World Opinion of Bush

How is it that a president can be so unpopular in the World, and yet still enjoy a significant percentage of the support in his country? Do Americans not care how Bush is slowly turning the world against the US/ For now, the animosity is dicrected directed solely at Bush (for the most part), but were he to remain in power, it would surely reflect on the American people - at least in the eyes of the world.

I'm actually more interested in hearing from Americans about this issue. How important is the image that your leader gives your country in the international community when it comes to deciding how you vote? For me it's very important - Howard is a little weasel and everyone in the world knows it. It's just that Australians are too spineless to dump the incumbents unless things are going properly pear-shaped, and I find that highly frustrating.

So... discuss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Age Newspaper

Kerry would win by a landslide if the world voted
By Michael Gordon National Editor
October 15, 2004
www.theage.com.au

Most Australians do not like George Bush and want John Kerry to win next month's presidential election - and they are not alone.

A co-ordinated survey of attitudes by leading newspapers in 10 nations has revealed a sharp souring of attitudes towards the United States that can be traced to one man: Mr Bush.

Remarkably, the view of Australian voters on the key questions is almost perfectly in sync with the average recorded across the other nine nations: Canada, Britain, France, Spain, South Korea, Japan, Israel, Russia and Mexico.

Fifty-four per cent of Australian voters would prefer to see John Kerry in the White House - a figure that exactly matches the average of the 10 surveys.

Sixty-five per cent of Australians have an unfavourable view of Mr Bush. Just 28 per cent would prefer him to win on November 2. The averages across the 10 nations were 63 per cent and 27 per cent respectively.

And 54 per cent of Australians say their opinion of the US has declined in the past two or three years - again, exactly reflecting the average across the 10 nations.
Advertisement Advertisement

But most people surveyed have a favourable view of American people. None have a more positive attitude than the citizens of America's Cold War rival, Russia.

Nearly 90 per cent of Russians have a favourable view of Americans, compared with 72 per cent of Australians and 62 per cent of Britons. Only the Spanish (47 per cent) do not like Americans.

In just two of the 10 countries do more voters want Mr Bush to win next month than Senator Kerry. In Israel, support for Mr Bush is at 50 per cent to Senator Kerry's 24 per cent. In Russia, the contest is closer, with 52 preferring Mr Bush returned and 48 wanting to see Senator Kerry elected.

Alejandro Moreno, a commentator for Mexico's Reforma, reconciled the positive views towards Americans with the worsening view of America in one adapted phrase: "It's Bush, stupid!"

The simultaneous surveys were the idea of La Presse in Canada. The project involved several of the world's leading newspapers, including France's Le Monde, Britain's The Guardian, Spain's El Pais and Israel's Haaretz.

Most of those surveyed believe it is important that the US play a world leadership role, an area where Australian opinion is stronger than the average.

Seventy-three per cent of Australians take this view, but less than 50 per cent agree in France, Spain and Russia.

Australians also have a more positive view of the Iraq war than voters in most of the other countries, even though most Australians do not believe the war was justified.

While an average of 55 per cent of Australian voters have opposed the war in AgePoll surveys by ACNielsen over the past 14 months, opposition is much higher in Canada (67 per cent), France (77), Spain (80), Japan (71), Mexico (83) and South Korea (85).

The strongest supporter of President Bush and the war in Iraq is Israel, where 70 per cent of voters support the President and 68 per cent say the US was right to invade Iraq.

As Shmuel Rosner of Haaretz puts it: "Israel loves America, and it loves the American President." He notes that Israel is a country very much focused on itself. "All they want to know is that the Americans are on their side in the important and difficult struggles they have to endure."

Perhaps most surprising is the anti-American sentiment in South Korea, a nation that owes its security and economic strength to the US.

Young Hie Kim, of JoongAng Ilbo, writes that in recent years, the perception of the US among many Koreans has changed drastically, especially among the young.

"Now, many see the US as having moved from a benefactor to an impediment to inter-Korean reconciliation; from a protector to a country that could shatter peace on the Korean Peninsula with hard-line policies towards North Korea."

In Canada, where ice hockey fans in Montreal boo the US national anthem before teams take to the ice, 64 per cent of voters have an unfavourable opinion of Mr Bush and say their opinion of the US has lowered in the past two or three years.

While hostility to Mr Bush is generally concentrated among younger voters, it extends to all categories of the population in France with the exception of those who support Jean-Marie Le Pen's extreme right National Front party.

---

EDIT:// fixed punctuation

I for one believe the image cast upon the US by our leaders world wide is very important, which is one of the many reasons I'm voting Kerry. Honestly, I feel that many Americans simply still feel threatened concerning the events of 9/11, not so much that the events happened but more along the lines of the idea that we aren't nearly as secure as we once thought. I think many of us took for granted the protection we had, and when that belief was taken away from the US many people decided the best course of action was to hide behind a "strong" leader. I think too many Americans have their views of the outside world skewed, and as a result their definition of strength fits Bush perfectly.

In another time and place, when America was very young and vulnerable to many other nations in the world, Bush would have made an excellent leader. With the power America has now, we need a more thoughtful leader willing to seek compromise with both allies and alleged enemies before he starts warring with people. Though I realize in some extreme cases, initial force is really the only option we're given, I believe it should be a last ditch effort, not the preferred course of action. I guess in short, you could say the world's feelings towards this country is important to me, because nationailty is secondary to humanity.

Let's put it this way though (and that's more general than just the USA here): what do people from the other countries (and following the same line, their leaders) do for your country? Do they pay taxes? Are they part of your government? Obviously no, so what they think about your president/candidates is nothing more than that, an opinion.

Let's take a few examples, that I know of, namely France and the USA. Do you really think the French will even stop to think "do I care what the Americans think of my country"? If you think so, you are either a fool, or working in the tourism industry. But on the other hand, everyone expects the USA to care about what France thinks about it. Do you see the asymetry?

