NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7606100.stm

Obama win preferred in world poll

People outside the US would prefer Barack Obama to become US president ahead of John McCain, a BBC World Service poll suggests.

Democrat Mr Obama was favoured by a four-to-one margin across the 22,500 people polled in 22 countries.

In 17 countries, the most common view was that US relations with the rest of the world would improve under Mr Obama.

If Republican Mr McCain were elected, the most common view was that relations would remain about the same.

The poll was conducted before the Democratic and Republican parties held their conventions and before the headline-grabbing nomination of Sarah Palin as Mr McCain's running mate.

BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus says the results could therefore be a reflection of the greater media focus on Mr Obama as he competed for the presidential candidacy against Hillary Clinton.

International ties

The margin of those in favour of Mr Obama winning November's US election ranged from 9% in India to 82% in Kenya, which is the birthplace of the Illinois senator's father.

On average 49% preferred Mr Obama to 12% in favour of Mr McCain. Nearly four in 10 of those polled did not take a view.

On average 46% thought US relations with the world would improve with Mr Obama in the White House, 22% that ties would stay the same, while seven per cent expected relations to worsen.

Only 20% thought ties would get better if Mr McCain were in the Oval Office.

The expectation that a McCain presidency would improve US relations with the world was the most common view, by a modest margin, only in China, India and Nigeria.

But across the board, the largest number - 37% - thought relations under a president McCain would stay the same, while 16% expected them to deteriorate.

In no country did most people think that a McCain presidency would worsen relations.

US poll

Oddly, in Turkey more people thought US relations would worsen with an Obama presidency than under Mr McCain, even though most Turks polled preferred Mr Obama to win.

In Egypt, Lebanon, Russia and Singapore, the predominant expectation was that relations would remain the same if Mr Obama won the election.

The countries most optimistic that an Obama presidency would improve ties were US Nato allies - Canada (69%), Italy (64%), France (62%), Germany (61%), and the UK (54%) - as well as Australia (62%), along with Kenya (87%) and Nigeria (71%).

When asked whether the election as president of the African-American Mr Obama would "fundamentally change" their perception of the US, 46% said it would while 27% said it would not.

The US public was polled separately and Americans also believed an Obama presidency would improve US ties with the world more than a McCain presidency.

Forty-six per cent of Americans expected relations to get better if Mr Obama were elected and 30% if Mr McCain won the White House.

A similar poll conducted for BBC World Service ahead of the 2004 US presidential election found most countries would have preferred to see Democratic nominee John Kerry beat the incumbent George W Bush.

At the time, the Philippines, Nigeria and Poland were among the few countries to favour Mr Bush's re-election. All three now favour Mr Obama over Mr McCain.

In total 22,531 citizens were polled in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Lebanon, Mexico, Nigeria, Panama, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, Singapore, Turkey, the UAE and the UK. A parallel survey was conducted with 1,000 US adults.

Polling firm GlobeScan and the Program on International Policy Attitudes carried out the survey between July and August.

Show of hands: who is surprised?

The sad thing is, I suspect this will actually negatively impact Obama, because if there's one thing my fellow Americans tend to have, it's disdain for world opinion. :(

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7606100.stm

Show of hands: who is surprised?

The sad thing is, I suspect this will actually negatively impact Obama, because if there's one thing my fellow Americans tend to have, it's disdain for world opinion. :(

Not I.

This is the country where a significant amount of voters believes "America, FUCK YEAH!!" is actually the new national anthem. The world thinks they should do something, they'll do the exact opposite just to give the world a middle finger.

Remember 2004, when Bin Ladin said electing Bush would result in more Al Qaeda retaliations or something to that effect? People took that as "Bin Ladin Endorses Kerry" and that resulted in 4 more years of shit.

Not I.

This is the country where a significant amount of voters believes "America, FUCK YEAH!!" is actually the new national anthem. The world thinks they should do something, they'll do the exact opposite just to give the world a middle finger.

Remember 2004, when Bin Ladin said electing Bush would result in more Al Qaeda retaliations or something to that effect? People took that as "Bin Ladin Endorses Kerry" and that resulted in 4 more years of shit.

It's extremely unfortunate. Hopefully in time, with a lot of work, American public opinion will change. We should all do what we can do achieve that goal.

It's extremely unfortunate. Hopefully in time, with a lot of work, American public opinion will change. We should all do what we can do achieve that goal.

Assuming there's an America still left standing after this adminstration comes to a close, much less after 4 years of a McSame/I Can't Believe It's Not Hillary presidency.

Assuming there's an America still left standing after this adminstration comes to a close, much less after 4 years of a McSame/I Can't Believe It's Not Hillary presidency.

I believe you are overstating matters just a tad.

I believe you are overstating matters just a tad.

It won't involve nuclear explosions and military forces at all. It'll simply be the economic collapse that the continuation of Bushanomics will inevitably herald. The bailout of Fannie and Freddy are simply the tip of the iceberg bobbing towards the SS Ameritanic.

Now would be a great time for America to start caring what the rest of the world thinks

It won't involve nuclear explosions and military forces at all. It'll simply be the economic collapse that the continuation of Bushanomics will inevitably herald.

I would prefer mass die offs, but this works too. It seems the only real cure for this sort of attitude is a humbling that leaves nothing but ashes in its wake.

They're gonna spin this against Obama you know.

Now would be a great time for America to start caring what the rest of the world thinks

Why start now? ;)

Why start now? ;)

China's got its act together.

China's got its act together.

History has shown that the only thing more certain than China's implosion is Russia's implosion. ;)

And? It's a shame for Obama that the rest of the world doesn't vote in the elections, and no I am not surprised considering he spent part of his time campaigning in Europe.

And? It's a shame for Obama that the rest of the world doesn't vote in the elections, and no I am not surprised considering he spent part of his time campaigning in Europe.I went to one of his speeches. It certainly wasn't campaigning.

And? It's a shame for Obama that the rest of the world doesn't vote in the elections, and no I am not surprised considering he spent part of his time campaigning in Europe.

Well, guess what, so did Bush last time round. And belive me, Europe (and particularly Ireland) was not too happy about that.
Talk about being used.

I've always felt it was somewhat unfair that the rest of the world doesn't get any say in US elections, considering the massive influence the outcome will have on world politics, economics and the global environment.

Looking at Ireland, I sometimes get the feeling that US politics actually have a more direct impact on people's lives than Irish politics.

I've always felt it was somewhat unfair that the rest of the world doesn't get any say in US elections, considering the massive influence the outcome will have on world politics, economics and the global environment.

Looking at Ireland, I sometimes get the feeling that US politics actually have a more direct impact on people's lives than Irish politics.

Freedom and Democracy are our chief exports. ;)

Freedom and Democracy are our chief exports. ;)

Not so much an export, more of a franchise, I would say. ;)

Not so much an export, more of a franchise, I would say. ;)

No, export. We're selling ours. :(

And? It's a shame for Obama that the rest of the world doesn't vote in the elections, and no I am not surprised considering he spent part of his time campaigning in Europe.

I believe Mccain did as well, but no-one noticed.

No, export. We're selling ours. :(

*looks around*
Erm... who to, exaclty?

*looks around*
Erm... who to, exaclty?

India I think.

India I think.

Huh... and here I was thinking that India got theirs as a gift from Mr Ghandi.
;)

Freedom and Democracy are our chief exports. ;)

NOBODY expects the American Imposition, our chief export is Freedom... and Democracy, our chief exports are Freedom and Democracy, and ruthless Efficiency, our three weapons...

...I'll come in again.

Huh... and here I was thinking that India got theirs as a gift from Mr Ghandi.
;)

Where do you think he bought it from? It's like a subscription to a Jelly of the Month club. Except the jelly is freedom. *nod*

Where do you think he bought it from? It's like a subscription to a Jelly of the Month club. Except the jelly is freedom. *nod*

Wow... you must be making loads of money selling that stuff, then.

NOBODY expects the American Imposition, our chief export is Freedom... and Democracy, our chief exports are Freedom and Democracy, and ruthless Efficiency, our three weapons...

...I'll come in again.

When we start building McDonald's in your country, you know we have you by the short and curlies. :)

Wow... you must be making loads of money selling that stuff, then.

It goes great on toast. :)

It goes great on toast. :)

Let me guess... Freedom toast? ;)

Let me guess... Freedom toast? ;)

We just so happen to sell that too. :)

Not I.

This is the country where a significant amount of voters believes "America, FUCK YEAH!!" is actually the new national anthem. The world thinks they should do something, they'll do the exact opposite just to give the world a middle finger.

Remember 2004, when Bin Ladin said electing Bush would result in more Al Qaeda retaliations or something to that effect? People took that as "Bin Ladin Endorses Kerry" and that resulted in 4 more years of shit.

Now Bin Ladin may be thoroughly ebil but he's no dill so one must assume that he wanted people to vote for Bush.

Bin Ladin - smarter than your average American.

I've always felt it was somewhat unfair that the rest of the world doesn't get any say in US elections, considering the massive influence the outcome will have on world politics, economics and the global environment.
That sounds swell. And while you're at it, you can start flying American flags over your government buildings and sending the US Government a portion of your taxable income.

History has shown that the only thing more certain than China's implosion is Russia's implosion. ;)

I know that the greater the mass an object has, the greater it's gravitational pull, but history hasn't shown China becoming a black hole yet.

Not so much an export, more of a franchise, I would say. ;)

No, export. We're selling ours. :(

No, it's a franchise, jealously guarded from piracy and derivatives with threats from the muscle arm of America using legalese like "Sanctions", "Regime change", "agent Orange", "Insurgency funding" and "Blackwater" if the victi- I mean would be competitors, fail to destroy their copy and adopt American brand "Freedom and Democracy"

Well, this has just cost Obama the election.

Yea, people in the USA don't really care what people outside of the USA think we should vote for in our elections.

Next up: Osama makes another tape saying that if we elect Mc. Cain, that the terrorist attacks will continue, thus sealing Obama fate to lose the election.

Well, this has just cost Obama the election.

Yea, people in the USA don't really care what people outside of the USA think we should vote for in our elections.

Next up: Osama makes another tape saying that if we elect Mc. Cain, that the terrorist attacks will continue, thus sealing Obama fate to lose the election.

The problem is that Osama failed to deliver something big and meaty in terms of death count of Americans when Bush was re-elected. Added to his failure to release another tape going "Ha ha ha! I told you so!"

The problem is that Osama failed to deliver something big and meaty in terms of death count of Americans when Bush was re-elected. Added to his failure to release another tape going "Ha ha ha! I told you so!"

I think he's dead. Wasn't he on Dialysis awhile back?

I think he's dead. Wasn't he on Dialysis awhile back?

Yeah, he was. But it doesn't matter. He or his subordinates should have prepared something big and meaty to deliver on the threat. The death count, especially if it took place widespread in less developed areas, would have served as the brutal shock needed to jolt people out of their "nothing can happen to us while Bush is raping our rights" mentality.

If it seems cold blooded, it's because I'm feeling rather sick and tired of humanity in general right now, frittering away their rights and responsibilities like so much garbage while behaving like lemmings.

Yeah, he was. But it doesn't matter. He or his subordinates should have prepared something big and meaty to deliver on the threat. The death count, especially if it took place widespread in less developed areas, would have served as the brutal shock needed to jolt people out of their "nothing can happen to us while Bush is raping our rights" mentality.

If it seems cold blooded, it's because I'm feeling rather sick and tired of humanity in general right now, frittering away their rights and responsibilities like so much garbage while behaving like lemmings.

*points towards couch*

Tell Wilgrove all about it so that he may laugh at you, tell you to man up, and realize that society, life, and humanity as a whole suck.

Of course we support Obama. After all, us non-Americans are all liberal commie muslims who dedicate our sinful days to endless sodomy, aborting babies and defecating on bibles rather than to properly analyzing the issues. Of course we'd support the satanic Democrats rather than the party of solid Christian morality:p

Show of hands: who is surprised?
Not me.

As John Oliver says, the US is the only voting country in the world where Obama has to struggle to get elected. And probably the only one where someone sympathetic to creationism would get anywhere near political office.

It is insane watching your guys' election.

I think he's dead. Wasn't he on Dialysis awhile back?

Are you talking about bin Ladin or McCain?

In some ways, America strikes me as a "teenager" of a nation, going through that annoying contrary phase of life in which the teenager will reflexively contradict anything said by anybody who is older or more experienced.

If older nations suggest that Obama might be a better leader, America will reflexively insist that we don't need nobody telling us what to do, and what do they know anyhow? They aren't us, they don't know us, they aren't the boss of us!!

That sounds swell. And while you're at it, you can start flying American flags over your government buildings and sending the US Government a portion of your taxable income.

I thought we did that already?

In some ways, America strikes me as a "teenager" of a nation, going through that annoying contrary phase of life in which the teenager will reflexively contradict anything said by anybody who is older or more experienced.

If older nations suggest that Obama might be a better leader, America will reflexively insist that we don't need nobody telling us what to do, and what do they know anyhow? They aren't us, they don't know us, they aren't the boss of us!!So if Germany or Canada told Americans, they would do it?

That sounds swell. And while you're at it, you can start flying American flags over your government buildings and sending the US Government a portion of your taxable income.

Australians aren't into flying flags the same way Americans are. I find it ironic that American companies in Australia, eg McDonalds, are more into flying Australian flags than Australians are. I mean, if Australia and America went to war (not that it's likely) whose side would McDonalds be on?

I'd prefer to see American flags flying at McDonalds. At least that would be honest.

So if Germany or Canada told Americans, they would do it?
Canada is our better-behaved step brother who gets straight A's all the time. Fuck him.

Germany, meanwhile, is the Sterling Reformed Cousin. She was a bit of a rebel and got into some serious trouble in her youth, but has since reformed a great deal and has become a model citizen of whom the grownups are begrudgingly proud.

*points towards couch*

Tell Wilgrove all about it so that he may laugh at you, tell you to man up, and realize that society, life, and humanity as a whole suck.

Why would I tell you about it when you know about it anyway? The current social inertia is towards lack of personal responsibility, anti-knowledge, and pro-bigotry while fueled by a constant drive for unrestricted consumption. There's nothing really out there that's capable of stopping it short of the immediate prospect of widespread, unavoidable destruction.

If Osama wanted to destroy America, he could have just sat back and watched the fireworks 20-30 years down the line while the Americans did it for him, since by the time their short sightedness allowed them to see where they're going, it's too late.

Not that the short sightedness is solely an American province, but I digress.

I mean, if Australia and America went to war (not that it's likely) whose side would McDonalds be on?McDonalds would pack up before that happened, just like in Serbia before NATO bombed them.

I mean, if Australia and America went to war (not that it's likely) whose side would McDonalds be on?


The side with the most money. Their flag would be the dollar sign, or golden M.

Now Bin Ladin may be thoroughly ebil but he's no dill so one must assume that he wanted people to vote for Bush.

Bin Ladin - smarter than your average American.

Of course Osama wanted Bush to win. If Kerry had won, he would have gone after Osama almost himself, and Osama would have been taken out swiftly and without much fuss. Whereas Bush has been dancing around for seven years. Osama is rolling around in laughter that American's were stupid* enough to elect Bush again.

Let's look at the facts...

Osama attacked US citizens on US soil, killing thousands. Seven years later (from tomorrow actually), he is still running free, not even feeling any kind of punishment at all. What does this say to prospective terrorists? Nothing more than you can kill thousands of US citizens on US soil and get completely away with it because Americans are a bunch of softcocks* who care more about internal politics than genuniely important things, like international relations (with which Obama is damn near an expert in, and McCain and Palin are n00bs in).


*These are just generalisations, since Bush had to have had some kind of majority to get elected, so it can be fairly said that the 'majority' of American's fit this generalisation. People who don't vote aren't included since their voices are mute politically.

Honestly I don't give a flying squirrel poop what the world wants. Since they don't live here their opinion is meaningless.

That doesn't mean Obama is or is not the right choice, but anyone who votes for him because "the world favors him" is an idiot. Vote for him, if you do, because he is the right choice. If the fact he is viewed with favor in other parts of the world is important in your choice as to what is right for America, then fine, but don't let that be the ONLY reason you choose him.

I'm sure the Socialist Party of America's candidate would also be viewed with favor in many parts of the world, but who is gonna vote for him because of it?

Honestly I don't give a flying squirrel poop what the world wants. Since they don't live here their opinion is meaningless
A good thing then that the US has no part in world affairs whatsoever.

Honestly I don't give a flying squirrel poop what the world wants. Since they don't live here their opinion is meaningless.

That doesn't mean Obama is or is not the right choice, but anyone who votes for him because "the world favors him" is an idiot. Vote for him, if you do, because he is the right choice. If the fact he is viewed with favor in other parts of the world is important in your choice as to what is right for America, then fine, but don't let that be the ONLY reason you choose him.

I'm sure the Socialist Party of America's candidate would also be viewed with favor in many parts of the world, but who is gonna vote for him because of it?

