof was forthcoming. The answer was "trust us." We now know there were no WMD. There weren't even factories or labs to produce them. Saddam was an evil dictator with evil fantasies but he was no threat to America. Yet former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said that the planning to invade Iraq began the day Bush was inaugurated. The administration simply misused the horror of Sept. 11 as a convenient excuse for doing something that was already in the works.

Let me tell you a short story. When I was in elementary school, the school was plagued by a bully. He was the biggest, strongest kid around and would beat up anyone he didn't like. We were all exceedingly polite to his face, but hated his guts behind his back. One day he was chasing some poor kid and he tripped and skidded a considerable distance, scraping his face on the rough asphalt of the playground. He was bleeding and in pain, screaming for help. But nobody came to help him. We all just walked away. George Bush is the world's playground bully. The world sees him--and by inference, America--as arrogant, self-centered, and mean. I spoke to Americans from dozens of countries at the DA caucus. Everyone told the same story--the world hates America. When talking to foreigners, I can tell them about the Bill of Rights or freedom or World War II, or whatever I want, but all they see is this big, stupid, arrogant, playground bully and a stolen election in Florida last time. I think America deserves better. I want America to be respected in the world again, and John Kerry can restore the respect America deserves.

Don't believe me that the world hates us? The Guardian, one of Britain's most respected newspapers, ran a column by Charlie Brooker last week ending with this paragaph: "On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed ..." Then it gets so bad that I refuse to quote it. Maybe Brooker is a nut and maybe it was a joke, but the fact that a serious newspaper would publish this piece shows how deep the hatred of George Bush runs. And this comes from our closest ally. Imagine what people in Spain or Indonesia or the Arab world think.

Now you might be thinking: Who the hell cares if America is the world's pariah, along with, say, North Korea and Zimbabwe? Well, I care, for one, and I think most Americans want to be respected for being a democracy rather than simply being feared because we have more nuclear weapons than anybody else. You can't make the world love you by running commercials full of snarling wolves on worldwide TV.

But there are some practical matters to consider as well. If you look at British and Canadian publications, such as The BBC, The Guardian, The Economist, and The Globe and Mail, you get a picture not colored by partisan electoral considerations. You sometimes wonder if they are reporting the same war as the U.S. media. The situation in Iraq has deteriorated very badly. Over 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died in the war, mostly women and children. Well over 1000 American soldiers--many of them just kids who signed up for the National Guard and never expected to go to war--have been killed there and thousands more have been maimed for life. Americans are being killed daily in increasing numbers and unless there is a radical change, this will go on for years. Reenlistment rates are way down and manpower needs are way up. With a President Kerry, there is hope that other countries might contribute serious numbers of troops to help stabilize Iraq. With a second Bush administration they will just say: "You broke it, you fix it."

If other countries won't help out, Bush is going to be faced with an unpleasant choice: accept another Vietnam-type quagmire lasting for years or reinstitute the draft. There is no way we can win in Iraq with current troop levels. Something has to change. More of the same won't work. And it is an open secret that after the election, Bush is going to ask Congress for another $70 billion down payment on Iraq. Who is going to pay for it? We are.

In addition, the U.S. needs the help of other countries to gather intelligence about terrorists, cut off their funding, and track them down. Trouble is, when the playground bully comes asking for help, everyone just walks away. A new president who shows respect for the world instead of arrogance will get a lot more help. And we need help, believe me.

Sure, just another person's opinion...

~Neal

gellar · Post by **gellar** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 2:30 pm

The Meal wrote:I read this blurb earlier this morning:

In a nutshell, because living abroad I know first hand what the world thinks of America and it is not a pretty picture at the moment. I want people to think of America as the land of freedom and democracy, not the land of arrogance and blind revenge. I want to be proud of America again. The U.S. media do a spectacularly bad job of informing Americans about what is going on in rest of the world. After Sept. 11, the U.S. could do no wrong. The entire world was on America's side. The invasion of Afghanistan was seen as completely justified. After all, the Al-Qaida leadership had to be decapitated. No one questioned that.

But Iraq was a completely different matter. Bush, Cheney, and Powell said they had conclusive proof that Saddam had WMD and could attack at any instant. The rest of the world wanted to see the proof. No proof was forthcoming. The answer was "trust us." We now know there were no WMD. There weren't even factories or labs to produce them. Saddam was an evil dictator with evil fantasies but he was no threat to America. Yet former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said that the planning to invade Iraq began the day Bush was inaugurated. The administration simply misused the horror of Sept. 11 as a convenient excuse for doing something that was already in the works.