It's pretty general in fact, a lot of people in the world expect the USA to care about what France thinks, but no one complains that France (and its president leading the movement) gives that much poopoo (blame the forum's word censor for that silly word) to the USA. Everyone wants the USA to acknowledge them and respect them, but 95% of these also won't ever respect the USA, much less like them.

Bottom line is: why would the Americans care about what the rest of the world thinks about them?

Given that the United States' influence extends well beyond its borders, shouldn't those who are influenced by its actions have some representation in the way US policy is directed? For a start, by the USA respecting UN resolutions. Is it not hypocritical for the US to support democracy within, but not among countries?

[q=Skogs]How is it that a president can be so unpopular in the World, and yet still enjoy a significant percentage of the support in his country?[/q]

From my experience, Bush supporters fall into four categories: greedy rich people who benefit from Bush's rich-loving policies (vocal minority), people who support Bush at this moment simply because he is America's leader (generalization: they tend to see verbal attacks against Bush as being no different than verbal attacks against America, Americans, and American troops.) but are not necessarily Republican supporters, people who are just too stupid to know any better (yee-haw, let's go kill some Ay-rabs!), and people who honestly agree with Bush's policies after thinking about it. That last type is rare. I think the second group accounts for a lot of Bush's popularity. It just seems that a lot of Americans unconditionally support George Bush just because he is the President of the United States of America. I think they see dissent as un-patriotic.


[q=Skogs]I'm actually more interested in hearing from Americans about this issue. How important is the image that your leader gives your country in the international community when it comes to deciding how you vote?[/q]

I don't really care much about what civilized nations think of my President because they're not likely to go around dropping bombs in my country because of who he is... unless of course he does it to them first. Terrorists, however, do that type of thing, so hopefully a new face in the White House could ease up the anti-American sentiments in some regions of the world where it's running out of control to the point of terrorism. I say hopefully because Kerry would have to juggle easing tensions along with spouting off "kill Ay-rab" rhetoric on TV to appease the ignorant portion of this country. If he doesn't go around promising to bring all the evil-doers to justice and other classics like that, he runs the risk of being labeled a traitor, wimp, coward. and a bleeding heart. You see, to many Americans and pretty much anyone on Fox News, no conflict is solved unless it ends in a country being decimated, so peace agreements or anything diplomatic would be ruled out.

I am a person who thinks with all the globalization going on that we will eventually need some form of a world government.

That said the UN is a joke and isn't structured very well. What happens if one day if one of the permant members goes nuts and needs to be attacked? No way a resolution is going to get passed to attack that country because they will veto the resolution and thus it can not pass. The UN sucks and should be ONLY a humanitarian aid organization.

Following up on that most Americans don't give a damn what goes on outside of the united states. Not giving a damn what other countries think is dangerous I think for the most part. It will effect trade and help when you need it.

Let me ask you this. If Bush wins again(God I hope not) then what are other countries going to do? Sit there and complain or are you going to block US imports cut back on exports to with our economy? Thats just an example but WHAT are you going to do that is so bad?

The Presidency of the United States is NOT a popularity contest with foreign nations. you are all forgetting, not only did the President initiate war, Congress approved by a LARGE majority. Almost everyone in America thought Saddam has weapons, and the UN has proved it's uselessness before. The UN Needs reformed, if the US hadn't attacked, it would have been the same thing we did with Hitler, with letting him test us in what he could "get away with". Saddam was getting around sanctions and making money, he could have very well started his weapons program again.

Granted, Bush isn't the BRIGHTEST, but I believe he is a man of morals, and wouldn't jeapordize this country ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marick

The Presidency of the United States is NOT a popularity contest with foreign nations. you are all forgetting, not only did the President initiate war, Congress approved by a LARGE majority. Almost everyone in America thought Saddam has weapons, and the UN has proved it's uselessness before. The UN Needs reformed, if the US hadn't attacked, it would have been the same thing we did with Hitler, with letting him test us in what he could "get away with". Saddam was getting around sanctions and making money, he could have very well started his weapons program again.

---

While I agree the UN is useless and needs reform you are wrong as hell making an analogy to Hitler. First off Hilter didn't hide what he was doing. He pretty much let everyone know he was making arms again. Saddam didn't have anything and to assume he would start making them in the future is a good idea but because someone MIGHT do something in the FUTURE is the STUPIDEST reason to go to war. Saddam was the least threatening leader to our country in the world. When it came to the weapon inspectors this time he let them go anywhere they want and they found no signs of him looking to start up weapons programs or actively having a weapons program.

HOW is he like hitler? In the fact of the Weapons for Food program? That involves more than one country and didn't have anything to do with weapons. Just making money.

If we are going by countries that break UN resolutions lets go bomb the out of Isreal. They have broken alot more resolutions than Saddam. Your logic is greatly flawed and vastly ignorant.

Quote:

---

Granted, Bush isn't the BRIGHTEST, but I believe he is a man of morals, and wouldn't jeapordize this country ever.

---

Everyone has morals and thus is a moral man...or woMAN.

Let's look at what Bush has in common with the Republican people:

1. Religion
2. A Republican blood-line
3. A some-what natural disregard for the rest of the world.

Aristotle disagreed with the theory of Democracy because he believed it would lead to mob leadership. I think that is what is happening now in America, we acknowledge that Democratic/Republican parties may both be a bad choice for leader ship but the majority won't allow us to defy this... We're left voting for someone we don't like or agree with. You also have to keep in mind, that any one who doesn't agree with Bush may be considered unpatriotic or to hate America. So... what does probability leave us with? A group of people swayed by the fact that they don't want to be considered unpatriotic by the mob.

"I am sick and tired of people who say if you deface and disagree with this administration, then somehow you're not patriotic. And we should stand up and say, 'We are Americans, and have the right to disagree and deface with any administration!'." - Hillary Clinton

I honestly <3 Hillary Clinton's stance on almost everything.

As I normally do I would jump to France's defense but I quite honestly don't see the point anymore. The country has been so badly demonized by our press and president that I doubt my words will have any effect.

In any event, I do believe that world opinion of America is very important. America is strong, yes, but we cannot think to "Go at it alone." Without the cooperation or respect of the world, it becomes very hard for us as a nation to be taken seriously.