A good thing then that the US has no part in world affairs whatsoever.

And oddly enough, we seem to have no problem interjecting opinion, money and occasionally even covert operatives into other countries' elections. ;)

Honestly I don't give a flying squirrel poop what the world wants. Since they don't live here their opinion is meaningless.

That doesn't mean Obama is or is not the right choice, but anyone who votes for him because "the world favors him" is an idiot. Vote for him, if you do, because he is the right choice. If the fact he is viewed with favor in other parts of the world is important in your choice as to what is right for America, then fine, but don't let that be the ONLY reason you choose him.

I'm sure the Socialist Party of America's candidate would also be viewed with favor in many parts of the world, but who is gonna vote for him because of it?

Given that I often shit-stir Americans here you may find what I am about to say a tad ironic.

America does have a leadership role among western nations. One of the great frustrations in recent years has been the deplorable leadership it has displayed. Obama offers the possibility of 1) a change in direction; and 2) as a Kenyan American, a voice for those people in the world (not just America) that haven't been heard before.

I suspect people outside America hope that Americans can treat their leadership role seriously.

McCain's likable, Palin is the big distraction that The Republican Party hopes Americans will be dumb enough to vote for. Obama is the one most likely to pull America out of the hole it's in. But he's a black man and that's a big strike against him in the eyes of many American voters. His alleged "lack of experience" is a smokescreen for that salient fact.
Just imagine if this generation of Americans put a black man into the White House!
Now that really would say something real about American democracy!

Honestly I don't give a flying squirrel poop what the world wants. Since they don't live here their opinion is meaningless.

In that case, what the fuck made you think LBJ, God curse his soul for eternity, had a right to interfere in the Brazilian politics and favor the dictatorship?

The world will only stop having a right to interfere in America's politics when America stops pretending to have the right to interfere in the world's! 9/11 is the anniversary of one of the biggest murder moments in history all right, as it was on that day in 1973 that Chile lost its democracy with AMERICAN SUPPORT!

A good question would be where Israel stands on all this... Since Israel is very divided (like America) between conservatives and liberals I say it'd be interesting. I suppose I could get a general idea when I visit some of my extended family in Israel this summer... The problem is that the elections will already be over and done with and Obama or McCain's policies to that point will possibly change opinions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7606100.stm

Show of hands: who is surprised?
Only the functionally retarded wouldn't have expected this.
The sad thing is, I suspect this will actually negatively impact Obama, because if there's one thing my fellow Americans tend to have, it's disdain for world opinion. :(
And if he wins, he will dash a lot of hopes. The US State Department is not going to change overnight, and hence nor will its take on What To Do About Them Ferrrrrrners.

On the other hand Heikoku 2, they saved Australia's backside at the Battle of the Coral Sea during World War 2.
We can list all of America's Vietnams, Cubas and Iraqs (and there are plenty!) but they were the country that pulled off the world's first democratic revolution in 1776 - imperfect though it was.
Having been there last year as a critical Aussie, I found myself falling in love with the States. I was in Boston when the Red Socks won the World Series and the whole town turned out for the victory parade. I drove all around California and it felt like home (and I don't just mean hot and dry like Australia!). I loved New York - (Hint stay at the Queens YMCA - it's cheap accommodation!)
Two things that need fixing urgently there - the amount of homelessness (especially among erx-military that the Bush administration neglects shamelessly) and the Kyoto protocols (for God's sake America - sign the damn thing and do something about the pollution that's chocking your country!)

Only the functionally retarded wouldn't have expected this.

And if he wins, he will dash a lot of hopes. The US State Department is not going to change overnight, and hence nor will its take on What To Do About Them Ferrrrrrners.
Actually, the US State Department could very well change overnight, as the departments under executive branch control are all presidential appointees and hires and can be, and often are, changed out by new incoming presidents. The State Department is not an independent and co-equal branch of the government that does what it wants without regard to the president's wishes.

Maybe what you meant to say is that the situations the US is tangled up in are not going to change overnight and, thus, it is unlikely that immediate and total change in what is happening around the world will magically happen the day after Obama's inauguration. But really, to use your words, "only the functionally retarded" would expect otherwise.

When the world starts choosing our Presidents, or if the world wanted what's best for the American people, then I might give a damn what it wants. Until then, I don't. Why should I?

When the world starts choosing our Presidents, or if the world wanted what's best for the American people, then I might give a damn what it wants. Until then, I don't. Why should I?

Because America's wealth and security depends, among other things, on how it negotiates its way with the rest of the world. Manage those relationships well and you will be better off.

When the world starts choosing our Presidents, or if the world wanted what's best for the American people, then I might give a damn what it wants. Until then, I don't. Why should I?Considering that we reelected Bush when the world was favoring Kerry, perhaps one of your criteria has been met.

Actually, the US State Department could very well change overnight, as the departments under executive branch control are all presidential appointees and hires and can be, and often are, changed out by new incoming presidents. The State Department is not an independent and co-equal branch of the government that does what it wants without regard to the president's wishes.
Aye but Joe Biden picked as VP (sigh), is there anyone much other than Hillary who he could put in charge of the State Department? Not to mention the fact that some of the things that a lot of us in Europe find extremely distateful, for example the whole Gitmo lark, is not going to change if and when Obama gets into power.
Maybe what you meant to say is that the situations the US is tangled up in are not going to change overnight and, thus, it is unlikely that immediate and total change in what is happening around the world will magically happen the day after Obama's inauguration. But really, to use your words, "only the functionally retarded" would expect otherwise.
Actually, if (and this is increasingly a big 'if') Obama wins, I reckon that there will be an extremely quick, if short lived, change in relations between Europe and the US. On the other hand, this will die as soon as everyone remembers that he's not the man running the country, and that his government is big business' bitch, but there we go.

When the world starts choosing our Presidents, or if the world wanted what's best for the American people, then I might give a damn what it wants. Until then, I don't. Why should I?
Because, for one reason, ignorance of the ramifications of America's impact on the world partly caused the deaths of several thousand people 7 years ago tomorrow.

Like it or not, the US is part of a little plane we called Earth. If you haven't been keeping an eye on the news for the last eight years or so, US foreign policy has had a dramatic effect on the world, and acknowledging that would be appreciated.

Actually, if (and this is increasingly a big 'if') Obama wins, I reckon that there will be an extremely quick, if short lived, change in relations between Europe and the US. On the other hand, this will die as soon as everyone remembers that he's not the man running the country, and that his government is big business' bitch, but there we go.
Or when he makes good on his promise to demand America's allies do their fair share of work in the world.

Aye but Joe Biden picked as VP (sigh), is there anyone much other than Hillary who he could put in charge of the State Department?
Yes, plenty of people. Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton are not the only people connected to Washington with foreign relations experience.

Not to mention the fact that some of the things that a lot of us in Europe find extremely distateful, for example the whole Gitmo lark, is not going to change if and when Obama gets into power.
How do you know that?

Actually, if (and this is increasingly a big 'if') Obama wins, I reckon that there will be an extremely quick, if short lived, change in relations between Europe and the US. On the other hand, this will die as soon as everyone remembers that he's not the man running the country, and that his government is big business' bitch, but there we go.
Oh, so your statements about how the US State Department were not based on any actual knowledge of the US State Department (which I'd already guessed), but were just a dramatic way of you expressing your personal cynicism. Okay, fine.

Whoever gets in will be better than that buffoon who is presently in The White House

Whoever gets in will be better than that buffoon who is presently in The White House
Bite your tongue. You've probably just jinxed us, and now we -- and you -- will be cursed with a (*shudder*) President Palin.

How do you know that?
Because Obama hasn't (to my knowledge) made any mention of closing Guantanamo Bay prison camp, and has repeatedly made mentions that he will keep on with T.W.A.T. Moreover, he's very keen (as is any mainstream US politician) of maintaining 'American leadership' in the world; i.e. keeping US forces stationed in strategic positions around the globe.

The man might not go about it in such a dickish way as has been done in the last eight years, but he's certainly not going to change tack on US foreign policy for the past 50 years.

I'd love to be shown how the above isn't the case, but I don't think I'll see that happening.

Aren'y you American readers intrigued to know why these postings have Irish, Scottish, Brazillians and Australians wanting Obama?
It's because we're sick and tired of wearing "I'm with Stupid" t-shirts while standing next to our American allies. (giggle)!

Whoever gets in will be better than that buffoon who is presently in The White HouseI used to think so, and to some degree still do, but much of it has caved due to McCain's VP pick. Either it's an example of poor judgement on his behalf (He was just in Ohio praising his fight against pork spending, one of which was his VPs pet project bridge) or it's proof that McCain hasn't got what it takes to remove the leash of whomever is running things in the GOP.

Or when he makes good on his promise to demand America's allies do their fair share of work in the world.
We already do in the war in Afghanistan, more than our share. We don't in Iraq because that's not our thing.
Yes, plenty of people. Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton are not the only people connected to Washington with foreign relations experience.
That Obama is ideologically similar to and feels that he can trust?
How do you know that?
Because Evil Baddie Terrorists are too good a scapegoat to let go, especially when they can't fight back? He's already talked about officially going into Pakistan to clear out the Taliban, looks like he's aiming for the "convince the stupids that baddies will attack us" line to me.
Oh, so your statements about how the US State Department were not based on any actual knowledge of the US State Department (which I'd already guessed), but were just a dramatic way of you expressing your personal cynicism. Okay, fine.
I'm just very skeptical that things will stay good if Obama gets in. If McCain gets in, it'll be business as usual from the word go. If Obama gets in, he'll be given a bit of an easy time for a couple of months, but unless he really does change US foreign policy in some kind of very rapid and revolutionary action (and for most of Europe, this means 'get the fuck out of Iraq sharpish' rather than anything much else) then nothing is going to change.

And aye, I'm a bit cynical about the whole affair.

Because Obama hasn't (to my knowledge) made any mention of closing Guantanamo Bay prison camp, and has repeatedly made mentions that he will keep on with T.W.A.T. Moreover, he's very keen (as is any mainstream US politician) of maintaining 'American leadership' in the world; i.e. keeping US forces stationed in strategic positions around the globe.

The man might not go about it in such a dickish way as has been done in the last eight years, but he's certainly not going to change tack on US foreign policy for the past 50 years.

I'd love to be shown how the above isn't the case, but I don't think I'll see that happening.
Really? I've heard him talk about closing GITMO. And anyway, Bush made the political move of initiating the (disgracefully slow) process of "phasing out" GITMO already, so all the next president has to do is let it happen, and maybe speed the process a bit by putting together a Justice Department that will actually make an effort not to impede the merging of the GITMO cases into the regular US legal system (for a change).

(By the way, in case you miss the connection, Bush announcing (a good while ago) that GITMO's days were numbered essentially killed the closing of GITMO as a Democratic election point, because the Dem candidate saying he would close GITMO can now be countered with, "Oh, yeah? Well Bush beat you to it and he's a Republican, neener-neener.")

And what does not wanting to close established US bases overseas have to do with GITMO?

We already do in the war in Afghanistan, more than our share. We don't in Iraq because that's not our thing.Depends on the allies. Neu Leonstein constantly berates Germany for sticking to the safe zones in Afghanistan, which is true. Also, most Germans didn't enjoy it when he hinted at it in his speech at the Siegessäule.

Bite your tongue. You've probably just jinxed us, and now we -- and you -- will be cursed with a (*shudder*) President Palin.

You may be right Muravyets. I'm sure that bookmakers would be happy to take bets on McCain and/or Obama dying in office (McCain from something age-related and Obama from a Redneck assassin's bullet).

Because America's wealth and security depends, among other things, on how it negotiates its way with the rest of the world. Manage those relationships well and you will be better off.

Considering that we reelected Bush when the world was favoring Kerry, perhaps one of your criteria has been met.

Because, for one reason, ignorance of the ramifications of America's impact on the world partly caused the deaths of several thousand people 7 years ago tomorrow.

Like it or not, the US is part of a little plane we called Earth. If you haven't been keeping an eye on the news for the last eight years or so, US foreign policy has had a dramatic effect on the world, and acknowledging that would be appreciated.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an isolationist, nor do I think we should ignore the world around us.

What I'm saying is that the opinions of the world outside the USA will favor whichever candidate is best for THEIR interests, not ours. This is perfectly natural and I have no problem with it. It does mean, however, that what's in THEIR best interest isn't necessarily what's in OUR best interest.

I mean, it's not like France, in its recent elections, asked the world who we all though they should elect as President. Why should they? The French people are the ones who decide what's in France's bets interest, not the rest of us. Why should it be any different with the US?

Depends on the allies. Neu Leonstein constantly berates Germany for sticking to the safe zones in Afghanistan, which is true.
Not entirely surprising, though.

You've got a grand coalition between Merkel, who seems to want to punch Bush in the face every time they meet, and the SPD, whose whole 'die neue Mitte' thing basically means "hurrah for European and vaguely green ideals, fuck the Yanks, because that's what very smug middle class people like", combined with an underfunded professional part of the military 60% made up of undereducated Ossies, an undertrained conscript army and a post-WW2 'erk a war, let's not get involved or they'll say we're hunting out Jews or something' kind of attitude.

The political will is not there, and nor is the military capability.
Also, most Germans didn't enjoy it when he hinted at it in his speech at the Siegessäule.
Quite.

That Obama is ideologically similar to and feels that he can trust?
Yeah, people he and Biden have worked with for years. Biden wasn't all alone on the Foreign Relations Committee, you know.

Because Evil Baddie Terrorists are too good a scapegoat to let go, especially when they can't fight back? He's already talked about officially going into Pakistan to clear out the Taliban, looks like he's aiming for the "convince the stupids that baddies will attack us" line to me.
Uh-huh. I see. So, you're just deciding (all on your own) that every US politician is exactly the same as all the others and they all do the exact same things in the exact same way. I guess that must be why the US is in exactly the same condition and position now, after 8 years of Bush II, as it was after 8 years of Clinton I.

Oh, wait...it isn't. Hm...

I'm just very skeptical that things will stay good if Obama gets in. If McCain gets in, it'll be business as usual from the word go. If Obama gets in, he'll be given a bit of an easy time for a couple of months, but unless he really does change US foreign policy in some kind of very rapid and revolutionary action (and for most of Europe, this means 'get the fuck out of Iraq sharpish' rather than anything much else) then nothing is going to change.

And aye, I'm a bit cynical about the whole affair.
Yeah, well, I'm in the trenches of the fight right here, and your skepticism doesn't mean jack to me if you don't have any facts or experience to base it on. It just makes you yet another nattering nabob who is more interested in what comes out of his own head than what's in front of his own eyes.

I agree that, if McCain wins, we will likely just get another 4 years of Bush II, but I base that pessimism on the fact that McCain's proposed policies are identical to Bush's and the political team he is building for himself is comprised of former Bush team members.

The same cannot be said of Obama, so as far as I'm concerned there is no basis for asserting, as if it is a foregone conclusion, that not only would Obama not make any difference, he wouldn't even try to.

Dear Neo B,
Obviously you are right in saying:
"Don't get me wrong, I'm not an isolationist, nor do I think we should ignore the world around us.

What I'm saying is that the opinions of the world outside the USA will favor whichever candidate is best for THEIR interests, not ours. This is perfectly natural and I have no problem with it. It does mean, however, that what's in THEIR best interest isn't necessarily what's in OUR best interest. "
America's critics include those who believe that, in some ways, the US should be more isolationist. In being the world's policeman it has ruined its economy. China is surging ahead.
It has ruined its world standing - How many americans try to pass themselves off as Canadians while travelling overseas?
It's alientated some of its oldest allies (Remember nice old Mr Rumfeld's jibe at Germany and France - "Old Europe" and it's seen of threeof its allies in Iraq (the Prime Minisrters of Spain, Britain and Australia.)

Yeah, people he and Biden have worked with for years. Biden wasn't all alone on the Foreign Relations Committee, you know.
Fair enough.
Uh-huh. I see. So, you're just deciding (all on your own) that every US politician is exactly the same as all the others and they all do the exact same things in the exact same way.
No, I'm not.

I'm just saying that having a scapegoat which has absolutely no means of fighting back is not something to throw away, especially in the aftermath of what is going to be a close race. Doesn't matter who wins, there will probably be some national crisis of some kind to bring both sides together, as happened with 9/11.
I guess that must be why the US is in exactly the same condition and position now, after 8 years of Bush II, as it was after 8 years of Clinton I.

Oh, wait...it isn't. Hm...
Yes, remember kids, very scapegoating is exactly the same as ludicrous economic wastage to benefit your weathy chums...
I agree that, if McCain wins, we will likely just get another 4 years of Bush II, but I base that pessimism on the fact that McCain's proposed policies are identical to Bush's and the political team he is building for himself is comprised of former Bush team members.