Let me tell you a short story. When I was in elementary school, the school was plagued by a bully. He was the biggest, strongest kid around and would beat up anyone he didn't like. We were all exceedingly polite to his face, but hated his guts behind his back. One day he was chasing some poor kid and he tripped and skidded a considerable distance, scraping his face on the rough asphalt of the playground. He was bleeding and in pain, screaming for help. But nobody came to help him. We all just walked away. George Bush is the world's playground bully. The world sees him--and by inference, America--as arrogant, self-centered, and mean. I spoke to Americans from dozens of countries at the DA caucus. Everyone told the same story--the world hates America. When talking to foreigners, I can tell them about the Bill of Rights or freedom or World War II, or whatever I want, but all they see is this big, stupid, arrogant, playground bully and a stolen election in Florida last time. I think America deserves better. I want America to be respected in the world again, and John Kerry can restore the respect America deserves.

Don't believe me that the world hates us? The Guardian, one of Britain's most respected newspapers, ran a column by Charlie Brooker last week ending with this paragaph: "On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed ..." Then it gets so bad that I refuse to quote it. Maybe Brooker is a nut and maybe it was a joke, but the fact that a serious newspaper would publish this piece shows how deep the hatred of George Bush runs. And this comes from our closest ally. Imagine what people in Spain or Indonesia or the Arab world think.

Now you might be thinking: Who the hell cares if America is the world's pariah, along with, say, North Korea and Zimbabwe? Well, I care, for one, and I think most Americans want to be respected for being a democracy rather than simply being feared because we have more nuclear weapons than anybody else. You can't make the world love you by running commercials full of snarling wolves on worldwide TV.

But there are some practical matters to consider as well. If you look at British and Canadian publications, such as The BBC, The Guardian, The Economist, and The Globe and Mail, you get a picture not colored by partisan electoral considerations. You sometimes wonder if they are reporting the same war as the U.S. media. The situation in Iraq has deteriorated very badly. Over 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died in the war, mostly women and children. Well over 1000 American soldiers--many of them just kids who signed up for the National Guard and never expected to go to war--have been killed there and thousands more have been maimed for life. Americans are being killed daily in increasing numbers and unless there is a radical change, this will go on for years. Reenlistment rates are way down and manpower needs are way up. With a President Kerry, there is hope that other countries might contribute serious numbers of troops to help stabilize Iraq. With a second Bush administration they will just say: "You broke it, you fix it."

If other countries won't help out, Bush is going to be faced with an unpleasant choice: accept another Vietnam-type quagmire lasting for years or reinstitute the draft. There is no way we can win in Iraq with current troop levels. Something has to change. More of the same won't work. And it is an open secret that after the election, Bush is going to ask Congress for another $70 billion down payment on Iraq. Who is going to pay for it? We are.

In addition, the U.S. needs the help of other countries to gather intelligence about terrorists, cut off their funding, and track them down. Trouble is, when the playground bully comes asking for help, everyone just walks away. A new president who shows respect for the world instead of arrogance will get a lot more help. And we need help, believe me.
Sure, just another person's opinion...

~Neal

Word... I don't think I could've said that any better.

gellar

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 2:41 pm

Tony Blair won his elections and John Howard easily won his.

The 'everyone in the world hates us' meme is carried way too far.

I wonder how many of those people know or care about the 100 billion in UN graft, or know that Saddam was using French, Russian, and Chinese weapons obtained post 1991. How many of them could tell you what UN resolution 1441 said?

I think it's just easier to think the US is a big bully. Especially since the other bully isn't on the playground any more.

gellar · Post by **gellar** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 2:50 pm

noxiousdog wrote:Tony Blair won his elections and John Howard easily won his.

The 'everyone in the world hates us' meme is carried way too far.

I wonder how many of those people know or care about the 100 billion in UN graft, or know that Saddam was using French, Russian, and Chinese weapons obtained post 1991. How many of them could tell you what UN resolution 1441 said?

I think it's just easier to think the US is a big bully. Especially since the other bully isn't on the playground any more.

So what you're saying is that if Bush wins the election, America fully supports his actions in Iraq, or if that Kerry wins the election, America fully believes that we've been horribly wrong in invading? Election results are hardly a good indicator. There are a vast number of other reasons to vote/not vote for a candidate other than one action.