Having traveled this great vast country of America for 19 years now, I've seen many different perspectives on the world through the eyes of its citizens. Sadly, the general consensus seems to be that there is America and then the rest of the world. Whether we want to admit it or not, America is an Empire, perhaps not in the same sense Rome or England was, but we dominate so much of what happens globally and have such far reaching influences on lives outside of our borders that it should be obvious.

Yet, in that same vein, we as a whole seem to lack general regard for what occurs around the world. True, this can be said of just about any country, that self-interest almost always comes first, but America likes to believe that it is the "Pillar Of Freedom" and the "Defender Of The Free World", which with such broad titles seems to indicate that we should by all accounts at least have an interest in what occurs globally. If 9/11 taught us anything, it's that we are a part of the world, and not above it. We are just as likely to be attacked as anywhere else and I think for the first time in almost 60 years, we as Americans realized that while our lives are intertwined with those abroad. It's always seemed to me that America possesses such endless potential to do good in this world and on many, many accounts it has. Yet, in these past few years, we've become increasingly closed in with our vision. We've focused our energy in places that probably didn't need it and ignored areas that do.

Shame on the entire world for turning a blind eye to what is happening in Africa for instance. Every nation should take responsibility for what has happened there, yet I feel if America wants to promote itself as the greatest leader of freedom and the giver of this "American Dream Of Freedom", we should be focusing just as sharply on Africa as anywhere in the Middle East. We must be the catalyst since at the moment we do possess easily the strongest economy and have the means to create such vast amounts of technology and power at a very rapid rate. If the Bush Administration wants to make us believe that Saddam was a threat, then why stop there? Why not go after every "obvious" threat there is? Korea, Iran, Suadi Arabia, many governments in Africa and the like for starters. Surely it would take some serious planning, not a strength of thiers, and alliance building, yet another weakness, but then at least, for the first time I would be able to applaud someone's ambition.

To make this world a better place, we all must remember that we are human beings first and people of a nation second. We cannot allow petty differences such as language, location, skin color, beliefs and the like to trigger hatred or resentment around the world or we shall all certainly fail. Instead, we must find a way to unite at all costs.

If Bush is reelected for another term, unless he completely changes his policies around the world, America will indeed become resented and I predict the cycle of history will follow: where the dominate power of the time will eventually crumble at the hands of all those who have been oppressed and ignored by it. Its' so tragically ironic that every time a superpower appears, they believe they can make things turn out differently, yet they all follow the same path. It happened to Greece, it happened to Rome, it happened to France, it happened to England, it happened to Germany: You'd better bet your life it can happen here too and unless we begin to take steps to fix some of the obvious cracks, it'll happen very soon.

Take care all.

47% of the Spanish have a bad view of the American people? Now, I was expecting for that number to be higher, over here the American stereotype is a fat hamburger eating white man with a baseball cap with two cans of soda attached to the sides of it, with straws coming from them and into the mouth, a US flag in one hand and a shotgun in the other, with a baseball team shirt and without being capable of locating Europe in the map. Another variation has a cowboy hat instead of a baseball cap with cans of soda.

But well, that's just a stereotype, not many people take it seriously, yet the image of the US in Spain is very, very bad, and about Bush, I still haven't seen a single Spanish citizen that claims to like him. I have seen people for the war (Three people) but no people supporting Bush, that is viewed as some kind of ape (And this time I do take that interpretation as right, something I don't do with the image of American people).

Should the US worry about the image the rest of the world has of them? As The Captain said, Bush being re-elected is like US digging it's own grave. I do believe the case is extremely dangerous now for the US, mainly because the Bush administration is full of fascists, and yes, when I say fascist I mean that nearly literally, and I mean "nearly" because at least fascism is more obviously repressive, while the current administration is nicely repressive (with things such as the PATRIOT act). Yes, I do believe Bush is threatening his own country, and I do believe that a second term for him, unless he radically changes his policies- which I doubt- would lead to an unprecedented decay for USA. Wether I if think this decadence is positive or not for history...well, I believe US must fall sooner or later because I never liked empires, but I prefer for it to fall slowly and not with a loud bang, a period of fascism and some nasty conflict full of blood, and the fall into fascism seems to be happening now. Such is the great danger in Democracy, and Plato already warned us about such decedence more than two thousand years ago. Right now, in my opinion, US is very close to the ideas of Machiavelli, basically the Bush administration is just creating threats and means of control in order to alienate the population into believing this administration should be in power. For now, the policies of Bush are making of the US a Panopticon, and even though the order in capitalism already follows a panoptical order in economy, he is extending such order much more than it already was.


So those are my two cents.

Those are beer cans! Not soda cans. What an innaccurate sterotype...the rest is spot on though :D

Woo! Left turns! My favorite sport!

A lot of innocent people have died in foreign countries because of President Bush's policies, opinions and orders. That fact, combined with his seemingly callous disregard for other nations' sovereignty, is bound to lower his appeal to non-US citizens. Basically, he's caused more harm to other countries than to the US; hence why his own people will like him more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edczxcvbnm

Those are beer cans! Not soda cans. What an innaccurate sterotype...the rest is spot on though :D

---

Beer with a straw? A country like that deserves to be destroyed, ipso facto!