The same cannot be said of Obama, so as far as I'm concerned there is no basis for asserting, as if it is a foregone conclusion, that not only would Obama not make any difference, he wouldn't even try to.
That Obama is going to change some elements of US foreign policy, at least cosmetically, is pretty much a given. That he'll change enough to keep the EU on-side is what's going to be interesting to see.

Not entirely surprising, though.

You've got a grand coalition between Merkel, who seems to want to punch Bush in the face every time they meet...I highly doubt that. They get along rather well, it seems, though perhaps not as well as back when this happened (http://www.eulenspiegel-zeitschrift.de/Download/Hintergrundbilder/praktikantin.jpg).
Err... I mean when this happened (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A32835-2003Feb19&notFound=true%3Cbr%20/%3E).

Fair enough.

No, I'm not.

I'm just saying that having a scapegoat which has absolutely no means of fighting back is not something to throw away, especially in the aftermath of what is going to be a close race. Doesn't matter who wins, there will probably be some national crisis of some kind to bring both sides together, as happened with 9/11.

Yes, remember kids, very scapegoating is exactly the same as ludicrous economic wastage to benefit your weathy chums...
So...then it's not just random deciding that you're doing...you're actually exercising psychic powers to predict the future? Well that provides a much stronger foundation for your remarks. Makes them way less subjective. Mmm-hm. And how.

That Obama is going to change some elements of US foreign policy, at least cosmetically, is pretty much a given. That he'll change enough to keep the EU on-side is what's going to be interesting to see.
Backing down from your original position that Obama would keep on doing the same as Bush has done, eh? Wise move.

I highly doubt that. They get along rather well, it seems, though perhaps not as well as back when this happened (http://www.eulenspiegel-zeitschrift.de/Download/Hintergrundbilder/praktikantin.jpg).
Err... I mean when this happened (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A32835-2003Feb19&notFound=true%3Cbr%20/%3E).
Eh whenever I see her with him on the news she looks super uneasy, and that one time when he clasped her shoulders, I swear she was about to get some leet kung-fu moves out.

Dear Neo B,
Obviously you are right in saying:

"Don't get me wrong, I'm not an isolationist, nor do I think we should ignore the world around us.

What I'm saying is that the opinions of the world outside the USA will favor whichever candidate is best for THEIR interests, not ours. This is perfectly natural and I have no problem with it. It does mean, however, that what's in THEIR best interest isn't necessarily what's in OUR best interest. "
America's critics include those who believe that, in some ways, the US should be more isolationist. In being the world's policeman it has ruined its economy. China is surging ahead.
It has ruined its world standing - How many americans try to pass themselves off as Canadians while travelling overseas?
It's alientated some of its oldest allies (Remember nice old Mr Rumfeld's jibe at Germany and France - "Old Europe" and it's seen of threeof its allies in Iraq (the Prime Minisrters of Spain, Britain and Australia.)

I agree that our standing has suffered. At the same time, One must remember that Americans do know this. We know our decisions aren't always going to be popular ones but it's not like our popularity is of the highest importance.

America's critics have a wide variety of motives. I'm sure there are some who do honestly have our best interests at heart but it's still our decision to make. I think the majority do not, and they shouldn't. Every critic has his or her own country to think of.

Eh whenever I see her with him on the news she looks super uneasy, and that one time when he clasped her shoulders, I swear she was about to get some leet kung-fu moves out.That's mainly because he lacks tact and entered her bubble of comfort when he shouldn't have, not because they don't get along. Cultural difference.

So...then it's not just random deciding that you're doing...you're actually exercising psychic powers to predict the future? Well that provides a much stronger foundation for your remarks. Makes them way less subjective. Mmm-hm. And how.
Yes, that's the power of looking at the last 16 years of US politics and projecting it forward like some kind of crazy repeating thing.
Backing down from your original position that Obama would keep on doing the same as Bush has done, eh? Wise move.
Aye, sorry, am full of paint fumes at the moment and hence slightly high and generally very befuddled.

That's mainly because he lacks tact and entered her bubble of comfort when he shouldn't have, not because they don't get along. Cultural difference.
Pfft, maybe that's what The Economist says...

Yes, that's the power of looking at the last 16 years of US politics and projecting it forward like some kind of crazy repeating thing.
"16 years." So... you do think the US is exactly the same now after 8 years of Bush II as it was after 8 years of Clinton I? The same rhetoric, the same foreign policy, the same standing in the world, the same relations with allies, the same wars, the same economic condition, the same employment rates, etc? Really? Seriously, you need to have a talk with your UK media, then, because they are not giving you good information.

Aye, sorry, am full of paint fumes at the moment and hence slightly high and generally very befuddled.
Do yourself a serious favor and open some windows. Trust me, I know. (mmm....paint solvents...)

Pfft, maybe that's what The Economist says...Nah, Bush was just applying the "Guy you'd have a beer with" idea that got him elected, which shows just how incompetent guys you'd have beer with are at being Presidents and why you should never ever make that your criteria for voting someone into office.

"16 years." So... you do think the US is exactly the same now after 8 years of Bush II as it was after 8 years of Clinton I?
No.
The same rhetoric
It's slightly different, but not all that much.
the same foreign policy
Not quite.
the same standing in the world
Yes.
the same relations with allies
Same relations, yes, same allies, mostly.
the same wars
No. Same climate of fear? Yes.
the same economic condition
No, as I said.
the same employment rates
By and large, mostly.
etc?
Mainly :p
Do yourself a serious favor and open some windows. Trust me, I know. (mmm....paint solvents...)
Yeah, have been painting both the shed and also my room. Have all of my windows open, but it's very still outside, so not much ventilation is going on.
Nah, Bush was just applying the "Guy you'd have a beer with" idea that got him elected, which shows just how incompetent guys you'd have beer with are at being Presidents and why you should never ever make that your criteria for voting someone into office.
Quite.

On the other hand Heikoku 2, they saved Australia's backside at the Battle of the Coral Sea during World War 2.
We can list all of America's Vietnams, Cubas and Iraqs (and there are plenty!) but they were the country that pulled off the world's first democratic revolution in 1776 - imperfect though it was.
Having been there last year as a critical Aussie, I found myself falling in love with the States. I was in Boston when the Red Socks won the World Series and the whole town turned out for the victory parade. I drove all around California and it felt like home (and I don't just mean hot and dry like Australia!). I loved New York - (Hint stay at the Queens YMCA - it's cheap accommodation!)
Two things that need fixing urgently there - the amount of homelessness (especially among erx-military that the Bush administration neglects shamelessly) and the Kyoto protocols (for God's sake America - sign the damn thing and do something about the pollution that's chocking your country!)

Never denied anything you say here, but my point remains that if the US doesn't want the world to have a say in its elections, then it needs to stop fantasizing it has the right to change regimes and mess with other countries.

No.

It's slightly different, but not all that much.

Not quite.

Yes.

Same relations, yes, same allies, mostly.

No. Same climate of fear? Yes.

No, as I said.

By and large, mostly.

Mainly :p

Indeed? Well, that's very much at odds with my experience from the US side. What I saw was 8 years of relative economic stability ending in a historic federal budget surplus after Clinton, but an imploding economy and a record federal deficit after Bush.

I saw lots of diplomatic missions and international negotiations under Clinton, but nothing but ridicule for the idea of diplomacy, threats and escalations of conflict under Bush.

I saw a US that had no USAPATRIOT Act under Clinton, but one that does have such a thing as well as a GITMO under Bush.

I saw a flawed, not all that honest, in fact rather corrupt, but still recognizably American administration under Clinton. I see a growing trend towards fascism and hostility towards the Constitution, rule of law, and democracy itself under Bush.

If my view is not in keeping with the facts, I am sure you can find the facts from the British media that are the basis for your view, but which I was never shown in the US media. Because, obviously, you're not just talking out your ass.

Take your time. Finish your painting and then go find that information for me.

EDIT: In fact, take until tomorrow, because I'm going out for the rest of the day/evening. That should give you enough time to find the data for your assertion the US's position and relation to the world is the same now as it was 9 or 10 years ago.

I agree that our standing has suffered. At the same time, One must remember that Americans do know this. We know our decisions aren't always going to be popular ones but it's not like our popularity is of the highest importance.

Screw popularity, it's about being WRONG!

YOU! DO NOT! HAVE! THE RIGHT! TO INVADE! OTHER COUNTRIES! UNPROVOKED!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an isolationist, nor do I think we should ignore the world around us.

What I'm saying is that the opinions of the world outside the USA will favor whichever candidate is best for THEIR interests, not ours. This is perfectly natural and I have no problem with it. It does mean, however, that what's in THEIR best interest isn't necessarily what's in OUR best interest.
Well, blame that on your poopy notion of US and THEM.

Screw popularity, it's about being WRONG!

YOU! DO NOT! HAVE! THE RIGHT! TO INVADE! OTHER COUNTRIES! UNPROVOKED!

That's true.

So which country did we invade unprovoked since Vietnam? (Which I admit was not good.)

I dare you to say Iraq or Afghanistan. Say it.

Well, blame that on your poopy notion of US and THEM.

Please. Every country thinks this way.

That's true.

So which country did we invade unprovoked since Vietnam? (Which I admit was not good.)

I dare you to say Iraq or Afghanistan. Say it.

Iraq.

:tongue:

That's true.

So which country did we invade unprovoked since Vietnam? (Which I admit was not good.)

I dare you to say Iraq or Afghanistan. Say it.

IRAQ!

There, I said it. In size 10, capped and bolded for your convenience.

I dare you to come up with evidence of WMDs, let alone an attack that would be the provocation. Do it.

That's true.

So which country did we invade unprovoked since Vietnam? (Which I admit was not good.)

I dare you to say Iraq or Afghanistan. Say it.
Saddam shooting his rifle from his balcony while shouting "Death to America!" doesn't count as a provocation.

Iraq.

IRAQ!

There, I said it. In size 10, capped and bolded for your convenience.

I dare you to come up with evidence of WMDs, let alone an attack that would be the provocation. Do it.

Sure, no problem, since it wasn't about WMDs. (Don't believe me? Go get a transcript of Bush's speech to Congress to get authorization to attack. WMDs were just one of many reasons.)

How about the fact that:
-Saddam Hussein was in violation of almost every single provision of the treaty that ended the first Gulf War. These treaty provisions were enforceable by Military response and were backed by the authority of the UN.
-Iraq constantly firing on allied patrol aircraft over the no-fly zones, legally established and enforced by UN and NATO provisions.
-Consistent and growing refusal to allow duly authorized UN inspectors access to Iraqi facilities and industry to verify their treaty compliance, culminating twice in UN inspectors being forced to leave the country.
-Continuing human rights atrocities committed within Iraq, especially against the Kurds in northern Iraq who were victims of an effort at genocide, including the use of chemical weapons.

Really? I've heard him talk about closing GITMO.
As I said, I'd love to be proven wrong.

And what does not wanting to close established US bases overseas have to do with GITMO?
Little directly, I'm just making the point (backing up Yootopia's) that a lot of us overseas, although we prefer Obama to Bush or McCain, aren't holding out for Obama's 'change' to encompass a total change in the foreign policy of the US.



Please. Every country thinks this way.
Countries don't think.

And many people in many countries don't think in the above way.

Sure, no problem, since it wasn't about WMDs. (Don't believe me? Go get a transcript of Bush's speech to Congress to get authorization to attack. WMDs were just one of many reasons.)

How about the fact that:
-Saddam Hussein was in violation of almost every single provision of the treaty that ended the first Gulf War. These treaty provisions were enforceable by Military response and were backed by the authority of the UN.
-Iraq constantly firing on allied patrol aircraft over the no-fly zones, legally established and enforced by UN and NATO provisions.
-Consistent and growing refusal to allow duly authorized UN inspectors access to Iraqi facilities and industry to verify their treaty compliance, culminating twice in UN inspectors being forced to leave the country.
-Continuing human rights atrocities committed within Iraq, especially against the Kurds in northern Iraq who were victims of an effort at genocide, including the use of chemical weapons.

You keep mentioning the UN. So they sanctioned the invasion?

Indeed? Well, that's very much at odds with my experience from the US side. What I saw was 8 years of relative economic stability ending in a historic federal budget surplus after Clinton, but an imploding economy and a record federal deficit after Bush.
Yeah, I did actually say the economy was very different under Clinton, had you read what I'd said ;)
I saw lots of diplomatic missions and international negotiations under Clinton
Yep.
but nothing but ridicule for the idea of diplomacy, threats and escalations of conflict under Bush.
Somalia, Haiti, Iraq and Iran amongst others much?
I saw a US that had no USAPATRIOT Act under Clinton
He made what Bush got away with in USAPATRIOT possible by extending federal police powers and making it much easier to get wiretapping and electronic surveillance warrants after Oklahoma.
but one that does have such a thing as well as a GITMO under Bush.
Very true.
I saw a flawed, not all that honest, in fact rather corrupt, but still recognizably American administration under Clinton. I see a growing trend towards fascism and hostility towards the Constitution, rule of law, and democracy itself under Bush.
I'd agree with that, I didn't say that the two leaders were the same. Indeed I admire Clinton's handling of the economy and a lot of what he did on the world stage, even if Rwanda was a collosal fuckup. I don't have anything so kind to say about Bush.

Sure, no problem, since it wasn't about WMDs. (Don't believe me? Go get a transcript of Bush's speech to Congress to get authorization to attack. WMDs were just one of many reasons.)

How about the fact that:
-Saddam Hussein was in violation of almost every single provision of the treaty that ended the first Gulf War. These treaty provisions were enforceable by Military response and were backed by the authority of the UN.No, in case you missed it, the UN did not actually back that interpretation.
-Iraq constantly firing on allied patrol aircraft over the no-fly zones, legally established and enforced by UN and NATO provisions.Constantly?
-Consistent and growing refusal to allow duly authorized UN inspectors access to Iraqi facilities and industry to verify their treaty compliance, culminating twice in UN inspectors being forced to leave the country.Scratch that one. That was never a reason for invasion. Bush proved that by forcing the inspectors to withdraw so he could invade.
-Continuing human rights atrocities committed within Iraq, especially against the Kurds in northern Iraq who were victims of an effort at genocide, including the use of chemical weapons.The Kurds were being left alone well before the invasion.

Now which ones of these were direct provocations of the US?

That's true.

So which country did we invade unprovoked since Vietnam? (Which I admit was not good.)

I dare you to say Iraq or Afghanistan. Say it.

Panama.

Or Grenada, whichever you want to talk about.

In that case, what the fuck made you think LBJ, God curse his soul for eternity, had a right to interfere in the Brazilian politics and favor the dictatorship?Exactly where did I say that I think LBJ had a right to do that? Oh, right, NO-FUCKING-WHERE. I don't think he had a right to do it, sorry, try again.

The world will only stop having a right to interfere in America's politics when America stops pretending to have the right to interfere in the world's! 9/11 is the anniversary of one of the biggest murder moments in history all right, as it was on that day in 1973 that Chile lost its democracy with AMERICAN SUPPORT!
I don't necessarily disagree. I see no issue in the U.S. promoting the general principals for freedom and civil rights on a world wide basis, but direct interference in the politics of another nation is something I don't think we generally need to be involved in (except, possibly, when those politics represent a direct threat to the U.S.), and I have never advocated such a thing. However, those countries are free to ignore and reject our notions of freedom and civil rights, just like we are free to ignore and reject their opinion of what we should do and who we should elect.

Dear Neo B,
You really don't have to say "we" mmeaning the US of A and yourself. You really don't have to identify with the US government (Unless you are George W which I'm guessing you are not!)
If you distanced yourself a little, you probably wouldn't feel so beleaguered.

It's extremely unfortunate. Hopefully in time, with a lot of work, American public opinion will change. We should all do what we can do achieve that goal.

We should, but is it financially possible to administer electroshock therapy and partial lobotomies to that many people?

Eh whenever I see her with him on the news she looks super uneasy, and that one time when he clasped her shoulders, I swear she was about to get some leet kung-fu moves out.

That is my beef with Bush and people like him. He just decides he's gonna walk right up and mess with you without knowing who you are or how you might react (I found a lot of that when I lived in Texas). He's a blind bull in a china shop and can't seem to understand personal sovereignty, let alone national.

Panama.

Or Grenada, whichever you want to talk about.

Nicaragua.

What about before Vietnam?

Guatemala
Cuba

Those are just off the top of my head. Check out this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_history_events

Or this one (if you have any faith in the scholarship of Evergreen State College folk):

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

For more literate information, I strongly suggest reading this book:

Blowback (http://books.google.com/books?id=tSrKgv8UIBsC&dq=blowback+chalmers&pg=PP1&ots=WxS95090UE&sig=h4ZSpXTp9ExUZNrQRb36qLbK58o&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result), by Chalmers Johnson.

Freedom and Democracy are our chief exports. ;)

American Freedom and Democracy aren't being exported. They're being outsourced.

That's true.

So which country did we invade unprovoked since Vietnam? (Which I admit was not good.)