For example, I actually think we didn't totally screw the pooch in going after Iraq, I just think we handled it in a retarded fashion. Particularly the post "victory" activities.

I agree that much of the world hates the US just because it's the US. However, I don't think the current administration has done anything to help our standing with the "undecideds" of the globe. Quite the opposite, in fact.

gellar

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 2:57 pm

I also seriously question anyone that would use the 100,000 civilian deaths number authoritatively. Fred Kaplan, Marc Cooper, Shannon Love, and Matthew Yglesias don't like that number either.

Crud. I also forgot another important endorsement. Largest German Newspaper (and widest European circulation) endorses Bush

gellar · Post by **gellar** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 3:05 pm

noxiousdog wrote:I also seriously question anyone that would use the 100,000 civilian deaths number authoritatively. Fred Kaplan, Marc Cooper, Shannon Love, and Matthew Yglesias don't like that number either.

Crud. I also forgot another important endorsement. Largest German Newspaper (and widest European circulation) endorses Bush

From your link:

Supporting George W. Bush in a nation where the overwhelming majority of the leftist dominated media absolutely seethe with hate for Mr. Bush is no small matter

Napoleon · Post by **Napoleon** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 3:08 pm

That is brave of Bild. Of course, one could say that the endorsement is of only one columnist of Bild. That's how I read the german version anyway.

Hier nennt BILD-Autor Hugo Müller-Vogg seine zehn Gründe, warum es für Deutschland, die Welt und Amerika besser wäre, wenn George W. Bush Präsident bleibt.

Roughly translated: Here, Bild-writer Hugo Müller-Vogg names his ten grounds why it's better for Germany, the World and America that Bush stays president.

Anyway, you can say have this same critique on pretty much ALL of the endorsements, be they left or right and pro kerry or pro bush.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 3:08 pm

gellar wrote:So what you're saying is that if Bush wins the election, America fully supports his actions in Iraq, or if that Kerry wins the election, America fully believes that we've been horribly wrong in invading? Election results are hardly a good indicator. There are a vast number of other reasons to vote/not vote for a candidate other than one action.

Election results when you have tied yourself to a popular and polarizing decision is a very good indicator. That's why Kerry was against the war when he was running for nomination and for the war when he is running for president.

I don't deny that there is a significant portion of the world that is unhappy with President Bush. What I do deny is that it's anywhere close to 'everyone' and that it's a superficial hate at best. It's no different than 15 years ago where the average American 'hated' Russia.

I agree that much of the world hates the US just because it's the US. However, I don't think the current administration has done anything to help our standing with the "undecideds" of the globe. Quite the opposite, in fact.

gellar

I agree that there are alot of people that hate the US (like you Gellar, Why do you hate America?

), but that with the fall of the Soviet Union, it was inevitable.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 3:11 pm

I don't believe for a second that most of the world hates the US.

Yes, there are many people who disagree with our policies or the policies of this specific administration. But hate is a pretty strong word.

America has and will continue to be a hope and inspiration for many people throughout the world. You don't see our immigration numbers dwindling. People want to be here. Countries need our trade, our financial assistance.

Bush invading Iraq, as much as many Bush haters want to believe otherwise, did not erase decades of American relationship with the rest of the world. If you want to make the argument that invading Iraq erased the warm fuzzies after 9/11, sure I can buy that. I'm not going to buy that invading Iraq turned the world into a cesspool of anti-American sentiment.

Napoleon · Post by **Napoleon** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 3:15 pm

I'm not going to buy that invading Iraq turned the world into a cesspool of anti-American sentiment.

Maybe not hate, and maybe not entirely anti-American. But anti-Bush? Really, YK, I see it all around me in newspapers, television programs, interviews with politicians.
Bush really isn't liked in my country at least. I suspect the sentiment in the rest of Europe isn't much different.

The thing is, the sentiment mostly seems to be "We don't care about Kerry, as long as it's just not Bush that wins". And if I'm honest, I feel the same. Kerry definitely doesn't seem like a great candidate to me, but man...I really want Bush gone.

gellar · Post by **gellar** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 3:16 pm

YellowKing wrote:I don't believe for a second that most of the world hates the US.

Yes, there are many people who disagree with our policies or the policies of this specific administration. But hate is a pretty strong word.

America has and will continue to be a hope and inspiration for many people throughout the world. You don't see our immigration numbers dwindling. People want to be here. Countries need our trade, our financial assistance.