Are there any good and popular world leaders? Spain dislikes the US president, and dislikes their own just as much. I've gathered as much from past posts by Shadow Nexus - my EoFF authority on Spanish oppinion. The British dislike Tony Blair with as much vigor as they dislike George Bush. Leaders are never popular. There are countries that hate George Bush, and there are countries that like him. I'm hard pressed to think of any world leader with any sort of positive popularity. The French and German leaders seem to engage in a lot of mutual back-patting, just as do the US and British leaders. Every leader has his circle of friends, and Bush is no different. I don't think much will change if Bush is reelected. If Kerry is elected, the countries of the world that now hate Bush will just hate Kerry instead. It's the US the countries hate, because the policies don't change radically from leader to leader. Individual presidents don't change world oppinion that much.

i couldn't disagree more, Garland. The rest of the world probably can't believe how it could even be a close election. That half of America strongly supports Bush is a strong statement about America and our myopia. It's because our media outlets have become beholden to the powers that be amd they have been systemically brainwashing and allowing lax thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garland

Are there any good and popular world leaders? Spain dislikes the US president, and dislikes their own just as much. I've gathered as much from past posts by Shadow Nexus - my EoFF authority on Spanish oppinion. The British dislike Tony Blair with as much vigor as they dislike George Bush. Leaders are never popular. There are countries that hate George Bush, and there are countries that like him. I'm hard pressed to think of any world leader with any sort of positive popularity. The French and German leaders seem to engage in a lot of mutual back-patting, just as do the US and British leaders. Every leader has his circle of friends, and Bush is no different. I don't think much will change if Bush is reelected. If Kerry is elected, the countries of the world that now hate Bush will just hate Kerry instead. It's the US the countries hate, because the policies don't change radically from leader to leader. Individual presidents don't change world oppinion that much.

---

Yes and no. Well, first, Spain currently dosen't hate the president we have now, in fact he is preety popular, he just legalized gay marriage, for example. OK, so I really don't like him that much, he is a social-democrat, meaning center-left, and I am left but I am not center, but he isn't bad. Actually, recently there was a problem with the American consul: during last year's day of Hispanidad, where all those legionaries I highly dislike do their military walk around the streets, everyone standed when the US flag passed with some marines walking around. The current president didn't, he stayed seated. This year, the consul wasn't there, and when asked, he said it was because the current president's actions (he wasn't the president last year) were offensive to him. When asked, the president said "well, I didn't want to stand up because I want to stay true to my ideas". What do you think the people's reaction to such "incorrect" action of the president was? Well, most of us liked the fact he dosen't stand in front of the US flag. Trust me, this would have not happened if 91% of the population had not been against the war, and probably 98% think Bush was an idiot. So yeah, it does influence.

However, you are right, people will keep disliking the US with Kerry in power. The US is currently the most powerful country in the world and acts as such, meaning following rather imperialist (new kind of imperialism) external policies, not to mention most europeans dislike the capitalism practiced in the US (in Europe there are some socialist concepts in every goverment, even right winged...well, in US too, but much less). However, even if the view of US will never be too good, most people think thatr Bush winning the elections will proove US is a country full of idiots (I am not saying this, I am just quoting people, my opinion on this is not such, I prefer deeper analysis on the situation). So yes, it does influence. The opinion of other countries of US is just getting more low. Oh, on a side note, same thing goes for Israel, Sharon is helping some anti-semitism to rise over here. I'd rather just hate the Sharon and Bush goverments and not the Jews and Americans, same way I would have hated Hitler and Mussolini but not the Germans and Italians. For me, hating a population based on their leader- even if democratically elected- is not only terrbily irreflexive but also the cause of many wars.

Yay, I just ranted.

Who would have done a better job in this Presidential term than Bush? Gore? As if. President Bush has been in power during a very difficult time of our country's history. People don't like how he's run things. Well, pretty close to every single person in every single country thinks they can run things better than their government does.

I would present the following. There are only 2 choices for responding to the terrorist attacks of 3 years ago. 1: hole up, close all borders, shoot everybody who tries to get in, and react to attackers once an attack has been made. 2: Take the fight to the attackers before they have a chance to kill another 6,500 people in one day. Any other options are just compromises that solve nothing and present more opportunities for attack.

Bush has chosen the second option. Why? because would you want to be responsible for the deaths of 5,000 people? Consider it. You wake up one morning and somebody walks into your bedroom and says to you, "You know that guy that you could have stopped a couple years ago? yeah he just killed about 6,000 people. You could have had him locked up or killed a few years ago, but ya chose to do as the People demanded, and did nothing. Now, 6,000 people are dead."

"Yeah yeah yeah, DeBlayde," you say to me. " 6,000 people is nothing in a world of 6 Billion."
And I answer, "Sure. The number is infantesimally small." Consider that each of the 6,000 had a family. People who depend on them. People who looked up to them. People who loved them.

You say, "yeah right. it was just a bunch of fat, ethnocentric, wealthy americans. nobody will miss them, and more should be killed."

a similar attitude was taken about 70 years ago someplace. Where was that?.... it's right on the tip of my tongue...... OH YEAH! Nazi Germany. Only then it was "Yeah right. It's only a buncha fat wealthy Jews. Nobody will miss them."

Bush didn't change the way America acts in the world...He just blew its cover.

He is not fighting terrorism, he is making it grow.

" Take the fight to the attackers before they have a chance to kill another 6,500 people in one day."

Then why are we in Iraq, if I might ask?

Take care all.

our president cant do bussiness with other nations well, if they dislike/hate him. which is another reason why Bush shouldnt be reelected.

What countries hate us anyways? I'm just curious, I can list a few though.

DeBlaye...No one is really going to argue with invading Afgan seeing as that is where Osama was. The world gave us a lot of symphathy for what happened on 9/11/2001 and Bush BLEW IT! He arrogant attitude is what made everyone dislike us...even more. People were willing to help and support us and then he goes off and tried to invade Iraq and tells people that you are either with us or against us. WAY TO BLOW IT BUSH! He just has this whole "I am right and you are wrong no matter what proof you show me otherwise." and that pisses so many people off.

Quote:

---

DeBlaye...No one is really going to argue with invading Afgan seeing as that is where Osama was. The world gave us a lot of symphathy for what happened on 9/11/2001 and Bush BLEW IT! He arrogant attitude is what made everyone dislike us...even more. People were willing to help and support us and then he goes off and tried to invade Iraq and tells people that you are either with us or against us. WAY TO BLOW IT BUSH! He just has this whole "I am right and you are wrong no matter what proof you show me otherwise." and that pisses so many people off.

---

I agree with that one.

The Afgan war isn't the issue here because many do think it to be justified. It's the IRAQI war that has had NO good justification, so far as I have seen.

