NationStates Jolt Archive

CNN says this about Obama and respect:

(CNN)—Despite increasing economic concerns and an on-going war in Iraq, a new international poll finds a widespread belief in many countries that United States foreign policy “will change for the better" once a new administration is sworn into office, particularly if Sen. Barack Obama is elected president.

The international poll conducted by Pew Research of more than 24,000 people in 24 countries found people who have been following the U.S. elections feel more confident Obama “will do the right thing,” with regards to foreign relations than John McCain.

McCain has lower ratings than Obama in every country surveyed except the U.S., where the two presumptive nominees run neck and neck.

Obama’s advantage over McCain is enormous particularly in France, Germany, and Australia, where the Illinois senator leads McCain by up to 51 percentage points.

Overall, there is little confidence in the United States in general among those surveyed in the Middle Eastern countries of Pakistan and Jordan. McCain has a confidence rating of 6 percent in Pakistan, while Obama garners 10 percent. “In Jordan and Egypt, more people who are following the election say they expect new leadership to change U.S. foreign policy for the worse than say they expect a change for the better,” according to the survey.

I feel lightly nervous about this whole thing like we are heading back to the dark days when we didn't have much to feel superior to Americans about

...oh God what if he allows gay marriage!

edit: you need to stick an opinion in OP otherwise its copy and paste spam (I'm not so worried about the lack of a source but thats also what you need to stick in)

Meh. I don't like either of them.
Obama is a charismatic faker/ Billary lite.
McCain is just another Neocon.
I hate them both.

I hate them both.

lowering your standards is what politics is all about :)

lowering your standards is what politics is all about :)
The lesser of *Checks how many candidates are running* nineteen evils.

I am laughing so hard!!

Is it not humorous that CNN thinks that a poll of 24,000 people in a world population of 6.6 billion is newsworthy with regards to our presidential candidates?
:p

I am laughing so hard!!

Is it not humorous that CNN thinks that a poll of 24,000 people in a world population of 6.6 billion is newsworthy with regards to our presidential candidates?
:p

It's not like they can ask every single adult is it?
That's not a bad number of people to ask.
Unless they wanted to start a major census in every country in the world which would also cost a few billionaire's all their money.
and then some.
:p

I am laughing so hard!!

Is it not humorous that CNN thinks that a poll of 24,000 people in a world population of 6.6 billion is newsworthy with regards to our presidential candidates?
:p

It's even odder that there were only 24 countries, and 5 of those named are in Europe or the Middle East (7, if you count Australia as European and Egypt as Middle Eastern).

I'll wait for the Fox News poll. :D

It's not like they can ask every single adult is it?
That's not a bad number of people to ask.
Unless they wanted to start a major census in every country in the world which would also cost a few billionaire's all their money.
and then some.
:p

Dunno, I equated it to asking one person in the city of Atlanta what they thought of the governor of Alaska. :p

Does Obama have any foreign relations experience?

At least Mc. Cain can draw on his military experience.

Does Obama have any foreign relations experience?

none so to speak which is all the more amazing as to how he has already captured our hearts and received approval from those that have

At least Mc. Cain can draw on his military experience.

and as such is a product of the cold war hence his constant Russo/Sino-phobia

It's even odder that there were only 24 countries, and 5 of those named are in Europe or the Middle East (7, if you count Australia as European and Egypt as Middle Eastern).

I'll wait for the Fox News poll. :D

1,000 people per country? That's fairly standard for any poll.

Cain can draw on his military experience.

Not sure that being in another country killing the locals is exactly a good basis for international relations.

none so to speak which is all the more amazing as to how he has already captured our hearts and received approval from those that have



and as such is a product of the cold war hence his constant Russo/Sino-phobia


Capturing the hearts of a miniscule portion of the world population isn't really saying much. Miley Cyrus has more fans worldwide. ;)

So are you saying that someone's caution with a former mortal enemy is a phobia?

So are you saying that someone's caution with a former mortal enemy is a phobia?

Let's put it this way : my grnadfather is still mortally afraid of a French invasion.

Yes, I would call that a phobia.

Capturing the hearts of a miniscule portion of the world population isn't really saying much. Miley Cyrus has more fans worldwide. ;)

you expect a politician to keep up with the likes of Hannah Montana?!