Bush invading Iraq, as much as many Bush haters want to believe otherwise, did not erase decades of American relationship with the rest of the world. If you want to make the argument that invading Iraq erased the warm fuzzies after 9/11, sure I can buy that. I'm not going to buy that invading Iraq turned the world into a cesspool of anti-American sentiment.

Oh it's certainly not that bad. I wouldn't even argue "most" or "hate."

My argument is fairly simple: More of the world has a lower opinion of the United States after the actions of this administration.

gellar

Fitzy · Post by **Fitzy** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 3:35 pm

YellowKing wrote:I don't believe for a second that most of the world hates the US.

Kyle: All right, I've had just about enough of this! They told us in school, and on TV, that most people in Pakistan and Afghanistan like America.

Boy in Blue Vest: And you believe it? It is not just the Taliban that hates America. Over a third of the world hates America!

Stan: But why? Why does a third of the world hate us?

Boy in Blue Vest: Because, you don't realize that a third of the world hates you!!!

Stan:: [considers the argument...] ...That doesn't make sense. You guys are just buttholes!

Akmarh: You're butt-holes!

Stan, Kyle: You're buttholes!

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 3:40 pm

Ok, I can buy that a lot of the world doesn't like Bush.

I'm still failing to see the issue here. Big f-ing deal. Since when did America choose its leaders based on their popularity with the rest of the world?

Was Jimmy Carter such a totally awesome President that the world showered him with praise and adoration? What about Nixon? And 30 years later, does anybody really give a fuck? Guess what! No, they don't.

Meaningless, stupid poll.

Kind of paradoxical isn't it. The rest of the world dislikes America, yet follows our every move, hangs on to our every word. I dislike France. And China. And guess what? I don't give a rat's ass about who's running their country or what their politics are.

gellar · Post by **gellar** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 3:50 pm

YellowKing wrote:Ok, I can buy that a lot of the world doesn't like Bush.

I'm still failing to see the issue here. Big f-ing deal. Since when did America choose its leaders based on their popularity with the rest of the world?

Was Jimmy Carter such a totally awesome President that the world showered him with praise and adoration? What about Nixon? And 30 years later, does anybody really give a fuck? Guess what! No, they don't.

Meaningless, stupid poll.

Kind of paradoxical isn't it. The rest of the world dislikes America, yet follows our every move, hangs on to our every word. I dislike France. And China. And guess what? I don't give a rat's ass about who's running their country or what their politics are.

Well why don't you like France, or China? It's not so much as we give a rat's ass what the world thinks, its that maybe, just maybe, they have a bit of a better perspective of our own general fuckery.

Stupid analogy, but a lot of people in abusive relationships don't think they're in one because they think it's "fine" or "normal."

30 years later, I think it's safe to say that the consensus is neither Jimmy Carter nor Tricky Dick did a very good job in the White House. Maybe the rest of the world was right then too.

It's just about perspective. If you have 40 people out of 100 saying you're kinda hosed, maybe its time to check to see if something's wrong.

gellar

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 3:56 pm

gellar wrote:It's just about perspective. If you have 40 people out of 100 saying you're kinda hosed, maybe its time to check to see if something's wrong.

You are sort of correct here. It is just about perspective. And the problem is that the world is primarily concerned with what's best for them, and not what's best for me.

I'm a far better judge of what's best for me than someone in Belgium.

And I really could not care less to hear his (or her) opinion, much less integrate it into my decision-making.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 3:56 pm

gellar wrote:
It's just about perspective. If you have 40 people out of 100 saying you're kinda hosed, maybe its time to check to see if something's wrong.

gellar

Only if those 40 1) don't have ulterior motives and 2) have some better insight than you.

gellar · Post by **gellar** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 4:11 pm

Run - Agreed. I'm not saying the world vote should be our sole reason for voting the G-Dub out of office, I'm just saying it's not something easily dismissed.

SmellyPuppy - I have no reason to believe that EVERYONE has ulterior motives or is dumber than I am.

gellar

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 4:19 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:I'm a far better judge of what's best for me than someone in Belgium.

And I really could not care less to hear his (or her) opinion, much less integrate it into my decision-making.

Undoubtedly you have more at stake (and therefore your opinion should hold much more sway than the Belgian Waffle's opinion). However, does it change things if you need to work closely with the Belgian to accomplish your own personal goals? The Belgian, and his compadres, hold a whole lot of sway with regards to how successful your joint ventures are going to be. His opinion can't totally be dismissed out of hand, can it?