Not to scare anyone, but consider this food for thought:

"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." Hermann Goering said that at the Nuremberg trials.

When even Pat Buchanan says Bush and his band has gone too far, that tells you something since Buchanan is about as Conserative as they come to begin with. It would seem, ironically, Bush has become an almost Liberal Republican in his ideas and Administration because they are all centered around giving more and more power to the Government which is a Conservative no-no.

A final note:

I did some research on my own through my local public library and called up some published essays written by current members of the Bush Administration. What I found was something very chilling written by Paul Wolfowitz circa 1996:

"it would be hard to sell a pre-emptive strike to the American people, unless a "catastrophic event -- like a new Pearl Harbor" made it seem necessary."

Not to start any theories, but the evidence seems overwhelming.


Whether you're a Democrat, Republican, Independent, American, European, Asian, etc, you would always hope that government, at least in some level, has intentions of looking out for more than its own self-interest. In the last 40 or so years, the USA's government has been sliding down a slippery slope and perhaps soon we shall be hitting rock bottom with this problem.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

Whether you're a Democrat, Republican, Independent, American, European, Asian, etc, you would always hope that government, at least in some level, has intentions of looking out for more than its own self-interest. In the last 40 or so years, the USA's government has been sliding down a slippery slope and perhaps soon we shall be hitting rock bottom with this problem

---

Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul

And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand o'er your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead

- Bob Dylan, Masters of War



Well, I don't need to add anything else. This was written 40 years ago and will be sung for many years, still.

Perfectly placed SN! We need Bob Dylan right now, more than ever.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Captain

When even Pat Buchanan says Bush and his band has gone too far, that tells you something since Buchanan is about as Conserative as they come to begin with.

---

Pat Buchanan is the traditional conservative, where as today's Republicans are referred to by him as the neo-conservatives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Captain

It would seem, ironically, Bush has become an almost Liberal Republican in his ideas and Administration because they are all centered around giving more and more power to the Government which is a Conservative no-no

---

An extremely common misperception. Today's parties have nothing to do with what they did in the 18th and much of the 19th centuries. Bush and his cronies are neo-conservative, as described by Buchanan.

That, though is my point. How the word "Liberal" has become akin to a curse word seems to boggle my mind with the point you just made.

Take care all.

I think the reason why the world (Europe, basically) hates Bush and America is because recent events and certain actions made by the American administration are reminiscent (though unjustly) for the Europeans of their own extremely bloody, callous and horrible past, not too long ago.

Also, they're bitter, because they'd want to take a part in this war as well, but the Arabs are holding them by the balls, pressuring, and using their awesome lobby in the UN to avert votes and decisions, among other things (like rules and regulations in European countries). So, they whine. Let 'em. :)

America should do what's best for America, while still doing their best not too harm anyone else too much (excpet their enemies, of-course). America isn't applying any sort of pressure or force on Europe, so the Europeans should just shut it and let America handle its affairs.

Who would want to take part in this war? The European population? Uh...do you think people want to go happily into war because they have too much time?

Quote:

---

Who would want to take part in this war?

---

Anyone who has anything to benefit from it, or rather, to lose if the war is not waged and won. That means, basically, anyone with assets who doesn't want to become a Muslim.

Quote:

---

Uh...do you think people want to go happily into war because they have too much time?

---

People go to war for many reasons... impotence isn't one of them.

Where is Adlai Stevenson when we need him!?

Seeing as I'm from the UK, I cannot really say much about Bush. For all I know, this man could have done wonders for the USA, and we simply havent heard of them. Everyone seems to hate him because of the war in Iraq, but that's all they seem to think about. Would you sit on your arse and let people bomb your country? No. Bush had to do something. I'm against war because I believe if people have their heads screwed on properly, they can sort things out face to face. But when danger becomes imminent, then you have no alternative..but to fight for your country.

Bush is a dangerous man, and I dont feel safe at all with him on his soap box.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SephirothsMistress

Seeing as I'm from the UK, I cannot really say much about Bush. For all I know, this man could have done wonders for the USA, and we simply havent heard of them. Everyone seems to hate him because of the war in Iraq, but that's all they seem to think about. Would you sit on your arse and let people bomb your country? No. Bush had to do something. I'm against war because I believe if people have their heads screwed on properly, they can sort things out face to face. But when danger becomes imminent, then you have no alternative..but to fight for your country.

---

The only positive thing I can think of off the top of my head that Bush has done for America was his appearance at ground zero after the 9/11 attacks. He basically told us what we needed to hear - "and they are going to hear from us real soon" (referring to the US unleashing the dogs of war). Unfortunately we soon realized that this wasn't going to be an enemy on a traditional battlefield. So alot of us were skeptical about how to combat it. Bush fails in pretty much all areas, domestic, foreign policy etc..

As for the original subject of the thread - The reason why America is at each others throats and divided so closely is because our media is so unbelievable biased towards one party or the other. Or in John Stewarts words - "Partisan Hacks". It's pretty hard to flip through the channels and get an unbiased report on anything political. Neither candidate is all that exciting. We really need another John F. Kennedy.

FOX has been accused of favoring Republicans, while NBC seems more liberal. At least that's the general point of view.

But no worries, for people outside this country who hate Bush, there's plenty in this country that feel the same way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glendon

We really need another John F. Kennedy.

---

Yeah, that or another Franklin Roosevelt. There was a president who realized we had a lot of problems, and went immediately to work fixing them. He was not afraid to piss off big business for the benefit of the country, and it'd be wonderful to see a return to the "good neighbor" policy rather than our current "world police" policies.

"But no worries, for people outside this country who hate Bush, there's plenty in this country that feel the same way."

Hopefully enough to sway this election in the direction it needs to go.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dingo Jellybean

FOX has been accused of favoring Republicans, while NBC seems more liberal. At least that's the general point of view.

---

Thats CBS or so I think.

Can everyone go to www.georgewbush.com and tell me what they think of it,I am especially interested in the opinions of Europeans and everyone else who doesn't live in the US.