I dare you to say Iraq or Afghanistan. Say it.

Invade directly with military force? No.

Undermine by covertly aiding the empowering of less than saintly bastards who sucked on Uncle Sam's cock and subverting the electoral will of foreign populace? Oh Hell Yeah.

Brazil
Cambodia
Chile
Iran
The Philippines

Just to name the most famous examples.

Show of hands: who is surprised?

The sad thing is, I suspect this will actually negatively impact Obama, because if there's one thing my fellow Americans tend to have, it's disdain for world opinion. :(

It should have a negative impact on Obama. Since when do other countries have American best interests in mind? They would love a weak USA and Obama promises that. The Democrats believe the love of the world, which we have never had, will somehow bring about peace. One thing that should have been learned from world history is that weakness and good intentions do not create peace.

Get all angry about all your misunderstood history of the US involvement in the world but, taken as a whole, the USA has been promoter of wealth, freedom, and human rights. No country in the history of the world has been more generous and more giving than us.

As usual, when all the cards are on the table, the downtrodden masses of the world come to the US to find success and freedom. They may follow the herd by bad-mouthing us on foreign soil but when they need a place for their families to grow and prosper they vote with their feet and come to America's shores.

It should have a negative impact on Obama. Since when do other countries have American best interests in mind? They would love a weak USA and Obama promises that.

Source?

The Democrats believe the love of the world, which we have never had, will somehow bring about peace. One thing that should have been learned from world history is that weakness and good intentions do not create peace.

Being the dousche that everyone hates is even worse, however. Especially when you are getting poorer by the day while your "enemies" get richer.

Get all angry about all your misunderstood history of the US involvement in the world but, taken as a whole, the USA has been promoter of wealth, freedom, and human rights. No country in the history of the world has been more generous and more giving than us.

Only to the ignorant and the delusionally nationalistic.

It should have a negative impact on Obama.

So, let's see, you actually believe people should vote against Obama just to spite the world? And that the world should be spited because... well, because they are not you?

You are not worthy of the privilege of talking to me.

I used to think so, and to some degree still do, but much of it has caved due to McCain's VP pick. Either it's an example of poor judgement on his behalf (He was just in Ohio praising his fight against pork spending, one of which was his VPs pet project bridge) or it's proof that McCain hasn't got what it takes to remove the leash of whomever is running things in the GOP.

I'm starting to think the leash holders are the Reptilians.

Brazil

*Raises hand* Ooo! I know where that is!

You are not worthy of the privilege of talking to me.

Im going to steal that line, because its so awesome and so totally arrogant. I fucking love it.

Im going to steal that line, because its so awesome and so totally arrogant. I fucking love it.

Can you add a "To quote Heikoku" when you use it?

Can you add a "To quote Heikoku" when you use it?

On NSG I will. But in real life, probably not, because A) i dont know how to pronounce it and B) No one will know who you are;)

Source?

Source what? That the world wants to see a weaker USA or that Obama is going to weaken the USA? The first is apparent to anyone with a brain and the second one is apparent to anyone who has visited Obama's official website.

Being the dousche that everyone hates is even worse, however. Especially when you are getting poorer by the day while your "enemies" get richer.

If you haven't noticed much of the world is suffering an economic downturn as well as the US. It is almost like there is a global economy or something!

Only to the ignorant and the delusionally nationalistic.

What other country has given more of itself, in blood and treasure, for the benefit of others? It is one thing to have a smart-ass quip and quite another to have it actually be smart.

When the facts support you it is neither ignorant or delusional.

On NSG I will. But in real life, probably not, because A) i dont know how to pronounce it and B) No one will know who you are;)

Agreed.

Source what? That the world wants to see a weaker USA or that Obama is going to weaken the USA? The first is apparent to anyone with a brain and the second one is apparent to anyone who has visited Obama's official website.

And exhibit A through Z on you not being worthy of talking to me.

To be fair, I don't think you're worthy of talking, period.

So, let's see, you actually believe people should vote against Obama just to spite the world? And that the world should be spited because... well, because they are not you?

Why when there are so many other reasons? I don't hold spite against the world I am just mature enough to know they are not looking out for my best interests.

You are not worthy of the privilege of talking to me.

I am sure there are few that are but this is an excellent mechanism to making this all about you. I am sure that this is just another way of attempting to have something to report to the moderators. Such are the ways of the forum Troll.

Enjoy!

And exhibit A through Z on you not being worthy of talking to me.

To be fair, I don't think you're worthy of talking, period.

I almost cried when I read that. Please justify my existence by allowing me to "talk" to you! Please!

I almost cried when I read that. Please justify my existence by allowing me to "talk" to you! Please!

You'll have to find a way to ask God to justify your existence, kid. Because not even I can.

/ignore.

On NSG I will. But in real life, probably not, because A) i dont know how to pronounce it and

hi-KO-koo too

Source what? That the world wants to see a weaker USA or that Obama is going to weaken the USA? The first is apparent to anyone with a brain

So you have no proof outside of a paranoid Us vs Them mentality? Ok.

and the second one is apparent to anyone who has visited Obama's official website.

Again, you have nothing but a "OMG HE WANTS TO ACTUALLY USE DIPLOMACY!!!111!1"

If you haven't noticed much of the world is suffering an economic downturn as well as the US. It is almost like there is a global economy or something!

1. China, India, etc are on the rise.
2. Source that other parts of the west are suffering economic woes to this extent. Of course they might have declined a little. When one of your business partners goes bankrupt your going to feel it a little bit.


What other country has given more of itself, in blood and treasure, for the benefit of others?

Really? For the benefit of others? Really?

Why dont you show me some instances where we did it for the benefit of others rather then for the benefit of ourselves (and usually fucked things up worse in the process)?

Unless, you know, helping with military coups are ignoring the democratic electoral outcome in various countries and then supporting those bloody regimes really was for the benefit of the people that were being tortured and killed.


So, whos the one not being smart?

hi-KO-koo too

Actually "Hey-KO-koo too".

In that case, what the fuck made you think LBJ, God curse his soul for eternity, had a right to interfere in the Brazilian politics and favor the dictatorship?
Because you were like a child and we obviously knew what was best for you.


as it was on that day in 1973 that Chile lost its democracy with AMERICAN SUPPORT!
Better us than the Soviets.

Foreign involvement in Chile during Allende's Term

Soviet involvement

According to the Mitrokhin Archives of KGB files, Allende had been codenamed "LEADER" as a KGB contact, had been supplying the Soviet Union with information since the 1950s, and had received $30,000 from the Soviets for "solidifying trusted relations" and providing "valuable information". KGB archives record that Svyatoslav Kuznetsov, its case officer in Chile, was instructed by headquarters to "exert a favourable influence on Chilean government policy," and that Allende "was made to understand the necessity of reorganising Chile's army and intelligence services, and of setting up a relationship between Chile’s and the USSR’s intelligence services."

"Kuznetsov arranged his regular meetings with Allende through the President’s personal secretary, Miria Contreras Bell, known as La Payita and codenamed Marta by the KGB. La Payita was Allende’s favourite mistress during his presidency. Kuznetsov reported that Allende was spending 'a great deal of time' in her company. 'His relationship with his wife has more than once been harmed as a result.' Despite Allende’s affairs, however, his wife, Hortensia, remained intensely loyal to him. Kuznetsov did his best to cultivate her as well as her husband." (The Times extract from the Mitrokhin Archive volume II, by Mitrokhin and historian Christopher Andrew)[7].

According to Vasili Mitrokhin, a former KGB bureaucrat, regular Soviet contact with Allende after his election was maintained by his KGB case officer, Svyatoslav Kuznetsov, who was instructed by the centre to “exert a favourable influence on Chilean government policy”. According to Allende’s KGB file, he “was made to understand the necessity of reorganising Chile's army and intelligence services, and of setting up a relationship between Chile’s and the USSR’s intelligence services”. Allende was said to react positively.

In October 1971, on instructions from the Politburo, Allende was given $30,000 “in order to solidify the trusted relations” with him. On December 7, in a memorandum to the Politburo, the KGB proposed giving Allende another $60,000 for what was termed “his work with political party leaders, military commanders and parliamentarians.”[35]

According to Christopher Andrew's account of the Mitrokhin archives, "In the KGB’s view, Allende's fundamental error was his unwillingness to use force against his opponents. Without establishing complete control over all the machinery of the State, his hold on power could not be secure.[35]"(Though he may have, with increased bribes in the future, had it not been for the coup. Thank God for the coup)

Because you were like a child and we obviously knew what was best for you.

No, you didn't, no, you never will, and you never had the right. Now go sit in the corner, KID, because you have yet MUCH to learn about what reality is like if you want to actually catch up with the grownups.

Better us than the Soviets.

Better NOBODY than ANYBODY. It was not your right, and I hope the souls of everyone Pinochet and the dictators here ever tortured and murdered, with YOUR approval, come back to haunt you. You support torture and killing, as long as it doesn't happen to your mother, your wife, your sister, and so on. I hope you suffer whatever fate you support on the South Americans that were tortured. I really do. Because that's what you deserve. You deserve EXACTLY the fate you support for them.

The coups in South America were unwarranted atrocities. Anyone who doesn't think so is a moronic idiot that should be exposed to the fates they so callously wished upon the tortured. Supporting the coups is no different from supporting Hitler's power-grab, Stalin's one, the 9/11 attacks and Kim Jong-Il. Whoever supports one supports the others. It's that simple.

Better NOBODY than ANYBODY. It was not your right, and I hope the souls of everyone Pinochet and the dictators here ever tortured and murdered, with YOUR approval, come back to haunt you. You support torture and killing, as long as it doesn't happen to your mother, your wife, your sister, and so on. I hope you suffer whatever fate you support on the South Americans that were tortured. I really do. Because that's what you deserve. You deserve EXACTLY the fate you support for them.

That's not the way the world works, though. Powerful nations don't care about that, what they care about is that their defined sphere of influence is not penetrated by the influence of a rival. If that means condoning torture, repression, genocide, whatever, it will happen and they will willingly allow it to happen.

If anything, it's just a valuable lesson that shows how easily principles can be compromised in the face of reality.

That's not the way the world works, though. Powerful nations don't care about that, what they care about is that their defined sphere of influence is not penetrated by the influence of a rival. If that means condoning torture, repression, genocide, whatever, it will happen and they will willingly allow it to happen.

If anything, it's just a valuable lesson that shows how easily principles can be compromised in the face of reality.

I'm discussing the ethics. And ethically the undeniable facts remain that Allende was elected, and the US had no right to prop that genocidal maniac who I hope has reincarnated as a kid belonging to a couple of pedophiles by the name of Pinochet up.

Better NOBODY than ANYBODY.
Typical response. Maybe on your white-fluffy cloud 9 that constitutes a real response, but when faced with reality, that doesn't mean anything. It was either us or the Soviets. That's how it was. Whether you like that or not means absolutely zero.

It was either us or the Soviets.

No, it wasn't. That's your lie in order to excuse deposing an ELECTED LEADER.

YOU HAD NO RIGHT!

And you deserve exactly what the regimes you support did to their victims.

No, it wasn't. That's your lie in order to excuse deposing an ELECTED LEADER.

YOU HAD NO RIGHT!

And you deserve exactly what the regimes you support did to their victims.

Heh, typical. Use emotion instead of reason. Maybe if you continue using caps and shouting, it will work to phase out facts and logic.

Meanwhile, while you keep trying that, I'll stick with the facts.

Like I said.

:wink:

Foreign involvement in Chile during Allende's Term

Soviet involvement

According to the Mitrokhin Archives of KGB files, Allende had been codenamed "LEADER" as a KGB contact, had been supplying the Soviet Union with information since the 1950s, and had received $30,000 from the Soviets for "solidifying trusted relations" and providing "valuable information". KGB archives record that Svyatoslav Kuznetsov, its case officer in Chile, was instructed by headquarters to "exert a favourable influence on Chilean government policy," and that Allende "was made to understand the necessity of reorganising Chile's army and intelligence services, and of setting up a relationship between Chile’s and the USSR’s intelligence services."

"Kuznetsov arranged his regular meetings with Allende through the President’s personal secretary, Miria Contreras Bell, known as La Payita and codenamed Marta by the KGB. La Payita was Allende’s favourite mistress during his presidency. Kuznetsov reported that Allende was spending 'a great deal of time' in her company. 'His relationship with his wife has more than once been harmed as a result.' Despite Allende’s affairs, however, his wife, Hortensia, remained intensely loyal to him. Kuznetsov did his best to cultivate her as well as her husband." (The Times extract from the Mitrokhin Archive volume II, by Mitrokhin and historian Christopher Andrew)[7].

According to Vasili Mitrokhin, a former KGB bureaucrat, regular Soviet contact with Allende after his election was maintained by his KGB case officer, Svyatoslav Kuznetsov, who was instructed by the centre to “exert a favourable influence on Chilean government policy”. According to Allende’s KGB file, he “was made to understand the necessity of reorganising Chile's army and intelligence services, and of setting up a relationship between Chile’s and the USSR’s intelligence services”. Allende was said to react positively.

In October 1971, on instructions from the Politburo, Allende was given $30,000 “in order to solidify the trusted relations” with him. On December 7, in a memorandum to the Politburo, the KGB proposed giving Allende another $60,000 for what was termed “his work with political party leaders, military commanders and parliamentarians.”[35]

According to Christopher Andrew's account of the Mitrokhin archives, "In the KGB’s view, Allende's fundamental error was his unwillingness to use force against his opponents. Without establishing complete control over all the machinery of the State, his hold on power could not be secure.[35]"(Though he may have, with increased bribes in the future, had it not been for the coup. Thank God for the coup)

Snip.

The facts are:

- Allende was elected.
- The US had no right to interfere.
- Russia wasn't interfering at that time.

These are the only facts. Your delusional "What-if"s mean nothing on the face of these facts, and neither does your support for regimes that tortured and murdered people.

[QUOTE]So you have no proof outside of a paranoid Us vs Them mentality? Ok.

Okay, can tell me when the Golden Age of the American Lovefest was? It is not paranoia to understand the simple fact that other countries do not like us for a wide variety of reasons. Obama, like Clinton, will not change that fact.

After you answer the above question, answer this: Why would other countries have the interests of Americans as a priority?

You can be snide if you wish but you are showcasing ignorance.

Again, you have nothing but a "OMG HE WANTS TO ACTUALLY USE DIPLOMACY!!!111!1"

Diplomacy? I am not talking about Obama's mythical ability to heal souls with words. I am talking about Obama's plans to gut the military, run from our enemies, destroy the economy with taxes and wealth redistribution, and generally be a complete weakling in the face of today's challenges. Mind you, he makes it all sound warm and fuzzy but, as the Messiah says, you can put lipstick on a pig...

1. China, India, etc are on the rise.

China faces demographic issues, environmental issues, infrastructure issues, they need to increase domestic spending to lower dependency on foreign markets, currency issues, etc. They are not immune to economic downturns as any search would reveal if you wished to be educated:

http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/07/02/afx5175664.html

China is growing. No doubt. But they are connected to outsider spending habits and global markets. In particular the oil and resource markets.

As for India, they are growing to but the WDI says that 35% of India's population lives on less than $1 a day. 1% better than Bangledesh. Go India! India has seen its own tech revolution beginning to off-shore and many of its entrepeneurs are moving to Europe and the US to evade India's taxation systems.

2. Source that other parts of the west are suffering economic woes to this extent. Of course they might have declined a little. When one of your business partners goes bankrupt your going to feel it a little bit.

How about words from the horse's mouth?

http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/2008/09/10/business/OUKBS-UK-ECONOMY-EU-FORECASTS.php

The US economy grew 3.3% last quarter and we haven't hit a recession yet. The EU just moved it's growth from 1.7% to 1.3%. Please tell me that they aren't suffering an economic downturn as bad, or worse, than the US and justify it. Can't do it.

Really? For the benefit of others? Really?

Why dont you show me some instances where we did it for the benefit of others rather then for the benefit of ourselves (and usually fucked things up worse in the process)?

If you discount the billions to Africa for AIDS relief, the tsunami relief, the earthquake relief, the massive expenditures to ensure the fall of the Soviet Empire, and the shedding of American blood to free Europe I guess you can say we only help when we get something back.

Can't wait for that big check from the AIDS and tsunami victims! That will be sweet!

Unless, you know, helping with military coups are ignoring the democratic electoral outcome in various countries and then supporting those bloody regimes really was for the benefit of the people that were being tortured and killed.

Ah, history through the lens of anti-American revisionism. Tell me, are you against the Iraq War? That was a regime that tortured and killed and yet I believe much of the world wished them to remain under that tyrant's tender mercies. It has cost us much with no return other than to leave Iraq in the hands of a government chosen by the people who are negotiating our departure.

Put down the Chomsky and get with reality.

So, whos the one not being smart?

Considering the disconnect with fact and reality I would have to admit it is you.