~Neal

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 4:30 pm

gellar wrote:Run - Agreed. I'm not saying the world vote should be our sole reason for voting the G-Dub out of office, I'm just saying it's not something easily dismissed.

Hold on a sec.....yep, it really was that easily dismissed.

The Meal wrote:However, does it change things if you need to work closely with the Belgian to accomplish your own personal goals? The Belgian, and his compadres, hold a whole lot of sway with regards to how successful your joint ventures are going to be. His opinion can't totally be dismissed out of hand, can it?

Just as easily.

If there is some particular policy that one candidate or the other is advocating, which would directly affect your ability to conduct business in France or something - then you are likely going to be smart enough to vote for the opponent if your livelihood depends on doing business with the French. The opinion of the Frenchman is still irrelevant.

Napoleon · Post by **Napoleon** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 4:31 pm

The Meal wrote:
RunningMn9 wrote:I'm a far better judge of what's best for me than someone in Belgium.

And I really could not care less to hear his (or her) opinion, much less integrate it into my decision-making.
Undoubtedly you have more at stake (and therefore your opinion should hold much more sway than the Belgian Waffle's opinion). However, does it change things if you need to work closely with the Belgian to accomplish your own personal goals? The Belgian, and his compadres, hold a whole lot of sway with regards to how successful your joint ventures are going to be. His opinion can't totally be dismissed out of hand, can it?

~Neal

Hang on. I hope you're not implying that I'm belgian. They smell you know. (Sorry Greg's Angel

)

Me posting this is definitely not intended to influence you in any way in your decision making. When I vote in Holland, I will damn well vote for the person that will best serve my interests. That's what democracy is

. I fully expect, and hope that you will vote for whichever candidate you want to vote for (as long as it's not Bush

).

I read an article on CNN or Fox or one of the other news services two or three weeks ago about people from the UK directly mailing people in Ohio to tell them that they shouldn't vote for Bush. Now THAT is obnoxious. On the other hand, posting the results of this poll, is just another fun statistic to discuss during these crazy election times.

You asked whether you should care what someone outside the US thinks of your president? I don't know. While I said two paragraphs ago that I'd damn well vote for the guy that best serves my needs, if I had to choose between two persons that served my interests about equally, but one was disliked outside Holland, and one was met with gross indifference, I'd choose the one that was best-liked outside of my country. That doesn't compare with the situation of the USA, naturally. You have what, 280 million inhabitants? Holland has a whopping 16. For us it is very important what other countries think of us.
However...the fact of the matter is that it's not just a large part of the 16 million dutch people that dislikes Bush. This sentiment is seen throughout Europe with it's 480 million Inhabitants. Does their dislike mean that if you choose Bush that the USA will be brutally opposed by these countries? No, probably not. Will it be entirely without effect though? I wonder about that. I have no actual data to back that sentiment up with, but I still feel that it might not be wise to keep ignoring to an extent what the foreign impression of the USA. Because, over time, that might also become something that effects your personal interests and needs.

What I just said, of course, depends entirely on one's own perspective. It's the US citizen doing the voting, and it's HIS choice, not of anyone else. As it should be, of course.

gellar · Post by **gellar** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 4:31 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:
gellar wrote:Run - Agreed. I'm not saying the world vote should be our sole reason for voting the G-Dub out of office, I'm just saying it's not something easily dismissed.
Hold on a sec.....yep, it really was that easily dismissed.

The Meal wrote:However, does it change things if you need to work closely with the Belgian to accomplish your own personal goals? The Belgian, and his compadres, hold a whole lot of sway with regards to how successful your joint ventures are going to be. His opinion can't totally be dismissed out of hand, can it?
Just as easily.

If there is some particular policy that one candidate or the other is advocating, which would directly affect your ability to conduct business in France or something - then you are likely going to be smart enough to vote for the opponent if your livelihood depends on doing business with the French. The opinion of the Frenchman is still irrelevant.

Oh... well in that case, the opinion of Jerseyboy is also easily dismissed.

I win, kthx

gellar

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 4:38 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:If there is some particular policy that one candidate or the other is advocating, which would directly affect your ability to conduct business in France or something - then you are likely going to be smart enough to vote for the opponent if your livelihood depends on doing business with the French. The opinion of the Frenchman is still irrelevant.

What if the Frenchman has eight arms? Then he's not so easily dismissed, is he? IS HE!?!

Good point.