I know that this post seems irrelevant but I ask for a little lenience from the moderators

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by War Angel

Also, they're bitter, because they'd want to take a part in this war as well, but the Arabs are holding them by the balls, pressuring, and using their awesome lobby in the UN to avert votes and decisions, among other things (like rules and regulations in European countries). So, they whine. Let 'em. :)

---

I'm laughing at the notion of an all powerful Arab lobby ANYWHERE in the Western world. What do they have to pressure any sufficient nation with? We all know that The Man himself is Jewish. Why do you think Presidential candidates cannot carry debates without mentioning the security of Israel, or the government passing a worldwide anti-semitism law which will be enforced by American taxpayers? They have certain obligations they must adhere to, right...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Captain

"But no worries, for people outside this country who hate Bush, there's plenty in this country that feel the same way."

Hopefully enough to sway this election in the direction it needs to go.

Take care all.

---

For Bush :D

Quote:

---

We all know that The Man himself is Jewish. Why do you think Presidential candidates cannot carry debates without mentioning the security of Israel, or the government passing a worldwide anti-semitism law which will be enforced by American taxpayers? They have certain obligations they must adhere to, right...

---

Again, you forgot about the aliens. I'm telling you, love, it's not a conspiracy theory without the aliens!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HIK248

Can everyone go to www.georgewbush.com and tell me what they think of it,I am especially interested in the opinions of Europeans and everyone else who doesn't live in the US.

I know that this post seems irrelevant but I ask for a little lenience from the moderators

---

As a European, the site is just what I expected!

An image of the imperial army on the main page, a link to the "Jewish Team" as they refer to it, soaked in references of their obligation to the state of Israel (a higher priority than the well-being of America apparently), a photo album of the President with prominent Jews, slandering of the main opposition, the hypocracy of the title of "building a safer world" and talks of compassion and religion while currently engaging a genocidal and imperial rampage that the anti-Christ would be delighted to watch, then there's the donation requests...And also the absurd article title of "America's Small Business Supports President Bush".

Are these guys for real...? The Kerry website is probably the same load of dung. Bush is an insult to Christianity as Sharon is to Judaism. It's a pity they hold such high offices.

Quote:

---

Are these guys for real...? The Kerry website is probably the same load of dung.

---

Pretty much. As I said before, neither candidate is all that exciting. Both Republicans and Democrats have their bad characteristics. The U.K and Canada should let us borrow some of their parties so we can shake things up a bit over here.

"We need more JFK"

I like Bush but i think there should be more Ronald Reagan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turk

As a European, the site is just what I expected!

---

Turk you live in the US at the momment, right?

Actually my previous post was a bit misleading,I am not interested so much in the context of the site but in its acces.I have heard that the site can not be accesed from Europe and perhaps from other countries,but only from the US.I live in Greece and i get "acces denied' when i try,that is why I asked for European and non US members for opinions,to see if they can acces it.

Quote:

---

have heard that the site can not be accesed from Europe and perhaps from other countries,but only from the US.

---

Ahh, so that's what's wrong with it. But I live in Israel, so a nice O_o at that.

Edit: *Laughs*
||
\/

Quote:

---

As a European, the site is just what I expected!

---

:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wakka

I like Bush but i think there should be more Ronald Reagan.

---

I can't remember what it was like with Ronald Reagan since I was a little kid at the time, but at this point really, I'd probably vote for any of our old presidents over Bush. Really, the only president in the US history that I can think of that I feel has done anywhere near as much damage as Bush has is John Adams, and I only say that because if I recall correctly, he was a founding member of the original political parties, something which has plagued our system for two centuries, and broke the electoral college less than a decade after the constitution was written. Of everything that is wrong with out government, a fair amount of which has happened or gotten worse under Bush, one of the worst offenders, one of the broken shards most hurting america, is the political party system we've got set up.

Seriously, I'd love to see another John Kennedy or Franklin Roosevelt run. If the history books are anywhere near on target in describing them, they were both visionary men, and would do the country good right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by War Angel

Ahh, so that's what's wrong with it. But I live in Israel, so a nice O_o at that.

Edit: *Laughs*
||
\/

:rolleyes:

---

I was born in the US then moved to Istanbul about a year old, then back to the US few months ago.

"War Angel"

You consistantly take my statements for laughs and as of late tend to mock them with "alien connections", and now you bring the smiley faces too I see. Very typical for someone who has nothing he can refute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HIK248

Can everyone go to www.georgewbush.com and tell me what they think of it,I am especially interested in the opinions of Europeans and everyone else who doesn't live in the US.

I know that this post seems irrelevant but I ask for a little lenience from the moderators

---

For some reason after reading for about 2 minutes on that site I couldn't stop laughing.

Anyway, I hate Bush. I want him to die and go to hell so Satan can anally rape him every morning after breakfast.

If Kerry doesn't win I think I'll break down and cry. Then again with how the last election went I don't expect Kerry to win, seeing as we don't get to decide anymore. :(

Quote:

---

You consistantly take my statements for laughs and as of late tend to mock them with "alien connections", and now you bring the smiley faces too I see. Very typical for someone who has nothing he can refute.

---

Sorry, you're right. America and the Jews want to conquer and rule the world. I agree.

Quote:

---

Kerry would win by a landslide if the world voted...Fifty-four per cent of Australian voters would prefer to see John Kerry in the White House - a figure that exactly matches the average of the 10 surveys.

---

WHOAOMG!...er, wait, so 54 percent is a landslide?

To answer the actual thread question, I'm willing to guess that a large percentage of people in Europe/Australia/Asia (they ignored Africa and South America in this survey, didn't they?) dislike Bush because of 2 things:
1 - it's the popular thing to do, just as it's the popular thing to do here in the northeast US. People are sheep, after all.
2 - They have not researched anything about Bush's stances on their own. They rely on their media and word of mouth. Again, people are sheep.

It's no secret that I'm voting for Bush. I decided that about two weeks ago, actually. I finally did all of my research on both candidates, and the short reason I'm voting for him is "he's not Kerry," and the longer reason is that I listened to the debates and researched issues that mattered to me, and Bush's stances on those issues agree MUCH more with my own than Kerry's.