So are you saying that someone's caution with a former mortal enemy is a phobia?

there is a difference between caution and "ZOMG New Russian Empire you can't play with us!!1"

Let's put it this way : my grandfather is still mortally afraid of a French invasion.

if they cut through Karlsruhe and head towards Berlin Germany would be tapping out within the weekend :eek:

Let's put it this way : my grnadfather is still mortally afraid of a French invasion.

Yes, I would call that a phobia.

That I might can understand, but McCain isn't afraid of those former enemies, he is cautious regarding them. There is a difference.

I don't see what McCain is saying as a phobia at all, just caution.

I grew up in the cold war so I can appreciate his caution.

That I might can understand, but McCain isn't afraid of those former enemies, he is cautious regarding them. There is a difference.

I don't see what McCain is saying as a phobia at all, just caution.

I grew up in the cold war so I can appreciate his caution.

I feel like you could've squeezed in one more "caution". :)

you expect a politician to keep up with the likes of Hannah Montana?!



there is a difference between caution and "ZOMG New Russian Empire you can't play with us!!1"



if they cut through Karlsruhe and head towards Berlin Germany would be tapping out within the weekend :eek:


Sure I expect him to keep up! ;) lol

My point is the numbers are not indicative of some great following at all. In fact it is .000004 or there abouts of world population. Not to mention they only polled 24 out of 195 nations in the world. To think that is somehow representative of a world embrace is a giant wishful thinking stretch.

I feel like you could've squeezed in one more "caution". :)


:p

none so to speak which is all the more amazing as to how he has already captured our hearts and received approval from those that have



and as such is a product of the cold war hence his constant Russo/Sino-phobia

Does no one understand that gaps in one's knowledge as President is what advisors and the Cabinet are for? Have there been ANY Presidents who were experts on all aspects of governance, diplomacy and foreign policy? Hell, McCain gave a speech where he named Vladimir Putin the leader of Germany (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5ENwej0fpc)! That must have made the Germans really warm and fuzzy, eh? However, I don't think that should be a disqualification. Presidential gaffes are numerous and well documented. It's easy to play armchair advisor and criticize.

So that's why you search the professional sphere to find people who DO know about those areas where you're weak and appoint them to your Cabinet or make them the Vice President, heads of other agencies, try to get them appointed to the SCOTUS, or even ambassadorships. Anyone who votes based on a couple of gaffes or a demonstrated deficit in one or two areas while being strong in most others is hopelessly naive.

It's not like they can ask every single adult is it?
That's not a bad number of people to ask.
Unless they wanted to start a major census in every country in the world which would also cost a few billionaire's all their money.
and then some.
:p
The point is that there is no good way to get a statistically valid sample. You can't even poll likely voters, as you would do here, because none of them can vote in US elections!

Look what they said about selecting respondents -- they had been following US elections. That's it.

But, hey, who cares about statistics when it gets in the way of a good piece of nonsense.

The point is that there is no good way to get a statistically valid sample. You can't even poll likely voters, as you would do here, because none of them can vote in US elections!

Look what they said about selecting respondents -- they had been following US elections. That's it.

But, hey, who cares about statistics when it gets in the way of a good piece of nonsense.

Speaking for the people in my country, right now the US is viewed as a nation led by a psychopath and that was duped into voting him in again. Iraq is seen as a victim, and the world is seen as endangered by the actions of the US. Which is why we also see Obama as the main chance of getting the US to stop acting in the evil, insane way Bush has forced it to.

Speaking for the people in my country, right now the US is viewed as a nation led by a psychopath and that was duped into voting him in again. Iraq is seen as a victim, and the world is seen as endangered by the actions of the US. Which is why we also see Obama as the main chance of getting the US to stop acting in the evil, insane way Bush has forced it to.

All I can think is your media is way more warped and twisted than ours even. I'm so sorry. :(

All I can think is your media is way more warped and twisted than ours even. I'm so sorry. :(

No. No, it isn't.