~Neal

Mr. Sparkle · Post by **Mr. Sparkle** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 4:38 pm

We know that politicians often make choices due to the popularity of said action in their electorate.

I fail to see that having a president that is hated by a large percentage of the world is irrelevant.

Unless you are saying having allies in the War on Terror is irrelevant.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 4:50 pm

In total, nearly 10,000 citizens from countries all over the world took part
in this [theworldvotes.org] election.

Huh? That's less representative than the electoral college. Why does this mean anything?

A recent poll in my house showed that "other candidates" received exactly 50% of the vote. In total, nearly 3 US citizens took part in this [lawbeefaroni's household poll] election.

How come I don't get play on the BBC (or where ever the uncredited article/press release in the OP was from)? Oh, that's right, statistically insignificant.

Napoleon · Post by **Napoleon** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 4:58 pm

Lawbeefaroni: oh, that was a cut & paste from the mail I got from them after taking part in the poll. You can probably read more at www.theworldvotes.org

anyway, as I said:

On the other hand, posting the results of this poll, is just another fun statistic to discuss during these crazy election times.

Anyway, 4,000 of the poll respondents were americans. So, 6,000 foreigners. That's as big a group as a 6,000 people Cell-phone poll Chris mentioned in IRC today. Or a 10,000 people poll done by any of the news stations. Or this poll that says it had 113,000 votes.

A poll after all remains just a poll and indeed not as accurate as the actual election. Still fun to discuss though.

Poleaxe · Post by **Poleaxe** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 5:04 pm

Mr. Sparkle wrote:We know that politicians often make choices due to the popularity of said action in their electorate.

I fail to see that having a president that is hated by a large percentage of the world is irrelevant.

Unless you are saying having allies in the War on Terror is irrelevant.

Terror is not only aimed at the US. Do you think AQ likes any of the countries in Europe? And they are more vulnerable.

Are you suggesting that they would not want our help in the fight against terrorism depending on who is elected?

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 5:08 pm

Mr. Sparkle wrote:We know that politicians often make choices due to the popularity of said action in their electorate.

I fail to see that having a president that is hated by a large percentage of the world is irrelevant.

Unless you are saying having allies in the War on Terror is irrelevant.

Reagan was hated by a large percentage of the world. Maybe even more than Bush.

Mr. Sparkle · Post by **Mr. Sparkle** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 5:18 pm

Poleaxe wrote:
Mr. Sparkle wrote:We know that politicians often make choices due to the popularity of said action in their electorate.

I fail to see that having a president that is hated by a large percentage of the world is irrelevant.

Unless you are saying having allies in the War on Terror is irrelevant.
Terror is not only aimed at the US. Do you think AQ likes any of the countries in Europe? And they are more vulnerable.

Are you suggesting that they would not want our help in the fight against terrorism depending on who is elected?

No, I'm not saying the French government is going to stop sharing intelligence because the French people dislike George Bush.

However, if we find out we need to take military action somewhere else in the world... it will most likely have to be small in scale or multilateral, since we have so many troops in Iraq... and personally I would at least like the average citizen of the NATO countries believing the POTUS when he says "We need to go get these guys."

So the question is not so much whether Europeans want to fight terror, but whether they believe us when we tell them where it is.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 5:19 pm

Napoleon wrote:Lawbeefaroni: oh, that was a cut & paste from the mail I got from them after taking part in the poll. You can probably read more at www.theworldvotes.org

anyway, as I said:
On the other hand, posting the results of this poll, is just another fun statistic to discuss during these crazy election times.
Anyway, 4,000 of the poll respondents were americans. So, 6,000 foreigners. That's as big a group as a 6,000 people Cell-phone poll Chris mentioned in IRC today. Or a 10,000 people poll done by any of the news stations. Or this poll that says it had 113,000 votes.

A poll after all remains just a poll and indeed not as accurate as the actual election. Still fun to discuss though.

It's called (cue fanfare) "The World Votes!!!!" not (cue fart) "A Small Market Phone Poll."

But ok, ok, good points. On the other hand, shouldn't you be drinking some tasty, full-bodied beer with a crew of hot women and mocking our election process?

Napoleon · Post by **Napoleon** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 5:23 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote:
Napoleon wrote:Lawbeefaroni: oh, that was a cut & paste from the mail I got from them after taking part in the poll. You can probably read more at www.theworldvotes.org

anyway, as I said:
On the other hand, posting the results of this poll, is just another fun statistic to discuss during these crazy election times.
Anyway, 4,000 of the poll respondents were americans. So, 6,000 foreigners. That's as big a group as a 6,000 people Cell-phone poll Chris mentioned in IRC today. Or a 10,000 people poll done by any of the news stations. Or this poll that says it had 113,000 votes.