Sure, no problem, since it wasn't about WMDs. (Don't believe me? Go get a transcript of Bush's speech to Congress to get authorization to attack. WMDs were just one of many reasons.)

George W. Bush disagrees with you.

George W. Bush disagrees with you.

The Congressional approval bill cites WMDs as one out of 23 reasons.

The facts are:

- Allende was elected.
- The US had no right to interfere.
- Russia wasn't interfering at that time.

These are the only facts. Your delusional "What-if"s mean nothing on the face of these facts, and neither does your support for regimes that tortured and murdered people.

What if's? Let's try this again since you seem to be either not getting it or ignoring it.

Or perhaps it's that you, in your learning of the english language, didn't quite learn what the word "fact" means.

(Or what "what if's" are...)

Foreign involvement in Chile during Allende's Term

Soviet involvement

According to the Mitrokhin Archives of KGB files, Allende had been codenamed "LEADER" as a KGB contact, had been supplying the Soviet Union with information since the 1950s, and had received $30,000 from the Soviets for "solidifying trusted relations" and providing "valuable information". KGB archives record that Svyatoslav Kuznetsov, its case officer in Chile, was instructed by headquarters to "exert a favourable influence on Chilean government policy," and that Allende "was made to understand the necessity of reorganising Chile's army and intelligence services, and of setting up a relationship between Chile’s and the USSR’s intelligence services."

"Kuznetsov arranged his regular meetings with Allende through the President’s personal secretary, Miria Contreras Bell, known as La Payita and codenamed Marta by the KGB. La Payita was Allende’s favourite mistress during his presidency. Kuznetsov reported that Allende was spending 'a great deal of time' in her company. 'His relationship with his wife has more than once been harmed as a result.' Despite Allende’s affairs, however, his wife, Hortensia, remained intensely loyal to him. Kuznetsov did his best to cultivate her as well as her husband." (The Times extract from the Mitrokhin Archive volume II, by Mitrokhin and historian Christopher Andrew)[7].

According to Vasili Mitrokhin, a former KGB bureaucrat, regular Soviet contact with Allende after his election was maintained by his KGB case officer, Svyatoslav Kuznetsov, who was instructed by the centre to “exert a favourable influence on Chilean government policy”. According to Allende’s KGB file, he “was made to understand the necessity of reorganising Chile's army and intelligence services, and of setting up a relationship between Chile’s and the USSR’s intelligence services”. Allende was said to react positively.

In October 1971, on instructions from the Politburo, Allende was given $30,000 “in order to solidify the trusted relations” with him. On December 7, in a memorandum to the Politburo, the KGB proposed giving Allende another $60,000 for what was termed “his work with political party leaders, military commanders and parliamentarians.”[35]

According to Christopher Andrew's account of the Mitrokhin archives, "In the KGB’s view, Allende's fundamental error was his unwillingness to use force against his opponents. Without establishing complete control over all the machinery of the State, his hold on power could not be secure.[35]"(Though he may have, with increased bribes in the future, had it not been for the coup. Thank God for the coup)

There's nothing what iffy about that.

What if's? Let's try this again since you seem to be either not getting it or ignoring it.

Or perhaps it's that you, in your learning of the english language, didn't quite learn what the word "fact" means.

(Or what "what if's" are...)



There's nothing what iffy about that.

I see. And what in that little article says anything about Russia deposing Allende and installing a copycat regime in Chile, or otherwise about Allende becoming a dictator?

Also, RESPECT ME! I have a better grasp of English than you do!

If you support the coup, you also support nazism and 9/11. There's no other way around.

What if's? Let's try this again since you seem to be either not getting it or ignoring it.

Or perhaps it's that you, in your learning of the english language, didn't quite learn what the word "fact" means.

(Or what "what if's" are...)



There's nothing what iffy about that.

Where is that article from?

I see. And what in that little article says anything about Russia deposing Allende and installing a copycat regime in Chile, or otherwise about Allende becoming a dictator?
While that is totally beside the point, they didn't. Obviously Russia wouldn't overthrow someone who was working for them, turning Chile into one of their satellite states, fool. :rolleyes:

The CIA worked to set up the conditions for the coup and the Chilean military carried it out.

My point is that you stated that it was not either "The Soviets or The Americans" while the facts clearly state that it WAS either the Soviets or the Americans.

Also, RESPECT ME!
Lol. You are ridiculous, you know that. :p
If you support the coup, you also support nazism and 9/11. There's no other way around.
Yes, yes, thank you. Thank you for helping me realize I'm a National Socialist Islamic Terrorist, which couldn't be farther from my actual beliefs. But hey! Don't let reality get in the way of your emotions.

Snip.

No, there were no facts that justify your fantasy. You'r playing the "what if" card to justify atrocities.

And if you believe unlawful mass murder is right in Chile, you also believe it in Germany and in the US. It's that simple, my dear Nazi.

No, there were no facts that justify your fantasy. You'r playing the "what if" card to justify atrocities.
There are indeed, you're just ignoring them, refusing to accept their existence.

Foreign involvement in Chile during Allende's Term

Soviet involvement

According to the Mitrokhin Archives of KGB files, Allende had been codenamed "LEADER" as a KGB contact, had been supplying the Soviet Union with information since the 1950s, and had received $30,000 from the Soviets for "solidifying trusted relations" and providing "valuable information". KGB archives record that Svyatoslav Kuznetsov, its case officer in Chile, was instructed by headquarters to "exert a favourable influence on Chilean government policy," and that Allende "was made to understand the necessity of reorganising Chile's army and intelligence services, and of setting up a relationship between Chile’s and the USSR’s intelligence services."

"Kuznetsov arranged his regular meetings with Allende through the President’s personal secretary, Miria Contreras Bell, known as La Payita and codenamed Marta by the KGB. La Payita was Allende’s favourite mistress during his presidency. Kuznetsov reported that Allende was spending 'a great deal of time' in her company. 'His relationship with his wife has more than once been harmed as a result.' Despite Allende’s affairs, however, his wife, Hortensia, remained intensely loyal to him. Kuznetsov did his best to cultivate her as well as her husband." (The Times extract from the Mitrokhin Archive volume II, by Mitrokhin and historian Christopher Andrew)[7].

According to Vasili Mitrokhin, a former KGB bureaucrat, regular Soviet contact with Allende after his election was maintained by his KGB case officer, Svyatoslav Kuznetsov, who was instructed by the centre to “exert a favourable influence on Chilean government policy”. According to Allende’s KGB file, he “was made to understand the necessity of reorganising Chile's army and intelligence services, and of setting up a relationship between Chile’s and the USSR’s intelligence services”. Allende was said to react positively.

In October 1971, on instructions from the Politburo, Allende was given $30,000 “in order to solidify the trusted relations” with him. On December 7, in a memorandum to the Politburo, the KGB proposed giving Allende another $60,000 for what was termed “his work with political party leaders, military commanders and parliamentarians.”[35]

According to Christopher Andrew's account of the Mitrokhin archives, "In the KGB’s view, Allende's fundamental error was his unwillingness to use force against his opponents. Without establishing complete control over all the machinery of the State, his hold on power could not be secure.[35]"(Though he may have, with increased bribes in the future, had it not been for the coup. Thank God for the coup)

While that is totally beside the point, they didn't. Obviously Russia wouldn't overthrow someone who was working for them, turning Chile into one of their satellite states, fool. :rolleyes:

The CIA worked to set up the conditions for the coup and the Chilean military carried it out.

My point is that you stated that it was not either "The Soviets or The Americans" while the facts clearly state that it WAS either the Soviets or the Americans.

Lol. You are ridiculous, you know that. :p

Yes, yes, thank you. Thank you for helping me realize I'm a National Socialist Islamic Terrorist, which couldn't be farther from my actual beliefs. But hey! Don't let reality get in the way of your emotions.

Let us not forget that a great many Chileans were involved in the overthrow of Allende. The US and the Soviets always get the blame but I consider it quite racist to believing the poor little natives have clean hands when it comes to this sort of thing. The natives can be just as duplicitous as the Americans and Soviets.

But I wouldn't linger too long on H2, AI. That is a road that goes to nowhere. A road I like to call Nowhere Road.

There are indeed, you're just ignoring them, refusing to accept their existance.

What evidence was there of Russia trying to sponsor a coup like the US did? And why would you even mind? It's mass murder of people that are not like you, you support mass murder of people that are not like you.

The sad thing is, I suspect this will actually negatively impact Obama, because if there's one thing my fellow Americans tend to have, it's disdain for world opinion. :(
Why shouldn't we be? The rest of the world is elitist, every 6,301,084,228 one of them. It is only the select few, we Americans, who truly understand the wishes of the ordinary person.

EDIT: Except for the half of the country that hates freedom and votes Democratic. They're also elitist.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7606100.stm



Show of hands: who is surprised?

The sad thing is, I suspect this will actually negatively impact Obama, because if there's one thing my fellow Americans tend to have, it's disdain for world opinion. :(

Anyone who didn't see that coming raise your hand. (does not raise hand)

What evidence was there of Russia trying to sponsor a coup like the US did?
You must be playing ignorant, but in case you're not and really are ignorant, let me school you on a little something something really quick:

Russia wouldn't have tried to sponsor a coup of the man who was working for them to turn Chile into a Soviet satellite state by bringing their practices into line with Soviet policy, due to Soviet orders. Allende was working with/for the Soviets. Thus, they wouldn't have WANTED a coup against him because he was working for/with them. Is that that difficult to understand? Must I repeat it once again?

And just again, here we go:

Foreign involvement in Chile during Allende's Term

Soviet involvement

According to the Mitrokhin Archives of KGB files, Allende had been codenamed "LEADER" as a KGB contact, had been supplying the Soviet Union with information since the 1950s, and had received $30,000 from the Soviets for "solidifying trusted relations" and providing "valuable information". KGB archives record that Svyatoslav Kuznetsov, its case officer in Chile, was instructed by headquarters to "exert a favourable influence on Chilean government policy," and that Allende "was made to understand the necessity of reorganising Chile's army and intelligence services, and of setting up a relationship between Chile’s and the USSR’s intelligence services."

"Kuznetsov arranged his regular meetings with Allende through the President’s personal secretary, Miria Contreras Bell, known as La Payita and codenamed Marta by the KGB. La Payita was Allende’s favourite mistress during his presidency. Kuznetsov reported that Allende was spending 'a great deal of time' in her company. 'His relationship with his wife has more than once been harmed as a result.' Despite Allende’s affairs, however, his wife, Hortensia, remained intensely loyal to him. Kuznetsov did his best to cultivate her as well as her husband." (The Times extract from the Mitrokhin Archive volume II, by Mitrokhin and historian Christopher Andrew)[7].

According to Vasili Mitrokhin, a former KGB bureaucrat, regular Soviet contact with Allende after his election was maintained by his KGB case officer, Svyatoslav Kuznetsov, who was instructed by the centre to “exert a favourable influence on Chilean government policy”. According to Allende’s KGB file, he “was made to understand the necessity of reorganising Chile's army and intelligence services, and of setting up a relationship between Chile’s and the USSR’s intelligence services”. Allende was said to react positively.

In October 1971, on instructions from the Politburo, Allende was given $30,000 “in order to solidify the trusted relations” with him. On December 7, in a memorandum to the Politburo, the KGB proposed giving Allende another $60,000 for what was termed “his work with political party leaders, military commanders and parliamentarians.”[35]

According to Christopher Andrew's account of the Mitrokhin archives, "In the KGB’s view, Allende's fundamental error was his unwillingness to use force against his opponents. Without establishing complete control over all the machinery of the State, his hold on power could not be secure.[35]"(Though he may have, with increased bribes in the future, had it not been for the coup. Thank God for the coup)

There are indeed, you're just ignoring them, refusing to accept their existence.

You keep quoting that article, where is it from?

You must be playing ignorant, but in case you're not and really are ignorant, let me school you on a little something something really quick:

Russia wouldn't have tried to sponsor a coup of the man who was working for them to turn Chile into a Soviet satellite state by bringing their practices into line with Soviet policy, due to Soviet orders. Allende was working with/for the Soviets. Thus, they wouldn't have WANTED a coup against him because he was working for/with them. Is that that difficult to understand? Must I repeat it once again?

And just again, here we go:

Ah, so you admit that:

1- Chile was still democratic (Its institutions only broke down after Pinochet pulled out his crap).

2- Russia wouldn't HAVE made it undemocratic (As Chile itself was made none the more democratic for being under American influence).

3- Allende was legitimately elected (By a sovereign people the US decided to ignore).

And yet you continue to support mass murder of people that are not like you.

You keep quoting that article, where is it from?


Here.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article568154.ece

I'll let you guys read it over, so you know I'm not making it up as H2 is currently refusing to accept it's existence.

[QUOTE]Why shouldn't we be? The rest of the world is elitist, every 6,301,084,228 one of them. It is only the select few, we Americans, who truly understand the wishes of the ordinary person.

This would be correct if you replaced "ordinary person" with "Americans". I am sure you don't believe the rest of the world knows what is best for Americans.

EDIT: Except for the half of the country that hates freedom and votes Democratic. They're also elitist.

It's not that the Democrat party hates freedom, it's just that they don't GET IT! But they are elitist. That much you got right.

2- Russia wouldn't HAVE made it undemocratic (As Chile itself was made none the more democratic for being under American influence).

They would've made it undemocratic by installing Allende as head of a socialist puppet state in central America. They had no need for a coup because the mechanisms behind the coup were already in place.

They would've made it undemocratic by installing Allende as head of a socialist puppet state in central America. They had no need for a coup because the mechanisms behind the coup were already in place.

Oh, such as torture, political arrests and... Wait, no, that was under Pinochet.

The US had no right.

This would be correct if you replaced "ordinary person" with "Americans". I am sure you don't believe the rest of the world knows what is best for Americans.



It's not that the Democrat party hates freedom, it's just that they don't GET IT! But they are elitist. That much you got right.

You've got some audacity to call anyone else an elitist. You talk down to anyone who holds a differing viewpoint like they're some kind of imbecile.

The Congressional approval bill cites WMDs as one out of 23 reasons.

The joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq? ORLY?


Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in Public Law 105–235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in ‘‘material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations’’ and urged the President ‘‘to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations’’;
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

That would make 10 (out of 23) reasons in the preamble that cites WMD as reasons.

Oh, such as torture, political arrests and... Wait, no, that was under Pinochet.

The US had no right.

You can keep repeating, but you are losing the debate by violating the rules of a legit debate. Recognize the sources of the opposing arguement and attack them and the points they back up, not the poster.

By ignoring my sources, facts and information and instead calling me a National Socialist Islamic Terrorist, you are making yourself look simply ridiculous.

You have been warned.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article568154.ece

Foreign involvement in Chile during Allende's Term

Soviet involvement

According to the Mitrokhin Archives of KGB files, Allende had been codenamed "LEADER" as a KGB contact, had been supplying the Soviet Union with information since the 1950s, and had received $30,000 from the Soviets for "solidifying trusted relations" and providing "valuable information". KGB archives record that Svyatoslav Kuznetsov, its case officer in Chile, was instructed by headquarters to "exert a favourable influence on Chilean government policy," and that Allende "was made to understand the necessity of reorganising Chile's army and intelligence services, and of setting up a relationship between Chile’s and the USSR’s intelligence services."

"Kuznetsov arranged his regular meetings with Allende through the President’s personal secretary, Miria Contreras Bell, known as La Payita and codenamed Marta by the KGB. La Payita was Allende’s favourite mistress during his presidency. Kuznetsov reported that Allende was spending 'a great deal of time' in her company. 'His relationship with his wife has more than once been harmed as a result.' Despite Allende’s affairs, however, his wife, Hortensia, remained intensely loyal to him. Kuznetsov did his best to cultivate her as well as her husband." (The Times extract from the Mitrokhin Archive volume II, by Mitrokhin and historian Christopher Andrew)[7].

According to Vasili Mitrokhin, a former KGB bureaucrat, regular Soviet contact with Allende after his election was maintained by his KGB case officer, Svyatoslav Kuznetsov, who was instructed by the centre to “exert a favourable influence on Chilean government policy”. According to Allende’s KGB file, he “was made to understand the necessity of reorganising Chile's army and intelligence services, and of setting up a relationship between Chile’s and the USSR’s intelligence services”. Allende was said to react positively.

In October 1971, on instructions from the Politburo, Allende was given $30,000 “in order to solidify the trusted relations” with him. On December 7, in a memorandum to the Politburo, the KGB proposed giving Allende another $60,000 for what was termed “his work with political party leaders, military commanders and parliamentarians.”[35]

According to Christopher Andrew's account of the Mitrokhin archives, "In the KGB’s view, Allende's fundamental error was his unwillingness to use force against his opponents. Without establishing complete control over all the machinery of the State, his hold on power could not be secure.[35]"(Though he may have, with increased bribes in the future, had it not been for the coup. Thank God for the coup)

Here.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article568154.ece

I'll let you guys read it over, so you know I'm not making it up as H2 is currently refusing to accept it's existence.