Just to address one more comment,

Quote:

---

I do believe the case is extremely dangerous now for the US, mainly because the Bush administration is full of fascists, and yes, when I say fascist I mean that nearly literally, and I mean "nearly" because at least fascism is more obviously repressive, while the current administration is nicely repressive (with things such as the PATRIOT act).

---

You know that NINETY-NINE out of 100 senators voted for the Patriot act, right? Included in that set of 99 is John Kerry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MartyM

You know that NINETY-NINE out of 100 senators voted for the Patriot act, right? Included in that set of 99 is John Kerry.

---

I wasn't aware of that..... :( .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adam Sandler

SOMEBODY KILL ME PLEASE! KILL ME! I WANT TO DIIIIIIIIIIE!

---

Both Bush and Kerry are less than ideal presidential candidates. It's a choice of the lesser of two evils in this election. Do I want to stub my toe, or hit my thumb with a hammer? Honestly, both will prove to be a highly similar, and highly unpleasant experience. No matter who wins, we'll all be jumping up and down shouting God darn it! I think Bush is the lesser of two evils.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MartyM

You know that NINETY-NINE out of 100 senators voted for the Patriot act, right? Included in that set of 99 is John Kerry.

---

Most of whom later admitted that they had not read it when they voted for it. That's a horrible thing for them to do, but it doesn't change the fact that there's a good chance he didn't know what he was voting for when he did.

And explain to me how this absolves the Bush administration from introducing it in the first place? Granted, I haven't done much study on what laws throughout US history have been thrown out as unconstitutional, but the act appears to be perhaps one of the most unconstitutional laws ever passed. I've flipped through the text of the bill (which is really the best you can do if you're not proficient with legalese) and from what I could see, the only part of it that seems to not be unconstitutional is the part that says that the FBI and CIA need to do a better job at sharing information.

This truly is an election of trying to decide who will do the least damage to our country. If this election doesn't unequivocally prove that there's something seriously wrong with the two party system, I don't know what will. With Bush, there's probably better than even odds things will get worse, whereas Kerry is an unknown. And in this case, I'll go with the unknown factor than the damn-near-sure loss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MartyM

I finally did all of my research on both candidates, and the short reason I'm voting for him is "he's not Kerry," and the longer reason is that I listened to the debates and researched issues that mattered to me, and Bush's stances on those issues agree MUCH more with my own than Kerry's.

---

That may be, but Bush as well has shown that what he says about an issue and what he does about them are often two different things, as shown in post #8 of this thread.

Yes, people outside the USA can't access www.georgewbush.com directly, but there are quite a few ways of getting around the block:

https://georgewbush.com/
http://65.172.163.222/
http://origin.georgewbush.com/

EDIT:// You used to be able to use those, but the 'backdoors' seem to have been blocked off as well. *shrug*

If I was 18, I'd definitely vote for Kerry. I live in America, more specifically, Georgia, and the majority of the people who go to my school are very conservative and love Bush. I'd try to explain to them how many people in other countries really dislike him, but the argument wouldn't really be worth much. These are people who think that nuking other countries is a good way to solve problems. :( And I have a teacher who believes we should have conquored Mexico and Canada during the 1800s. All I could say was...WTF?

If this election is decided by courts like the last election, I'm not voting for president again. There are so many barriers between the popular vote and who becomes president, that for all the debating, I don't care much. Even if the majority of US citizens elect Bush, the electoral college can still elect Kerry. It happenned in the Bush Gore election, after all. If the results of the popular vote aren't what the candidates would like, they can throw out as many votes as they want, by calling on every legal obscurity they can find - and apparently there are many. After the people are overruled by the electoral college, the supreme court gets to, by deciding which votes will count, and which won't, appoint the next president of the United States with no regard for either of the two results. Once again, if this election is decided by an army of lawyers, and the next president is appointed rather than elected, I'll write off voting as a wasted effort.

www.bushgame.com
its really good actually. and they do state their references.

Garland,

Oh please. Bush won the last election fair and square. There were rules, and according to the rules, he won. Now, I will agree with you that they are not be the BEST possible rules (as evidenced by the fact that Bush failed to win the popular vote), but by the rules, he won.

Quote:

---

If the results of the popular vote aren't what the candidates would like, they can throw out as many votes as they want, by calling on every legal obscurity they can find

---

As per your own argument, why would they even bother trying to throw out votes from the popular vote, when the electoral college votes are all that matter?

The sad reality is that, even if the system allowed maximum voting power per person (straight popular vote), your vote is still just one in a sea of 150 million or so. One of my friends took a probability class, and one of their exercises was the following: they assumed that 51% of the voting US supported candidate A, and 49% supported candidate B. If only 10,000 people show up to the polls on election day, what is the probability that candidate A will win the election (I don't remember whether they used the popular vote or electoral college model - electoral college model being where a state's votes go to the candidate receiving the majority of the state's votes)? The probability turned out to be 97.5%. That really casts doubt on how much it matters to show up at the polls on election day, huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MartyM

Oh please. Bush won the last election fair and square. There were rules, and according to the rules, he won. Now, I will agree with you that they are not be the BEST possible rules (as evidenced by the fact that Bush failed to win the popular vote), but by the rules, he won.

---

No.

Bush didnt win the last election, the Supreme Court in a massive overstepping of its own Jurisdiction decided to end the official counting of votes. Giving Bush the presidency. The votes where later counted and Gore won Florida by 1400 votes. Gore decided not to challenge the Supreme Courts decision to DECIDE the election. So guess we can blame it on Gore, but that doesnt mean Bush won.

The world has a problem with Bush, therefore our President doing business with them is compramised. Also since he declared that WmDs were in Iraq and we havent found any, our(*he is representing us*) credibility is compramised until the world can give us a new slate, in other words a new president is needed or else our nations will be hard pressed to beileve us in the event of an actual world threat.