First of all, I get my news from Yahoo.com, not its Brazilian version. Second, the fact that Bush invaded Iraq over false pretenses is well-known, and so is his willingness to attack other countries and his unwillingness to apply any diplomacy. Third, the Washington Times called for the US to support a COUP D'ETAT HERE if Lula was elected, back in 2002. That's not our media, that's YOUR media. Fourth, Bush has saber-rattled with Chávez, whose country borders my own. We don't want your troops anywhere near here.

Did Bush not start a war? Did he not cause untold numbers of deaths? Did he not ditch the UN and every country that didn't play his yes-man? That's not our media. That's the facts.

Speaking for the people in my country, right now the US is viewed as a nation led by a psychopath and that was duped into voting him in again. Iraq is seen as a victim, and the world is seen as endangered by the actions of the US. Which is why we also see Obama as the main chance of getting the US to stop acting in the evil, insane way Bush has forced it to.
Obama is going to find out very quickly after he is inaugurated (I'm conceding the election to him) that leaving Iraq isn't the cake walk that he imagines -- IFF he wants to maintain a good standing among world leaders.

I've only got a minute, but basically the reason we went to Iraq is going to be lost in the noise, but the way we leave will be remembered for all time. If we just leave and chaos results, it's our fault. If we stay, and the trend is that Iraq is becoming more independent from us continues, we will be viewed more favorably.

I do believe you said some months or a couple years back that it was OUR mess and we should do whatever it takes to clean it up. That's not leaving the country to chaos.

I do believe you said some months or a couple years back that it was OUR mess and we should do whatever it takes to clean it up. That's not leaving the country to chaos.

It IS your mess. However, staying there is not the answer, much like going there in the first place wasn't. You don't solve a problem with the same thought pattern through which you created it.

lowering your standards is what politics is all about :)

Lowering our standards is what got us into this mess in the first place. :mad:

I am laughing so hard!!

Is it not humorous that CNN thinks that a poll of 24,000 people in a world population of 6.6 billion is newsworthy with regards to our presidential candidates?
:p
How so? to keep CI within 5% they only need 384 people to make a valid survey of

With 24000 their CI is .63% which is pretty damn good

It IS your mess. However, staying there is not the answer, much like going there in the first place wasn't. You don't solve a problem with the same thought pattern through which you created it.
But you don't just abandon the problem to its own solution, either. That's as irresponsible as nation-building without a plan.

In fact, Bush does represent new thinking about Iraq. Previous pacts with the Arab autocrats had hatched a monster and it WAS certainly logical and prudent to look for a new way.

How we end this war is much more important than why it started. What we leave behind will be that by which the world judges us.

Who gives a damn about what other people in other countries think about an election they can't participate in?

Opinion polls are bullshit and art, not science. By wording questions in certain ways you can manipulate responses and get whatever answer the people who hired you want to hear.

\
I do believe you said some months or a couple years back that it was OUR mess and we should do whatever it takes to clean it up. That's not leaving the country to chaos.

I am curious to how that can be achieved. It seems these people want to kill each other. The USSR kept people in check for 70+ years and once it fell apart, they started killing each other again.

Maybe the bloodbath has to happen so the people of Iraq can figure things out?

I don't know.

I am curious to how that can be achieved. It seems these people want to kill each other. The USSR kept people in check for 70+ years and once it fell apart, they started killing each other again.

Maybe the bloodbath has to happen so the people of Iraq can figure things out?

I don't know.

I'm not going to pretend that I know the answer... Leaving the country to chaos doesn't seem right. Some good things are happening that would lead me to believe the current Iraqi government CAN be stable... In May, American casualties in Iraq were at their lowest since 2003. The Sunnis also have broken with al Qaeda, and the Shiite-led government has taken the war to the Mahdi Army. All this is good and encouraging.

At least Mc. Cain can draw on his military experience.

Inexperience or a member of the Keating five?

Inexperience or a man who was tortured as a POW and yet votes to allow it to be used here.

hmmmmmmm

But you don't just abandon the problem to its own solution, either. That's as irresponsible as nation-building without a plan.

In fact, Bush does represent new thinking about Iraq. Previous pacts with the Arab autocrats had hatched a monster and it WAS certainly logical and prudent to look for a new way.

How we end this war is much more important than why it started. What we leave behind will be that by which the world judges us.