What site did you find it on though? The Times version doesn't have the "(Though he may have, with increased bribes in the future, had it not been for the coup. Thank God for the coup)" line or the source links.

They would've made it undemocratic by installing Allende as head of a socialist puppet state in central America. They had no need for a coup because the mechanisms behind the coup were already in place.
Not to mention the Soviet track record of having all of their "allies"/puppet states be Totalitarian Command Economy Police States. They didn't exactly have the benefit of the doubt....

Oh, such as torture, political arrests and... Wait, no, that was under Pinochet.

The US had no right.

Do you need some sort of moral victory here? Fine, you're right. The United States had no right to support a coup to overthrow the democratically-elected Allende, even if he was working for the USSR to establish a Soviet puppet state in Chile. You win.

But to bleat on about how it's all a hypothetical in the face of a plethora of documented evidence contrary is to ignore the political reality. You may not like it, you may find it violates "ethics", but the political reality was, it was either the United States or the Soviet Union. This is a fact you cannot escape. Please stop trying.

What site did you find it on though? The Times version doesn't have the "(Though he may have, with increased bribes in the future, had it not been for the coup. Thank God for the coup)" line or the source links.
I wrote that? Obviously...it was comemntary I put in in parenthesis. I usually do that in my OP News Reports aswell.

It was a source I used in my research paper on Pinochet and the Junta last semester.

Snip.

The debate boils down to the following facts:

1- Allende was legally elected by a sovereign population.

2- Pinochet murdered thousands of people.

3- There is no evidence that letting Allende be would make Chile into a dictatorship. Because you didn't let Allende be and THAT made Chile into a dictatorship.

Do you need some sort of moral victory here? Fine, you're right. The United States had no right to support a coup to overthrow the democratically-elected Allende, even if he was working for the USSR to establish a Soviet puppet state in Chile. You win.

But to bleat on about how it's all a hypothetical in the face of a plethora of documented evidence contrary is to ignore the political reality. You may not like it, you may find it violates "ethics", but the political reality was, it was either the United States or the Soviet Union. This is a fact you cannot escape. Please stop trying.

No, it was NOT! It's like the "what-if" claim that supports the atomic bombings. You do not have the means to prove how it would be like. Or even to prove how it would be like if the US, instead of overthrowing Allende, actually tried to support the Chilean government to keep it, democratically, within its sphere of influence.

It was a source I used in my research paper on Pinochet and the Junta last semester.

Did they take it with all the yellowish-white stains?

No, it was NOT! It's like the "what-if" claim that supports the atomic bombings. You do not have the means to prove how it would be like. Or even to prove how it would be like if the US, instead of overthrowing Allende, actually tried to support the Chilean government to keep it, democratically, within its sphere of influence.

We have evidence of what he was doing with the Soviets. We have evidence of what their future plans were together. We have evidence of what Soviet involvement in other countries normally led to. This leads to an easy conclusion of what would have happened in Chile.

I'm not defending what the United States did. It was morally wrong. But you ignore history if you ignore the political situation that was present at the time. You're detached from reality.

And please stop using CAPS IN YOUR POSTS TO INDICATE SHOUTING. It's rude. Stop being rude.

We have evidence of what he was doing with the Soviets. We have evidence of what their future plans were together. We have evidence of what Soviet involvement in other countries normally led to. This leads to an easy conclusion of what would have happened in Chile.

I'm not defending what the United States did. It was morally wrong. But you ignore history if you ignore the political situation that was present at the time. You're detached from reality.

And please stop using CAPS IN YOUR POSTS TO INDICATE SHOUTING. It's rude. Stop being rude.

And the US couldn't have tried another approach that kept balance instead of raping Chile?

And as someone from the region, I'm entitled to rudeness. Because the more MORONS that believe the US has the right to interfere here in SA, the bigger the chance of those rapes happening again.

Not saying you believe the US has such a right.

Did they take it with all the yellowish-white stains?
In fact, I got an A. See, I used fact, logic and reason, something foreign to your posts, which although void of all the former, are filled to the brim with emotion.

Fortunatly, emotion neither recieves A's nor wins arguements among the politically informed.

And the US couldn't have tried another approach that kept balance instead of raping Chile?

And as someone from the region, I'm entitled to rudeness. Because the more MORONS that believe the US has the right to interfere here in SA, the bigger the chance of those rapes happening again.

Actually, probably not. The Soviets clearly showed themselves unwilling to permit any shred of democracy in their sphere of influence, so it often produced an equally dubious reaction on our side. The Cold War really was a tragedy for everyone involved, except perhaps weapons researchers and manufacturers...but then again, they always seem to benefit.

In fact, I got an A. See, I used fact, logic and reason, something foreign to your posts, which although void of all the former, are filled to the brim with emotion.

Fortunatly, emotion neither recieves A's nor wins arguements among the politically informed.

Everybody's an A-grade student on the Internet.

Actually, probably not. The Soviets clearly showed themselves unwilling to permit any shred of democracy in their sphere of influence, so it often produced an equally dubious reaction on our side. The Cold War really was a tragedy for everyone involved, except perhaps weapons researchers and manufacturers.

The reactions "produced" on your side were your choice and yours alone.

The reactions "produced" on your side were your choice and yours alone.

Yes, and it's a choice whose ramifications are still being felt. We almost totally squandered the moral advantage we held over the Soviet Union.

And the US couldn't have tried another approach that kept balance instead of raping Chile?

And as someone from the region, I'm entitled to rudeness. Because the more MORONS that believe the US has the right to interfere here in SA, the bigger the chance of those rapes happening again.

Not saying you believe the US has such a right.

Certainly the United States could have done things differently. Again, I'm not defending the country's actions. But you seem to want to pretend like the Soviet Union didn't have a track record of exactly the same thing in nations where they gained influence. I can understand you saying we don't have the strictest proof because it didn't happen, but to ignore history is, well, ignorant.

You may be entitled to your rudeness, but it would show a level of maturity not to resort to caps in every post. It might even allow people to overlook your constant flaming.

Yes, and it's a choice whose ramifications are still being felt. We totally squandered the moral advantage we held over the Soviet Union.

Good to know you acknowledge it. So, yes, the US COULD have tried a different approach. It CHOSE not to. It CHOSE to release upon the people of hapless countries several dictators.

Certainly the United States could have done things differently. Again, I'm not defending the country's actions. But you seem to want to pretend like the Soviet Union didn't have a track record of exactly the same thing in nations where they gained influence. I can understand you saying we don't have the strictest proof because it didn't happen, but to ignore history is, well, ignorant.

You may be entitled to your rudeness, but it would show a level of maturity not to resort to caps in every post. It might even allow people to overlook your constant flaming.

Nowhere did I claim the USSR did things differently. The point remains, though, that it did not happen. And that the US could have taken different steps to prevent it from happening.

And I only come out strong on the utter idiots that believe my country and others were rightfully turned into dictatorships. I'm pretty sure you'd react in the same way were someone to claim 9/11 was a good thing. Well, the coups were our 9/11. Only, they lasted an average of 25 years and killed way more people per country.

*snip*

That would make 10 (out of 23) reasons in the preamble that cites WMD as reasons.

Only one of the 23 focuses on actual weapons of mass destruction themselves; only one refers to the actual stockpiles of WMDs rather than the programs to develop them which continued once the UN inspectors were gone. There is a big difference.

You can see a constant referral to violations and breaches of UN resolutions, treaties, international laws, and Congressional findings which is what is being discussed here. The topics are in referrence to Saddam's lack of compliance, not the actual WMDs themselves. Considering the love many have for Obama's nuance one would expect them to understand it when they see it.

The actual document is right here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

You've got some audacity to call anyone else an elitist. You talk down to anyone who holds a differing viewpoint like they're some kind of imbecile.

I thought "audacity" was a good thing these days. I don't mind differing views I mind views based on emotion and disinformation. Excuse me for not being polite to those who lack the capacity themselves.

I thought "audacity" was a good thing these days. I don't mind differing views I mind views based on emotion and disinformation. Excuse me for not being polite to those who lack the capacity themselves.

Yeah, that'd be well and good if your posting history didn't completely contradict it. You don't mind views based on emotion or disinformation, you mind views that contradict with your perception of the "facts". You see the world in a particular way, and anyone who sees it differently is a moron. For example, I don't think that the entire world wants a "weak America" and I don't think Obama "promises" that, nor do I believe he would "be a complete weakling in the face of today's challenges." I've read his website, and I like a lot of his policies. Now, same information, two different conclusions. My views are not based on emotion nor disinformation. What do you think?

You keep mentioning the UN. So they sanctioned the invasion?

Actually they did not, which is IMHO an example of the uselessness of an organization that doesn't enforce its own treaties.

No, in case you missed it, the UN did not actually back that interpretation.

It would require political will, which the UN has lacked for quite a long time now.


Constantly?

Yes, constantly. I remember all through the 90s how SAM launchers were firing on Coalition aircraft and frequently resulted in allied bombing of SAM sites within Iraq. It got so the news didn't bother reporting it as a top story anymore.


Scratch that one. That was never a reason for invasion. Bush proved that by forcing the inspectors to withdraw so he could invade.

That was on the occasion of the 3rd and final time they left Iraq.


The Kurds were being left alone well before the invasion.


bull.


Now which ones of these were direct provocations of the US?

pick one, although I presume you'll disregard anything that isn't a direct invasion of the US homeland.

Dear Neo B,
You really don't have to say "we" mmeaning the US of A and yourself. You really don't have to identify with the US government (Unless you are George W which I'm guessing you are not!)
If you distanced yourself a little, you probably wouldn't feel so beleaguered.

Actually, when I say "we" I'm not identifying with the Government of the US at all. I am identifying with the people. I know that's different from culture to culture, and that often when people wave their national flags it's an association with the government, but it's a bit different here. To us, the flag (and the concept of the USA as a whole) represents not a government, but an ideal and the people who believe in it.

But I don't feel beleaguered. Thanks though :)

Well, the coups were our 9/11.
Lol...you are getting a bit too wild, time for someone to tame you down a bit.

The coup was exactly like the 9/11 terrorist attack on American soil except that:

1. It was done by the Chilean Armed Forces against Chile.

2. The Military was used to attack government members.

(Contrary to popular belief, the Chilean coup was relatively bloodless. Fewer than forty individuals died as a direct result of fighting during the actual coup.)

3. It had a great number of support from the Chilean peopel. In fact, after the dictatorship democratically returned the government to a democracy, around half of the nation still had a positive position on the dictatorship and had voted for Pinochet to continue ruling.

Now, let's see how that compares to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

1. It was done by Islamic terrorists from various Middle Eastern Countries from an Islamic Terror Organization.

2. Civilians were used to attack civilians. Massive civilian causulties

3. It had zero political support of the American people.



I am warning you again. You are seriously failing this debate.

Only one of the 23 focuses on actual weapons of mass destruction themselves; only one refers to the actual stockpiles of WMDs rather than the programs to develop them which continued once the UN inspectors were gone. There is a big difference.
Irrelevant. A "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction" refers to WMD, as does "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability". And that makes WMD - development, possession, capability, use, etc. - feature prominently as several reasons.

You can see a constant referral to violations and breaches of UN resolutions, treaties, international laws, and Congressional findings which is what is being discussed here. The topics are in referrence to Saddam's lack of compliance, not the actual WMDs themselves. Considering the love many have for Obama's nuance one would expect them to understand it when they see it.
The two are closely connected. The US wouldn't have cared a whit for any lack of compliance if there wasn't the fear of WMD.

And as you can plainly see, the topics in those 10 preamble paragraphs are extremely concerned with the presence of WMD in Iraq.


The actual document is right here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
It's no different from the actual document I linked to, thank you very much.

Actually they did not, which is IMHO an example of the uselessness of an organization that doesn't enforce its own treaties.
Yet in this case, they trump the US. At least the UN wasn't fooled by false/lacking intelligence into actually going to war.

And who says they didn't enforce the resolutions? Turns our, containment worked. The sanctions actually kept Iraq disarmed.

That would make it The UN 2 - Bush 0 in this regard.

Yeah, that'd be well and good if your posting history didn't completely contradict it. You don't mind views based on emotion or disinformation, you mind views that contradict with your perception of the "facts". You see the world in a particular way, and anyone who sees it differently is a moron. For example, I don't think that the entire world wants a "weak America" and I don't think Obama "promises" that, nor do I believe he would "be a complete weakling in the face of today's challenges." I've read his website, and I like a lot of his policies. Now, same information, two different conclusions. My views are not based on emotion nor disinformation. What do you think?

I think you broke him.

Lol...you are getting a bit too wild, time for someone to tame you down a bit.

The coup was exactly like the 9/11 terrorist attack on American soil except that:

1. It was done by the Chilean Armed Forces against Chile.

2. The Military was used to attack government members.

(Contrary to popular belief, the Chilean coup was relatively bloodless. Fewer than forty individuals died as a direct result of fighting during the actual coup.)

3. It had a great number of support from the Chilean peopel. In fact, after the dictatorship democratically returned the government to a democracy, around half of the nation still had a positive position on the dictatorship and had voted for Pinochet to continue ruling.

Now, let's see how that compares to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

1. It was done by Islamic terrorists from various Middle Eastern Countries from an Islamic Terror Organization.

2. Civilians were used to attack civilians. Massive civilian causulties

3. It had zero political support of the American people.



I am warning you again. You are seriously failing this debate.

That's claiming a comparison is invalid because it doesn't have EVERY resemblance. Of course, then, the IRA terrorist attacks in England are nothing like the ones from 9/11 because the IRA never flew planes through buildings, right?

My point remains that many people here WERE victimized by the regimes you, in your sadism, support, just like the ones that WERE victimized in 9/11. But it flew right over your head, didn't it?

I mind views based on emotion and disinformation.
How can you stand yourself, then?

How can you stand yourself, then?

Cognitive dissonance. Either that or he's a habitual liar. Take your pick.

Actually "Hey-KO-koo too".

That was my second guess. But apparently I got the emphasis on the right syllable.

That was my second guess. But apparently I got the emphasis on the right syllable.

You did, yeah.

I've always felt it was somewhat unfair that the rest of the world doesn't get any say in US elections, considering the massive influence the outcome will have on world politics, economics and the global environment.

If you ever watched Australian news you would swear we would have a say on the US election. In fact I think some people must think that when walking through campus last week their where a couple of people wearing Obama 08 t-shirts.

Spiegel has a different take on the same survey, by the way - highlighting not the fact that people in Europe like Obama to be President, but that they and he actually don't agree on many issues at all. In other words, the support Obama gets from Europe is not based on anything substantial beyond the headlines, the fact that his image is basically "anti-Bush" and, it has to be said, his skin colour.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,577449,00.html

Oh, and while people are bickering about Chile and Pinochet, I found a little gem a few weeks ago, which I thought I'd share:http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=8496869
From the archive

The end of Allende

Sep 15th 1973

The temporary death of democracy in Chile will be regrettable, but the blame lies clearly with Dr Allende and those of his followers who persistently overrode the constitution

Mind you, that was apparently written before any knowledge of Pinochet's methods became more widely known. At any rate, think of that what you will.

At any rate, think of that what you will.

I think if anyone so much as SUGGESTED doing to the US what the US did to Chile, given that the rule of law is constantly abused by Bush, the US would turn the place into glass. Were it to be suggested regarding the Land Down Under, the Land Down Under would ASK the US TO turn the place into glass.

Spiegel has a different take on the same survey, by the way - highlighting not the fact that people in Europe like Obama to be President, but that they and he actually don't agree on many issues at all. In other words, the support Obama gets from Europe is not based on anything substantial beyond the headlines, the fact that his image is basically "anti-Bush" and, it has to be said, his skin colour.

Your statements are completely untrue, even on a cursory reading of the article. Any point on which Europeans disagree on policy is only where Barack Obama is closest to John McCain, a hardline on Iran etc.,

We far prefer his policies to John McCain's, the main point is that, for us, most policies don't go far enough. We're entirely comfortable with public health services whereas that's just not acceptable in America.

He's certainly a move in the right (well, left) direction in comparison. It's not that we disagree with his policies, it's that we are not skewed quite so much to the right as America so we'll take the closer candidate.

Okay, can tell me when the Golden Age of the American Lovefest was? It is not paranoia to understand the simple fact that other countries do not like us for a wide variety of reasons. Obama, like Clinton, will not change that fact.

After you answer the above question, answer this: Why would other countries have the interests of Americans as a priority?

You can be snide if you wish but you are showcasing ignorance.

See, your changing the question now. You havent until now claimed that other countries have American interest as a priority. What you have been claiming is that the rest of the world wants a weak America.

So, I want a source other then your paranoid us vs them mentality. Prove that the rest of the world seeks a weak America.