A poll after all remains just a poll and indeed not as accurate as the actual election. Still fun to discuss though.
It's called (cue fanfare) "The World Votes!!!!" not (cue fart) "A Small Market Phone Poll."

But ok, ok, good points. On the other hand, shouldn't you be drinking some tasty, full-bodied beer with a crew of hot women and mocking our election process?

Hey, if we're gonna make fun of stuff that's named overly grandiose, I should start looking at some US stuff

And I will only start mocking if I hear the first "butterfly ballot"

And I can't drink beer, because I'm studying (and it's 22:23

)
And finally, no crew of hot women. My girlfriend is around though.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 5:54 pm

This is so bogus in so many ways it's hard to figure them all out.

But Iraq was a completely different matter. Bush, Cheney, and Powell said they had conclusive proof that Saddam had WMD and could attack at any instant. The rest of the world wanted to see the proof. No proof was forthcoming. The answer was "trust us."

This is false. It wasn't just the US that said Sadaam had WMD. EVERY major western intelligence service - the UK, French (yes, the French), German (yes, the German) intelligence agencies ALL believed Sadaam had WMD. That's what people forget. Everyone supposedly "in the know" believed he had them. Bill Clinton to his credit has publicly stated that he believed Sadaam had WMD. It just wasn't something put forward by the Bush admin. And Sadaam's behavior supported that belief - heck, from what I've read, Sadaam may have even believed he had them and no one in Iraq wanted to tell him. It was not just the US that believed this. But it was mainly the US that pushed for action.

We now know there were no WMD. There weren't even factories or labs to produce them. Saddam was an evil dictator with evil fantasies but he was no threat to America.

So, I still haven't figured out why it was bad to remove an admittedly evil dictator. Why is everyone upset about this?

Yet former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said that the planning to invade Iraq began the day Bush was inaugurated. The administration simply misused the horror of Sept. 11 as a convenient excuse for doing something that was already in the works.

This seems to be disputed - not sure how accurate this picture is.

Let me tell you a short story. When I was in elementary school, the school was plagued by a bully. He was the biggest, strongest kid around and would beat up anyone he didn't like.

Problem - is the US a bully? Exactly who other than Iraq are we beating up? Did we invade Libya after they bombed and killed Americans? Have we invaded NK? What about trade disputes with the EU - launched any invasions there? Did we invade Turkey when they refused US troops passage into northern Iraq? We haven't even invaded that Communist paradise 90 miles off the coast of Florida - surely the bully would have done that if he was such a bully? Just exactly who are all those kids on the playground we are supposed to be bullying? Seems more like it that we have gotten rid of some bullies and contained some others. This analogy is sooo flawed it's ridiculous.

One day he was chasing some poor kid and he tripped and skidded a considerable distance, scraping his face on the rough asphalt of the playground. He was bleeding and in pain, screaming for help. But nobody came to help him. We all just walked away.

This is ludicrous. Sadaam Hussein is a child on the playground abused by the playground bully? Please, if this is the thinking of the average European, if this is their view of morality, then who really cares what they think? To call the US a playground bully and Sadaam a poor helpless child is ridiculous.

Imagine what people in Spain or Indonesia or the Arab world think.

Funny, it's always the US that should be worrying about what others think of it. Maybe the Arabs/Muslims should wonder why the rest of the world thinks they're all terrorists? Maybe Indonesia should wonder what the world thinks of it's failures to crackdown on homegrown terrorists? Maybe the Spanish should wonder how many lives they will be responsible for as terrorists attack and try to influence elections in other countries. But no, it's always the US that should consider the thoughts and feelings of others. We have to be "senstive", LOL!

I think most Americans want to be respected for being a democracy rather than simply being feared because we have more nuclear weapons than anybody else.

Exactly what nations have we threatened with nuclear weapons? I don't remember Pres Bush threatening anyone.

This whole thing is so bogus. The European didn't have the guts to clean up the mess that was Bosnia until the US was willing to deploy troops there - they let thousands die as the war festered. They didn't have the ability to do anything about Kosovo - again it was the US that had to do the work there. It was Europeans that supplied Sadaam with most of his weaponry. It was the UN that cashed in on the Food for Oil Program. Exactly why are they lecturing us about morality?