No, how you started it is more important, so you don't commit this kind of atrocity EVER THE FUCK AGAIN! It's not right to make pacts with them, fine. It's much worse to invade other countries that never attacked you.

You can help them without having troops there. For starters, funding a multinational CIVILIAN help coalition, and actually footing the bill and restoring the infrastructure. With MULTINATIONAL help. Without an occupation force.

Does Obama have any foreign relations experience?

At least Mc. Cain can draw on his military experience.

If we're going to count 'military experience' for foreign relations then surely we can count actually living abroad for significant periods of time as the same

And generally speaking, to respond to a thread one does not need a whole thread unto itself, but rather just hit 'reply.'

No, how you started it is more important, so you don't commit this kind of atrocity EVER THE FUCK AGAIN! It's not right to make pacts with them, fine. It's much worse to invade other countries that never attacked you.

That's an unacceptable restraint to put on an administration. Saddam's army was engaged and beaten easily. The country was liberated. That part was done well. Saddam's overthrow was a good thing.

Had there been a plan to also beat the terrorists that flocked to Iraq, as well as the Sunni mobs that also did support Al-Quaida, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

That's an unacceptable restraint to put on an administration. Saddam's army was engaged and beaten easily. The country was liberated. That part was done well. Saddam's overthrow was a good thing.

Had there been a plan to also beat the terrorists that flocked to Iraq, as well as the Sunni mobs that also did support Al-Quaida, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

No, it wasn't. It was an immoral war, it destabilized the region, and it caused an untold number of deaths. Also, Brazil, Japan and Germany ALL have self-defense clauses, meaning clauses in their Constitutions that prevent first-strike attack. All of the three countries survive perfectly well. So, no, it's not an unacceptable restraint not to be a genocidal maniac who attacks without provocation.

And yes we WOULD be having this discussion, because THERE WERE NO WMDs! The war was sold under false pretenses, all the while anyone that was against it, such as myself, was called anti-American in an attempt to silence them!

No, it wasn't. It was an immoral war, it destabilized the region, and it caused an untold number of deaths. Also, Brazil, Japan and Germany ALL have self-defense clauses, meaning clauses in their Constitutions that prevent first-strike attack. All of the three countries survive perfectly well. So, no, it's not an unacceptable restraint not to be a genocidal maniac who attacks without provocation.

And yes we WOULD be having this discussion, because THERE WERE NO WMDs! The war was sold under false pretenses, all the while anyone that was against it, such as myself, was called anti-American in an attempt to silence them!
No, it wasn't immoral. The claims about WMDs may have been wrong, but they were made in good faith. If nothing else, the Bush administration sent a strong message to the Arab world that we were through being a target.

Before America struck at Iraq, there had been celebrations in the Arab world at the destruction of 9/11. Arabs were consumed with a sense that America had gotten its come-uppance. There were regimes pretending friendship with America while aiding and abetting the forces of terror. Many of those regimes have reconsidered.

No, it wasn't immoral. The claims about WMDs may have been wrong, but they were made in good faith. If nothing else, the Bush administration sent a strong message to the Arab world that we were through being a target.

Before America struck at Iraq, there had been celebrations in the Arab world at the destruction of 9/11. Arabs were consumed with a sense that America had gotten its come-uppance. There were regimes pretending friendship with America while aiding and abetting the forces of terror. Many of those regimes have reconsidered.

Yes, it was immoral. And the "strong message" means NOTHING considering that the war created much more terrorists and much more support for terror than anything the "Arabs" ever did. And no, the claims were not made in good faith. Bush wanted a war, he scared you into one.

And those "celebrations" were ONE footage of some people in Palestine celebrating SOMETHING ELSE that your media decided to use for sensationalism. As for the regimes "supporting terror", Pakistan IS STILL one of them, and Iraq NEVER WAS.

The only message this goddamn war ever sent was that America had a psychopathic President that thinks the world is his plaything and will try to scare people into compliance with wars in random countries.

That wasn't a preemptive strike, there was no threat. The US does NOT have the right to start wars without any reason. No country does, and the US does not either!

The claims about WMDs may have been wrong, but they were made in good faith.
They were not.