Diplomacy? I am not talking about Obama's mythical ability to heal souls with words. I am talking about Obama's plans to gut the military, run from our enemies, destroy the economy with taxes and wealth redistribution, and generally be a complete weakling in the face of today's challenges.

Source?

Mind you, he makes it all sound warm and fuzzy but, as the Messiah says, you can put lipstick on a pig...

Let me guess, he's a sexist right? What was all that about hating arguements based on misinformation and emotion?


China faces demographic issues, environmental issues, infrastructure issues, they need to increase domestic spending to lower dependency on foreign markets, currency issues, etc. They are not immune to economic downturns as any search would reveal if you wished to be educated:

http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/07/02/afx5175664.html

China is growing. No doubt. But they are connected to outsider spending habits and global markets. In particular the oil and resource markets.

As for India, they are growing to but the WDI says that 35% of India's population lives on less than $1 a day. 1% better than Bangledesh. Go India! India has seen its own tech revolution beginning to off-shore and many of its entrepeneurs are moving to Europe and the US to evade India's taxation systems.

So...every other nation in the world is not experiencing economic woes just like us. So much for "its the global economy that sucks ass, not Americas!"


How about words from the horse's mouth?

http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/2008/09/10/business/OUKBS-UK-ECONOMY-EU-FORECASTS.php

The US economy grew 3.3% last quarter and we haven't hit a recession yet. The EU just moved it's growth from 1.7% to 1.3%. Please tell me that they aren't suffering an economic downturn as bad, or worse, than the US and justify it. Can't do it.

Well, they did just take in a few Eastern Europian countries. So letting poorer economies in would indeed lower the average.


If you discount the billions to Africa for AIDS relief, the tsunami relief, the earthquake relief,

I never said we didnt do great things.

the massive expenditures to ensure the fall of the Soviet Empire,

Are you going to sit there and pretend like that was for the good of the world as you claimed? That was purely for our own reasons and was purely ideological.

and the shedding of American blood to free Europe I guess you can say we only help when we get something back.

Well, if we really did that out of the goodness of our hearts, as you like to pretend, it wouldnt have taken us a few years after the wars had started AND getting bombed to join in.

Again, was for our own reasons, not for the good of the world.

Ah, history through the lens of anti-American revisionism. Tell me, are you against the Iraq War? That was a regime that tortured and killed and yet I believe much of the world wished them to remain under that tyrant's tender mercies. It has cost us much with no return other than to leave Iraq in the hands of a government chosen by the people who are negotiating our departure.

And oil. That might help too. Oh, and setting up a power base to help "spread democracy" and having an area to watch Iran.

Again, that was for our own intrests. Im not condeming us for acting on our own interests, but Im also not going to be naive enough to pretend it was something it wasnt. That is, it takes a great deal of naivety, ignorance, and blind nationalism/patriotism to pretend that Iraq, or any of the aforementioned conflicts, were really about the good of the world and NOT about us.

Put down the Chomsky and get with reality.

Never read Chomsky. I suggest you join me in reality rather then pro-American, nationistic, right wing land.

Considering the disconnect with fact and reality I would have to admit it is you.

Being an ass doesnt make you any less wrong.

Well, they did just take in a few Eastern Europian countries. So letting poorer economies in would indeed lower the average.

The Eastern European members of the Eurozone have the highest growth rates in Europe, actually; the Baltic Tiger states are some of the fastest growing in the world, easily hitting China-level numbers despite already having a pretty good per-capita GDP. It's mostly France and Germany that are the biggest drags on regional growth, but that's hardly anything new. Germany is still dealing with the baggage associated with East German integration and high taxes necessary to fund its social systems, while France is still just plain economically mismanaged and suffers from atrociously high unemployment, especially among minorities.

The Eastern European members of the Eurozone have the highest growth rates in Europe, actually; the Baltic Tiger states are some of the fastest growing in the world, easily hitting China-level numbers despite already having a pretty good per-capita GDP.

It's mostly France and Germany that are the biggest drags on regional growth.

Huh. You learn something new everday.


Still, since a lot of countries are indeed growing, this "its a global economy thats suffering not America!" rhetoric TSF has been pushing is bull.

Huh. You learn something new everday.


Still, since a lot of countries are indeed growing, this "its a global economy thats suffering not America!" rhetoric TSF has been pushing is bull.

Given that the entire world economy is interdependent, the US suffers as much as anybody from weakness in the global economy and our own economic declines easily affect it in return. The US economy is in bad shape right now and probably will be for a while longer before it recovers. The only country that's maybe insulated is North Korea, and I don't know about you but I'd probably like to stay well away from there.

Given that the entire world economy is interdependent, the US suffers as much as anybody from weakness in the global economy and our own economic declines easily affect it in return. The US economy is in bad shape right now and probably will be for a while longer before it recovers. The only country that's maybe insulated is North Korea, and I don't know about you but I'd probably like to stay well away from there.

My point however stands (and I guess I havent been clear). The problem with America's economy is not the fault of the world, but of our own "leaders".

The sad thing is, I suspect this will actually negatively impact Obama, because if there's one thing my fellow Americans tend to have, it's disdain for world opinion. :(
when fairly intelligent ones say things like this:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13995981&postcount=1402
"..it's none of the rest of the worlds damned business. I want a President that is going to represent ME and my neighbors, not the rest of the world. We don't want a President that represents the rest of the worlds opinions over ours."

Then I suspect that your suspicion is indeed correct.
sadly.

when fairly intelligent ones say things like this:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13995981&postcount=1402
"..it's none of the rest of the worlds damned business. I want a President that is going to represent ME and my neighbors, not the rest of the world. We don't want a President that represents the rest of the worlds opinions over ours."

Then I suspect that your suspicion is indeed correct.
sadly.

If the average modern American populace were cast in a horror movie, they would would be assholes that deliberately broke the seal on the ancient crypt, pried open the barrels of unknown government chemicals or ran over the family of gypsies that were crossing the street just because the rest of the world said they wouldn't be good ideas to begin with.

Yeah, I did actually say the economy was very different under Clinton, had you read what I'd said ;)

Yep.

Somalia, Haiti, Iraq and Iran amongst others much?
No, not all that much unless you have some information that has not been in the US media to back up what you are trying to imply about this.

He made what Bush got away with in USAPATRIOT possible by extending federal police powers and making it much easier to get wiretapping and electronic surveillance warrants after Oklahoma.
I could not disagree with you more. This sounds like someone who has absolutely no idea what they are talking about unless you have some information that has not been in the US media to back up what you are trying to imply about this.

Very true.

I'd agree with that, I didn't say that the two leaders were the same. Indeed I admire Clinton's handling of the economy and a lot of what he did on the world stage, even if Rwanda was a collosal fuckup. I don't have anything so kind to say about Bush.
So, apparently, you do not have any information that I don't also have. You are just choosing to interpret the same information differently. Since this is nothing, then, but your personal opinion and there is no new information that could cause me to change my personal opinion, I'm just going to dismiss your personal opinion on the basis that there is no reason to think you're more right about it than me -- and since I am me, I'm going to choose to agree with me and my interpretations of the facts, instead of you and yours.

So, in conclusion and bringing this back to the topic:

1) US politicians may all be corrupt and spineless to varying degrees, but they do NOT all brazenly violate US and international law every chance they get, nor play brutal games of military brinksmanship, nor start wars of aggression on false pretenses and then flat-out refuse to end those wars while simultaneously fomenting more wars, nor do they all seek to eliminate the separation of church and state and strip women and gays of fundamental rights. I reject your suggestion to the contrary. You tried to argue that all US presidents have done these things and, therefore, any future president will also do them. Your assertion about the past is wrong, and therefore, your prediction of the future is meaningless.

2) Bush II, however, most certainly did do all the things I listed, and if McCain is elected, then he will also do them, and I feel confident predicting that because he has presented his proposed policies and they are virtually identical to Bush's. I am not basing it on US history. I am basing it on what McCain himself has said during his campaign.

3) Obama has also presented his proposed policies, and they are NOT identical to Bush's, so I see no reason to assume that he will not change US policies if he were to become president. I know you already conceded this point. I'm just mentioning it to be thorough.

If the average modern American populace were cast in a horror movie, they would would be assholes that deliberately broke the seal on the ancient crypt, pried open the barrels of unknown government chemicals or ran over the family of gypsies that were crossing the street just because the rest of the world said they wouldn't be good ideas to begin with.
If there's any justice, they'd also be the idiots in the slasher movie who hear a noise outside at night and go out in the dark by themselves to check it out.

I've read all the pages posted since I went out for dinner, and I am sickened to read the same insane bullshit that we've been having shoved down our throats by rightwingers for 8 motherfucking years.

WMDs??? Seriously??? Are these people joking?

Foreigners and Democrats plotting to weaken America? Are they kidding me with this paranoid 19th century bullshit?

We don't need to care what the rest of the world thinks? After 8 years of seeing what happens when we go running off half-cocked with a "damn the reality -- full steam ahead!" attitude?

I swear to every god I can think of, I make more progress arguing with my cat than with these rightwingers. They shove this garbage down our throats, we spit it back in their faces, and they just scoop it up and shove at us again, and again, and again -- and they never, never get tired of it. Well, I am tired of it. Fucking tired of it.

I do not believe that they believe a single word of their own nonsense. After 8 years of fighting with them, I just do not believe they believe it. I honestly believe that they are just being like little kids, digging in their heels, and screaming "NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!", and they are just going to keep that up until mommy and daddy can't stand it any more and finally collapse and, just to make them shut up, give them their way in the end -- which will be to let them do whatever they like with the guns and the aircraft carriers and the money and the churches and whatever other shiny thing takes their fancy, without ever being called to account for anything and congratulating themselves on how superior they are to everyone else. Ego-tripping little trolls.



PS: And another thing: When it comes to Chile, the only reason Heikoku may be "losing the debate" is because he is outnumbered by liars. He may be hysterical, but he is right. And his opponents are not only wrong, they are dishonest, and their arguments are immoral.

EDIT: And if anyone has any issues with anything I've said, let them prove their sincerity by laying out the reasoning behind their remarks. Let them cite real sources for their assertions of fact. Enough already of these vanity acts which are all attitude and no substance.

Heikoku, I think the point that TAI and others are trying to make is that either the Russians would have had influence over Chile as a satellite state, or the Americans would.

Basically it was a game of powerball being played between the two superpowers ever since the end of World War II. Each one was trying to keep the other from expanding influence in certain areas.

In terms of the standpoint as that powerball game was concerned, then the United States couldn't afford to let the Soviet Union gain more influence in the United States' area of the world.

In terms of ethics, however, you're right. It was disgusting. The whole game was, and neither side had any true right to do it.

PS: And another thing: When it comes to Chile, the only reason Heikoku may be "losing the debate" is because he is outnumbered by liars. He may be hysterical, but he is right. And his opponents are not only wrong, they are dishonest, and their arguments are immoral.

What I find funny is these people who talk about how great it is and how important it is to spread democracy because democracy is so great are the same fucking people in this thread who are defending the US government's actions which subverted th democratic process and outed a democratically elected leader. And their defense? "But...but...the Russians!!!"


So, what they really mean is, "Democracy is great as long as you elect the guy we want you to elect".


Youre right. They are dishonost. I dont know if "liar" is the word Id use because lying implies a motive. I really dont think these people realize theyre lying. I think its cognitive dissonance* at its prime.

*- Look at me with my fancy smanshy academic words. What an elitist I am.

Heikoku, I think the point that TAI and others are trying to make is that either the Russians would have had influence over Chile as a satellite state, or the Americans would.

Basically it was a game of powerball being played between the two superpowers ever since the end of World War II. Each one was trying to keep the other from expanding influence in certain areas.

In terms of the standpoint as that powerball game was concerned, then the United States couldn't afford to let the Soviet Union gain more influence in the United States' area of the world.

In terms of ethics, however, you're right. It was disgusting. The whole game was, and neither side had any true right to do it.



But its wrong, dishonost, and stupid to be one of these people (like TSF) who talks about how important it is to spread democracy and how noble it is, but then act like it was the right thing to do to subvert the democratic will of the people.

What I find funny is these people who talk about how great it is and how important it is to spread democracy because democracy is so great are the same fucking people in this thread who are defending the US government's actions which subverted th democratic process and outed a democratically elected leader. And their defense? "But...but...the Russians!!!"


So, what they really mean is, "Democracy is great as long as you elect the guy we want you to elect".
Even the "but...but...Ruskies!!" thing was a smokescreen even when it was cited back in the day. The real message of US policy in South and Central America is "Democracy is great as long as it doesn't inconvenience United Fruit."

Youre right. They are dishonost. I dont know if "liar" is the word Id use because lying implies a motive. I really dont think these people realize theyre lying. I think its cognitive dissonance* at its prime.

*- Look at me with my fancy smanshy academic words. What an elitist I am.
You even spelled it right, you elitist scum. ;) :tongue:

You may disagree with my take on this, but I used the word "liar" deliberately because I do believe there is a motive. It's a stupid, petty, self-destructive, counter-productive motive, but it's there nonetheless. And anyway, "cognitive dissonance" is just a fancy smanshy academic word for willful ignorance, and when ignorance is willful, then it qualifies as a lie in my book.

You may disagree with my take on this, but I used the word "liar" deliberately because I do believe there is a motive. It's a stupid, petty, self-destructive, counter-productive motive, but it's there nonetheless. And anyway, "cognitive dissonance" is just a fancy smanshy academic word for willful ignorance, and when ignorance is willful, then it qualifies as a lie in my book.

I guess the main thing is I have to much respect for TAI as an intellectual* to call him a liar.


*-Holy shit! TAI is an intellectual too? What an elitist ass!

I guess the main thing is I have to much respect for TAI as an intellectual* to call him a liar.


*-Holy shit! TAI is an intellectual too? What an elitist ass!
Okay, I'm going to be bitchy enough to say outright -- as if he doesn't know it already -- that the bolded phrase is a delusion I do not suffer from.

Okay, I'm going to be bitchy enough to say outright -- as if he doesn't know it already -- that the bolded phrase is a delusion I do not suffer from.

:tongue:


Even if I do disagree with TAI, I do believe hes smart.


Its like Karl Rove. I detest the policy he works to institute. But he is smart.

My point however stands (and I guess I havent been clear). The problem with America's economy is not the fault of the world, but of our own "leaders".

Actually, it looks more like it was the stupid subprime borrowers and the greedy lenders that gave them the loans that are the problem with America's economy. Unfortunately, nobody on either side seemed willing to address this ticking time bomb (one that makes the dot-com bubble look utterly sustainable and entirely rooted in reality in comparison) and so let it peak and burst on its own.

Thankfully, the end result will be the kind of reform the system's needed for a long time, but I think I speak for pretty much everyone when I say that it should've been dealt with a while ago. 3 years ago or so.

But its wrong, dishonost, and stupid to be one of these people (like TSF) who talks about how important it is to spread democracy and how noble it is, but then act like it was the right thing to do to subvert the democratic will of the people.

It's very simple to understand. TSF and his ilk doesn't really care about democracy. America could be a fascist state run by the leftover Gestapo and he'd still ardently support their actions. Why? Because their like put everything into the state under the guise of patriotism. The modern incarnation of Manifest Destiny where it is not only their right, but their divine mandate, to spread the influence and control of the United States wherever they can touch and beyond.

Did you really think the ideas of Manifest Destiny ever really went away in America?

It's very simple to understand. TSF and his ilk doesn't really care about democracy. America could be a fascist state run by the leftover Gestapo and he'd still ardently support their actions. Why? Because their like put everything into the state under the guise of patriotism. The modern incarnation of Manifest Destiny where it is not only their right, but their divine mandate, to spread the influence and control of the United States wherever they can touch and beyond.

Did you really think the ideas of Manifest Destiny ever really went away in America?

No, and this is exactly what I am hinting at by pointing out the blatant flaws in logic going on here.

No, and this is exactly what I am hinting at by pointing out the blatant flaws in logic going on here.

Well, one can take consolation in the fact that most will be dead when the inevitable resource wars fully break out and they burn the world in nuclear fire. The leaders may survive, but I have some small hope that the less well off who do survive will devolve to their true selfish nature and complete the cycle by killing each other and those leaders for what few resources remain, and dying out in the end.

Well of COURSE the rest of the world wants Obama! The rest of the world, with few exceptions if any, hates America and wants to see it destroyed as a significant world power; of COURSE the world wants us to vote for Obama because they know he'll wreck this country with his anti-Israel, higher-taxes agenda.

If the rest of the world says "Obama", that alone is reason enough to vote for McCain.

Well, one can take consolation in the fact that most will be dead when the inevitable resource wars fully break out and they burn the world in nuclear fire.

Honostly, its enough to make me not want to have kids. I wont be around when everything comes back to pound us from behind, but I dont want my offspring to have to deal with it.


It feels selfish to bring kids into a world Im 95% will be destroyed.