Grifman

Eel Snave · Post by **Eel Snave** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:33 pm

I heart Grifman.

The Mad Hatter · Post by **The Mad Hatter** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:54 pm

noxiousdog wrote:
Mr. Sparkle wrote:We know that politicians often make choices due to the popularity of said action in their electorate.

I fail to see that having a president that is hated by a large percentage of the world is irrelevant.

Unless you are saying having allies in the War on Terror is irrelevant.
Reagan was hated by a large percentage of the world. Maybe even more than Bush.

Reagan's policies were opposed by many and he was held in disdain by certain elites (true in the US as much as anywhere else), but it isn't comparable to Bush Jr. I can tell you that here in Canada he is intensely disliked, not just by the usual suspects on the left but by the mainstream. That was never true of Reagan, nor was it ever as visceral. The man and his administration are seen as threats to world peace and stability. If Bush came here it wouldn't just be some students out protesting Nicaragua or Pershing missile deployments in Europe, it would be the face of everyone's anger and contempt. This is Canada I'm talking about, not Paris. People here are hoping that Kerry wins and restores an old friend. Bush will never, ever be seen as a friend here. This is something that just doesn't come through in the American press.

gnox · Post by **gnox** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 8:20 pm

Grifman wrote: So, I still haven't figured out why it was bad to remove an admittedly evil dictator. Why is everyone upset about this?

Maybe they think the price of 1200 Americans lives was a little steep.

Eel Snave · Post by **Eel Snave** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 8:26 pm

So, we have a formula here:

(Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives killed under Saddam + thousands of torture victims) < 1,200 American lives

Lives are lives. I never understood why one country's lives were more important than another.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 8:30 pm

gnox wrote:
Grifman wrote: So, I still haven't figured out why it was bad to remove an admittedly evil dictator. Why is everyone upset about this?
Maybe they think the price of 1200 Americans lives was a little steep.

I believe the article is discussing world attitudes, not American. Somehow given the apparent "hatred" of the rest of the world towards America, I doubt that concern for American lives is the motive.

Grifman

gnox · Post by **gnox** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 8:52 pm

Eel Snave wrote:So, we have a formula here:

(Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives killed under Saddam + thousands of torture victims) < 1,200 American lives

Lives are lives. I never understood why one country's lives were more important than another.

That's a good point. I'm still not sure I'd be willing to give my life for Saddam though.

Grifman wrote:I believe the article is discussing world attitudes, not American. Somehow given the apparent "hatred" of the rest of the world towards America, I doubt that concern for American lives is the motive.

Sorry, misread, my mistake.

is_dead · Post by **is_dead** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 9:58 pm

gellar wrote:
noxiousdog wrote:Tony Blair won his elections and John Howard easily won his.

The 'everyone in the world hates us' meme is carried way too far.

I wonder how many of those people know or care about the 100 billion in UN graft, or know that Saddam was using French, Russian, and Chinese weapons obtained post 1991. How many of them could tell you what UN resolution 1441 said?

I think it's just easier to think the US is a big bully. Especially since the other bully isn't on the playground any more.
So what you're saying is that if Bush wins the election, America fully supports his actions in Iraq, or if that Kerry wins the election, America fully believes that we've been horribly wrong in invading? Election results are hardly a good indicator. There are a vast number of other reasons to vote/not vote for a candidate other than one action.

For example, I actually think we didn't totally screw the pooch in going after Iraq, I just think we handled it in a retarded fashion. Particularly the post "victory" activities.

I agree that much of the world hates the US just because it's the US. However, I don't think the current administration has done anything to help our standing with the "undecideds" of the globe. Quite the opposite, in fact.

gellar

Completely wrong dude, I loved the US in the times of Clinton, and intended to move there to make a good living. Today I'm willing to spend 20000 dollars a year (roughly 35%) on not living in the US, because of Bush.

That's a good quote about the bully of the world, but my analogy is different:

Have you ever known someone who never got along with anyone, and maybe implied or said that the problem isn't him, it was everyone else? Maybe a person at work who quit, complaining that "all you guys are assholes, all of you." And you couldn't help but think to yourself 'why does that guy think everyone around him is an asshole? Doesn't that say something more about him than all of us?'

Well, the Republican party is that guy but on the world stage. They might say that everyone else in the world, who outnumber them 100 to 1, are jerks and idiots, but maybe its time they pause and ask themselves, wait a minute, maybe the problem isn't with them....

notgonnahappen