Quote:

---

Bush didnt win the last election, the Supreme Court in a massive overstepping of its own Jurisdiction decided to end the official counting of votes. Giving Bush the presidency. The votes where later counted and Gore won Florida by 1400 votes.

---

Source?

I have a source in front of me right now that says:
1 - The day after the polls closed in 2000, the Florida Division of Elections reported that Bush won the popular vote, 2,909,135 to 2,907,351.
2 - The Miami Herald, along with a consortium of the nation's major news organizations, each hired outside consultants to examine the "uncounted" ballots - those that never went a manual recount, and which were machine-rejected as "overvotes" or "undervotes" (you know, the ones that Gore WANTED to be recounted). But according to the Miami Herald, had the manual recounts continued in Gore's 4 hand-picked counties (which that he won initially by a huge margin, and theorized that there were more uncounted ballots there for him), he still lacked enough votes to overcome Bush (Bush would have won by 537 votes rather than the 1800ish given by the machine counters).
3 - The supreme court's decision was based on the fact that in the manual recount, in some counties, slightly dimpled/scratched chads were being counted as votes for Gore, whereas in other counties, only fully punctured or hanging chads were counted as votes. Nevermind that the instructions on the card clearly stated that only fully punctured cards with no hanging chads would be counted.

My source is "The Ten Things You Can't Say in America" by Larry Elder (a libertarian). It's a very slanted book, but it offers a refreshingly different viewpoint on a lot of issues. I used it as my source for the above because I knew it had info on the 2000 elections and I don't have time for mass web searches right now. Elder also cites a number of sources in his bibliography on the issue and I'd be happy to cite them for you as well.

Edit - I should mention that, with regards to your post, "the official counting of votes" would be better described as "the official recounting of votes in the 4 counties Gore specified." After all, Florida law allows either candidate to demand a manual recount, and Gore did, but only in those 4 counties.

Anyway, what's your source?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MartyM

Anyway, what's your source?

---

Well hey guess my civics teacher was wrong. I can admit ive made a mistake unlike the oh-so unfalible almighty Bush who cant name a mistake hes made(*Refering to the Debate response*).

Also before i continue On Dec. 13, Gore conceded. meaning he DIDNT push the Supreme Courts decision possibly leaving us Presidentless for an unknown period of time, which would have been the best idea.

But all of this doesnt change the fact that Bush won by 1 vote, the vote of the Supreme Court. And lets not forget the thousands of illegally disenfrancised voters and convicts whose case was thrown out. Point being democracy was on vacation that day. The system failed and now for 4 years we have been paying the price.

Now the world wants a new leader, 30 of 35 countries polled would elect Kerry source:cnn.com, and if all those countries would cooperate more with Kerry than Bush and also find him more credible then i think that should have atleast some impact on the voters decision. Cuz if there is a real threat that presents itself to the world i want the world to not have any reservations about US credibility, since they obviously wont beileve Bush anytime soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CloudSquallandZidane

Also before i continue On Dec. 13, Gore conceded. meaning he DIDNT push the Supreme Courts decision possibly leaving us Presidentless for an unknown period of time, which would have been the best idea.

---

The recount system in Florida actually specifies that, if a manual recount is asked for, it must be completed within 7 days. So no dice there. Gore lacked enough time for his recounts because it surfaced, several days into the recounting, that different counties were using different standards for their interpretations of poll cards.

Quote:

---

But all of this doesnt change the fact that Bush won by 1 vote, the vote of the Supreme Court. And lets not forget the thousands of illegally disenfrancised voters and convicts whose case was thrown out. Point being democracy was on vacation that day. The system failed and now for 4 years we have been paying the price.

---

Source about illegally disenfranchised voters? I don't doubt what you're saying, but I'd like to see some evidence. Also, are convicts even allowed to vote? I don't know.

Quote:

---

Now the world wants a new leader, 30 of 35 countries polled would elect Kerry source:cnn.com, and if all those countries would cooperate more with Kerry than Bush and also find him more credible then i think that should have atleast some impact on the voters decision. Cuz if there is a real threat that presents itself to the world i want the world to not have any reservations about US credibility, since they obviously wont beileve Bush anytime soon.

---

Well, it's not the COUNTRIES that would be cooperating with Bush or Kerry per se, it's the LEADERS of the countries. The fact that a country would elect Kerry over Bush says little about how willing the country's leaders are willing to work with either candidate, considering that many countries don't even elect their own leaders. I'm not saying you're wrong - I'm just pointing out a logical gap :) And again, the source that started this thread stated that an average of 54% of voters in certain countries (or something like that) would vote for Kerry. 54% is NOT a landslide, contrary to the popular belief. I believe that America itself is divided according to a similar percentage.

"Well, it's not the COUNTRIES that would be cooperating with Bush or Kerry per se, it's the LEADERS of the countries. The fact that a country would elect Kerry over Bush says little about how willing the country's leaders are willing to work with either candidate, considering that many countries don't even elect their own leaders. I'm not saying you're wrong - I'm just pointing out a logical gap And again, the source that started this thread stated that an average of 54% of voters in certain countries (or something like that) would vote for Kerry. 54% is NOT a landslide, contrary to the popular belief. I believe that America itself is divided according to a similar percentage."

Usually though, the leaders of said country will follow the popular opinion of the general population of a country, so if the people are against Bush, the leaders will be as well.

Actually, in this day and age, 54% would be a landslide when you account for the fact that about half of the world, at least the Western world, does not vote.

Also of note, probably the single greatest misunderstanding in this country has to do with polls. Polls do not reflect the will of the people, but only reflect people who have been asked their opinion. You can skew a poll completely by only asking one group of people their opinion and completely leaving another group out. The current group being left out: the youth of America. Since many will be voting for the first time, they have not been factored into polling numbers and thus, all polls in my opinion are more or less moot points.

I still think we need to get away from polls as it just leads to candidates tailoring their messages to reflect a higher number in said polls. Instead of focusing on issues, they focus on lobbyists and a small core of issues that reflect a fluctuation in the polls. We need a president who is forward thinking and willing to make a difference not just in America, but in the world.

Take care all.