Well, one can take consolation in the fact that most will be dead when the inevitable resource wars fully break out and they burn the world in nuclear fire.
That's why I avoid going to doctors. I don't want to be around for that party.

Well of COURSE the rest of the world wants Obama! The rest of the world, with few exceptions if any, hates America and wants to see it destroyed as a significant world power;

Source.

of COURSE the world wants us to vote for Obama because they know he'll wreck this country with his anti-Israel, higher-taxes agenda.

Source or back it up. Right wing talking points dont really do it.

If the rest of the world says "Obama", that alone is reason enough to vote for McCain.

Again, the "FUCK EVERYONE ELSE" spitful American statement.

Source.



Source or back it up. Right wing talking points dont really do it.



Again, the "FUCK EVERYONE ELSE" spitful American statement.
:D I read his post and just decided to assume he was joking at the same time as you were writing this.

:D I read his post and just decided to assume he was joking at the same time as you were writing this.

Zod's a hasbeen gimmick troll and the older NSGers know it.

Zod's a hasbeen gimmick troll and the older NSGers know it.

Isn't he an open puppet of someone? I can't remember who exactly.

I think if anyone so much as SUGGESTED doing to the US what the US did to Chile, given that the rule of law is constantly abused by Bush, the US would turn the place into glass. Were it to be suggested regarding the Land Down Under, the Land Down Under would ASK the US TO turn the place into glass.
I doubt it. I can imagine there are a lot of news papers, particularly in the middle east, which say all sorts of mean things about the US and the west in general. Occasionally the relevant embassies may issue some sort of protest (and governments in places like Egypt or Saudi Arabia will happily shut the paper down or remove the journalist from sight), but military action because of a newspaper article doesn't sound realistic to me.

Be that as it may, I posted the article because it's a bit of an example of the times back then. Allende wasn't some sort of heroic figure, and he certainly wasn't producing results for his people. That doesn't excuse Pinochet's dictatorship, or those who supported it even after it became apparent for what it was, but it's the other side of the coin that has to be looked at.

Your statements are completely untrue, even on a cursory reading of the article. Any point on which Europeans disagree on policy is only where Barack Obama is closest to John McCain, a hardline on Iran etc.
Let's qualify: foreign policy is the issue that is important when it comes to how outsiders feel about the PotUS and his policies, right? Obama's main points regarding foreign policy are a disengagement from Iraq (which will find support in Europe) and putting more troops into Afghanistan to fight the Taliban (which will not). He also wants to engage Pakistan more strongly, potentially including an expansion of the combat zone into what is nominally Pakistani territory. That will horrify (continental) Europeans to no end.

His second main issue is with Iran, in which he reflects the general view in the US that Iran is building a bomb and that this is very bad. Strangely, Europeans don't share that view to anything like the same extent.

And on climate change, Obama may go further than Bush did or McCain would, but he simply doesn't have the mandate to go as far as Europeans want to go - and it seems hard to imagine right now that Obama would be happy to lock the US into binding international agreements that may cost American jobs - remember the protectionism he advocated during the primaries (different situation, yes, but it's the general direction that counts).

What I'm saying is that Obama doesn't stand for change in the sense that it will suddenly transform the US into another European country: cautious, overly sensitive at times in matters of military action and occasionally idealistic to the point of losing touch with reality. To the American voter, Obama must avoid projecting an image like that at all cost, if his voters were European, he'd have to peddle it like there's no tomorrow. That's where the difference is and will continue to be regardless of who happens to be PotUS at any given point. Bush was a particularly easy figure to hate, but many of the things he's really hated for beyond the superficial issues of Iraq are shared by all major American politicians.

He's certainly a move in the right (well, left) direction in comparison. It's not that we disagree with his policies, it's that we are not skewed quite so much to the right as America so we'll take the closer candidate.
The question is whether it will actually make much of a difference. If Obama were in the oval office, he'd react in much the same way as Bush did in his second term. It may be that your average European (and bear in mind that I'm really only inferring about Germans from those that I know and the German news sources I use) wouldn't yell quite as loudly because Obama would make a less ideal target due to the fact that he's a Democrat and black (and thus part of the group Europeans tend to see as the "good America" that is oppressed by the white, capitalist, gun-toting fatcats) - but the fundamental disagreements wouldn't go away.

Which ultimately doesn't make that much of a difference, I suppose, because it's not like Europe has a foreign policy to speak of. It's got lots of views, but little mandate for doing anything.

Honostly, its enough to make me not want to have kids. I wont be around when everything comes back to pound us from behind, but I dont want my offspring to have to deal with it.

Not having offspring really doesn't help issues. Whether you choose to have any or not is your decision to make, but if you do, educate them, make sure they grow up to be smart people capable of questioning things rather than blindly following the flow. Responsible parenting can do a lot more than the kind of dogma indoctrination rigid ruling that many parents take up.

That's why I avoid going to doctors. I don't want to be around for that party.

I intend to be around, if only to watch the inevitability of human nature destroy itself.

I intend to be around, if only to watch the inevitability of human nature destroy itself.

That and rub it in to the Red Staters crawling on the barren earth. "Where's your Good Christian Man Now?"

That and rub it in to the Red Staters crawling on the barren earth. "Where's your Good Christian Man Now?"

You're likely to be among them really. It's unfortunate that the cost of such a lesson will bring ruin and death to so many uninvolved people, but that is the reality of it.

Besides, even assuming one is alive and well, and in control of sufficient resources that such a scenario does not leave one facing ruin and death, gloating will only serve to continue the cycle. Better to accept the survivors where feasible.

It is easier to change the minds of others when their illusions have been shattered with an open hand than a closed fist.

"Democrat Mr Obama was favoured by a four-to-one margin across the 22,500 people polled in 22 countries."

Yeah. He polls even higher among felons, domestic terrorists, racists and anti-Semites. Just ask Tony Rezko, William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan.

You're likely to be among them really. It's unfortunate that the cost of such a lesson will bring ruin and death to so many uninvolved people, but that is the reality of it.

Besides, even assuming one is alive and well, and in control of sufficient resources that such a scenario does not leave one facing ruin and death, gloating will only serve to continue the cycle. Better to accept the survivors where feasible.

It is easier to change the minds of others when their illusions have been shattered with an open hand than a closed fist.
You're awfully forgiving for one with such a bitter vision of the future. More forgiving than me, at any rate. If the Road Warrior apocalypse you describe were to happen right now, I'd be very unhappy about it and would try to do my best to carve out a decent little corner where some people could live in peace (which is realistically the most I could conceivably have the power to do), but there are people in this world who, if they came begging help from me, I'd have a hard time not saying, "Go lie in the bed you made, asshole," and slamming the door. I might give them some chips for the road. Maybe. If I wasn't running low on chips.

"Democrat Mr Obama was favoured by a four-to-one margin across the 22,500 people polled in 22 countries."

Yeah. He polls even higher among felons, domestic terrorists, racists and anti-Semites. Just ask Tony Rezko, William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan.
Like this guy. No chips for Nicea Sancta. *slams door*

Be that as it may, I posted the article because it's a bit of an example of the times back then. Allende wasn't some sort of heroic figure, and he certainly wasn't producing results for his people
Neither is Bush. So does someone have the right to remove him?

"Democrat Mr Obama was favoured by a four-to-one margin across the 22,500 people polled in 22 countries."

Yeah. He polls even higher among felons, domestic terrorists, racists and anti-Semites. Just ask Tony Rezko, William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan.

....and John McCain is clearly polling high among mindless fools.

What's your point?

....and John McCain is clearly polling high among mindless fools.

What's your point?

As well as racists, neo-nazis, crazy religious loons who want to see the world drowned in blood during a new Crusade, and priests who think the holocaust was God's will.

And Ann Coulter, who really sums up everything above.

....and John McCain is clearly polling high among mindless fools.

What's your point?

I figured that, since the original topic brought up an utterly irrelevant statistic, namely, the opinion of non-Americans in an American election, I thought I might throw in a relevant fact, that Barack Obama has close ties to each of those four individuals, each representing one of the four groups mentioned above.

I figured that, since the original topic brought up an utterly irrelevant statistic, namely, the opinion of non-Americans in an American election, I thought I might throw in a relevant fact, that Barack Obama has close ties to each of those four individuals, each representing one of the four groups mentioned above.

Considering we live in an international community, how the world views the men running for president is relevent.

Considering we live in an international community, how the world views the men running for president is relevent.

Once the world community can vote in an American election, then their opinion will be relevant. Until then, no, not so much.

I figured that, since the original topic brought up an utterly irrelevant statistic, namely, the opinion of non-Americans in an American election, I thought I might throw in a relevant fact, that Barack Obama has close ties to each of those four individuals, each representing one of the four groups mentioned above.

Is it irrelevant?

Isn't one of the arguments that the US used against Russia with the Georgian issue that they would regret ignoring the opinion of most of the world?

Interesting how easy it is to find similarities in the behavior of Republicans to other nations that basically tell the world to try to stop them.

Once the world community can vote in an American election, then their opinion will be relevant. Until then, no, not so much.

In your opinion. Many Americans find it relevent. And thus, there is a study for it.


What you declare important is not the end all be all.

And what you declare relevant is not necessarily so. Since the opinion of non-Americans have no real expression in the final decision of the President of America, their opinions on who that President should be is irrelevant.

And what you declare relevant is not necessarily so. Since the opinion of non-Americans have no real expression in the final decision of the President of America, their opinions on who that President should be is irrelevant.

Youre right, what I declare is relevent isn automatically relevent. But it is for some. And thus there is a study for it.


They have a target market for the study, so to speak. Youve said your opinion. Many disagree. Some of us feel the worlds opinion does matter. So there is a study saying who the world likes better. Some people may vote based on who would establish better relations with the rest of the world.

Again, just because you say its irrelevent doesnt mean it is to everyone.


As an aside, $20 said that if McCain one the right wingers would be tootin a different horn.

You're awfully forgiving for one with such a bitter vision of the future. More forgiving than me, at any rate. If the Road Warrior apocalypse you describe were to happen right now, I'd be very unhappy about it and would try to do my best to carve out a decent little corner where some people could live in peace (which is realistically the most I could conceivably have the power to do), but there are people in this world who, if they came begging help from me, I'd have a hard time not saying, "Go lie in the bed you made, asshole," and slamming the door. I might give them some chips for the road. Maybe. If I wasn't running low on chips.

I am not as forgiving as you think I am.

You see, this is part of the problem why the cycle will continue. Those who do manage survive will harden their minds and views, dividing the world into "them and us" again, opting for violence to gain what they want and turning to whatever salvation they can conjure up to answer their questions.

If I were in such a position as to distribute aid to those who survive, it will not be merely for compassions sake. It will be to destroy the ideas of the old. Stamp them out entirely in the minds of those who used to hold them dear.

I intend to slay, not men, but ideas. And if it were within my power, it will be with an open hand, not a closed fist.

I figured that, since the original topic brought up an utterly irrelevant statistic, namely, the opinion of non-Americans in an American election,
Wrong. The relevance of non-US opinions is established by history. Recent history, too.

I thought I might throw in a relevant fact, that Barack Obama has close ties to each of those four individuals, each representing one of the four groups mentioned above.
Wrong again. (A) It's not a fact just because you say so. Cite your sources that detail these "close ties" or admit you're just spouting a rightwing talking point --and an old one at that. (B) It's not relevant because it has no connection to the OP topic or anything else raised in this thread. So, neither fact nor relevant. All you are doing here is making a clumsy attempt at insulting Europeans and Obama at the same time. And you're faling at it.

Once the world community can vote in an American election, then their opinion will be relevant. Until then, no, not so much.

Sure, if the only point of the American election was to determine who gets more votes. However, one hopes that the purpose of the election is to determine who will be better for America.

Considering a very high priority is combatting terrorism, and considering this requires help, it's entirely relevant.

Considering a concern is our economy and we rely on other nations buying our goods, and considering reputation is as necessary to us as it is to BP or McDonald's or anyone else that wants their goods purchases, it's entirely relevant.

Ignoring the world is shortsighted and has been harming us for 8 years.

"Give us another chance. We promise we won't fuck it up this time." - This message has been approved by John McCain

Did they take it with all the yellowish-white stains?

That's enough.

You're not doing your arguments any favors with your yelling and this kind of low-level flaming. You're giving the debate to your opponent.

What the world cares about the American election has as little bearing as what America cares about the French elections. Zero. The fact that they like Obama doesn't improve his chances one vote; the fact that they dislike Bush does not detract from John McCain's chances one vote. The opinions of non-Americans in American elections are, much like Barack Obama's political rhetoric, sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Barack Obama's connections to Tony Rezko are acknowledged by Mr. Obama himself. His connections with Ayers acknowledged by his campaign. His connections with Wright and Farrakhan are both matters of public knowledge.

I am not as forgiving as you think I am.

You see, this is part of the problem why the cycle will continue. Those who do manage survive will harden their minds and views, dividing the world into "them and us" again, opting for violence to gain what they want and turning to whatever salvation they can conjure up to answer their questions.

If I were in such a position as to distribute aid to those who survive, it will not be merely for compassions sake. It will be to destroy the ideas of the old. Stamp them out entirely in the minds of those who used to hold them dear.

I intend to slay, not men, but ideas. And if it were within my power, it will be with an open hand, not a closed fist.
Look at the people we are talking about. Listen to what they say. Look at what they do. What makes you think that suffering the apocalyptic failure of all their policies and receiving aid and support from you is going to make them realize what they did wrong? You'll be nursing a viper in your bosom, and it will bite you, eventually.

Sure, I'll give them food and water and medicine if I have any to spare. That's just the human thing to do. But they can take those supplies back out to the wasteland they created and can now live in. They are not welcome in my house. I wouldn't let them in for the exact same reason I wouldn't bring a wild raccoon into my house. It doesn't mean I want the raccoon to suffer. It just means I don't want me and the people I care about to suffer.

What the world cares about the American election has as little bearing as what America cares about the French elections. Zero. The fact that they like Obama doesn't improve his chances one vote; the fact that they dislike Bush does not detract from John McCain's chances one vote. The opinions of non-Americans in American elections are, much like Barack Obama's political rhetoric, sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Barack Obama's connections to Tony Rezko are acknowledged by Mr. Obama himself. His connections with Ayers acknowledged by his campaign. His connections with Wright and Farrakhan are both matters of public knowledge.

Youre ignoring everything everyone has said and just repeating talking points. Respond to Joc's point at the very least, as he was far more elequent then I was (typing a paper while doing this).

So, are you going to start actually debating? Or do I have expand my ignore list?

Sure, if the only point of the American election was to determine who gets more votes. However, one hopes that the purpose of the election is to determine who will be better for America.

Considering a very high priority is combatting terrorism, and considering this requires help, it's entirely relevant.

Considering a concern is our economy and we rely on other nations buying our goods, and considering reputation is as necessary to us as it is to BP or McDonald's or anyone else that wants their goods purchases, it's entirely relevant.

Ignoring the world is shortsighted and has been harming us for 8 years.

"Give us another chance. We promise we won't fuck it up this time." - This message has been approved by John McCain

Of course the purpose isn't to determine who would be better for America; if that were the case, Obama wouldn't have even won the nomination, and certainly wouldn't stand a chance. Elections are simply a poll of which candidate has more supporters willing to turn out on a given day. They signify nothing more. Thus, since none of the world community has any say whatsoever in the voting process, their opinions on who should be the American President are irrelevant.

What the world cares about the American election has as little bearing as what America cares about the French elections. Zero. The fact that they like Obama doesn't improve his chances one vote; the fact that they dislike Bush does not detract from John McCain's chances one vote. The opinions of non-Americans in American elections are, much like Barack Obama's political rhetoric, sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Barack Obama's connections to Tony Rezko are acknowledged by Mr. Obama himself. His connections with Ayers acknowledged by his campaign. His connections with Wright and Farrakhan are both matters of public knowledge.

Yes, it's unfortunate that when viewing our political leaders we don't seem to care how they'll help us on the world stage.

But stop acting like this is a school election. This matters. Everything that happens isn't about whether or not it will get them in the White House. Sometimes it's about whether or not something says they SHOULD be in the White House.

Look at the people we are talking about. Listen to what they say. Look at what they do. What makes you think that suffering the apocalyptic failure of all their policies and receiving aid and support from you is going to make them realize what they did wrong? You'll be nursing a viper in your bosom, and it will bite you, eventually.

Sure, I'll give them food and water and medicine if I have any to spare. That's just the human thing to do. But they can take those supplies back out to the wasteland they created and can now live in. They are not welcome in my house. I wouldn't let them in for the exact same reason I wouldn't bring a wild raccoon into my house. It doesn't mean I want the raccoon to suffer. It just means I don't want me and the people I care about to suffer.



Awfully nice considering most of them wouldnt do the same to you.

Id just say how I thought that everyone had to rise and fall on their own merits and how I thought they were God's chosen and God's blessed. Then leave them to suffer the fate they created.