Re the topic title, I posted a letter from a friend who just came back from Brazil on another thread -
http://able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=36989
He scanned a political cartoon from the Jornal do Brazil and I've tried to add it, but haven't succeeded yet.
Armyvet35 wrote:Nihm actually they did ......I have 2 army buddies that went....
I can say there are quite a few places our soldiers go that arent listed anywhere... to this day I dont know where my husband went with SF....hes not suupposed to say anything to his own wife...
Oh yeah its possible US troops go all kinds of places under cover, secretly ... but then not as UN peacekeeping troops. UN peacekeepers are never covert operations, and the UN site and the site Pan quoted merely list those countries that took part in official UN operations ... what countries do secretly on their own accord is a different story ...
Armyvet35 wrote:Nime check the defense almanac as well for information on deaths and us participation
Nah, I already came up with one half of the numbers, you do the other half, lets have some division of tasks here ;-)
nimh <- nevertooshytoderailathreadifthedigressionisinterestingenough
Good evening, yall. Thanks msolga for posing this question and I'm sorry that it got disrupted by a few of us in the states. Back on topic, I hope.
(By the way msolga and dlowan were kind enough to guide me through the recent Aus election).
msolga asks why so few vote (in the US). I can't give you a quick answer. Maybe it't because elections are held on Tuesdays; maybe its because the typical voter is cynical about the integrity of politicians.
dlowan asks a question re the "damagingly divided" US electorate. Good point. 2000 was not good for us and this election will be, probably, so close that whichever candidate wins will be regarded as suspect. Did he steal the election? Not good for the US and not good, I reckon, for the rest of the the world that looks to the US for providing some semblance of stability. (I'm willing to retract that last sentence). johnboy
sozobe wrote:Interesting thread. I think the "they're equally bad" stuff is bogus and itself as much a cause of our current woes as anything else, but don't want to derail the thread arguing it.
I understand what you're saying, soz. But, it seems more an urgent case to remove an evil administration & replace it with a more moderate & sane one (to me, anyway) .... Rather than wild enthusiasm & a ringing endorsement of the Democrat team. Of course, this is a VERY valid reason to vote for Kerry, but seems to be more of a negative reason than a wildly positive one. (Says she, from the other side of the planet! :wink: )
Yep to what msolga wrote, that's about just what almost everybody says outside the US.
Kerry is seen only as the less dangerous one.
I genuinely like Kerry. I think his record is impressive, and that he is doing his damndest to play the election game and play it well, and I agree with patiodog that the game sucks. But I am genuinely optimistic about what he will do in office -- better if enough Democrats come in with him to actually get things done.
realjohnboy wrote:
msolga asks why so few vote (in the US). I can't give you a quick answer. Maybe it't because elections are held on Tuesdays; maybe its because the typical voter is cynical about the integrity of politicians.
dlowan asks a question re the "damagingly divided" US electorate. Good point. 2000 was not good for us and this election will be, probably, so close that whichever candidate wins will be regarded as suspect. Did he steal the election? Not good for the US and not good, I reckon, for the rest of the the world that looks to the US for providing some semblance of stability. (I'm willing to retract that last sentence). johnboy
A very quick response, realjohnboy, coz' I gotta run!
From my reading of the situation Bush did, indeed, steal the last election! With a little help from some influential family & powerful friends. Plus the weirdest voting system I ever heard of!
Surely the most powerful democracy in the world can organise things better than this! It really does seem like a dog's dinner from far-away Oz.
Yeah, voting on Tuesdays is strange .... Hardly an ENCOURAGEMENT to participate! We always vote on Saturdays & we also have uniform voting system Australia-wide.
This will amuse you, rjb, your election day falls on a public holiday here - Melbourne Cup Day! A holiday for a horse race!
So we'll probably be able to follow the developments closer than most of you at work in the US. (Actually, that's how I always remember your election date ... "The Cup" & a public holiday. How could I forget?
)
sozobe wrote:I genuinely like Kerry. I think his record is impressive, and that he is doing his damndest to play the election game and play it well, and I agree with patiodog that the game sucks. But I am genuinely optimistic about what he will do in office -- better if enough Democrats come in with him to actually get things done.
I really don't think the US election campaign has not been covered in great depth here in Oz, soz (that rhymes!
) so unless we've really gone out of our way, we're not fully aware of the Democrats platform. (There can be no mistaking what Bush stands for, though!
) Most of what I've seen/heard/read via the media is to do with the more sensational aspects of the two contenders, the allegations, the counter allegations, the conventions, positions on Iraq & terrorism, etc ...
Of course many of us Oz folk who were shattered by OUR recent election result are fervently hoping that the Republicans lose this time. If our "deputy sheriff" PM MUST follow the US wherever he is led, it is far better that he follows a saner & more moderate president than Bush. We have a huge stake in this too, you see! A Kerry victory would be better for us, the world, the UN & you!
WE don't get a Melbourne Cup holiday......
: (
"If our "deputy sheriff" PM MUST follow the US wherever he is led, it is far better that he follows a saner & more moderate president than Bush. "
Good point - but he prolly won't follow a sane and moderate president.....
I dunno about that, Deb. If it's the president of the US of A he might just follow, being the natural born follower he is. I can't think of anyone else he could play sherriff for & he'd miss it terribly.
Hang on!
He might decide that it's his mission in life to keep the Bush flame burning, should George hit the dust! The mouse (or rodent)that roared!
Ah, of course don't get the Cup holiday! What was I thinking?
What a shame, Deb. OK, so only VICTORIANS will be able to follow the election developments minute by minute.
This was sent to me by an A2K member in the UK:
A popular bar had a new robotic bartender installed.
A fellow came in for a drink and the robot asked him,
"What's your IQ?" The man replied, "150."
So the robot proceeded to make conversation about quantum physics, string
theory, atomic chemistry, and so on.. The man listened intently and thought,
"This is really cool."
He decided to test the robot. He walked out of the bar,
turned around, and came back in for another drink.
Again, the robot asked him, "What's your IQ?"
The man responded, "100." So the robot started talking about football,
baseball, and so on. The man thought to himself, "Wow, this is really cool."
He went out again and came back in a third time.
As before, the robot asked him, "What's your IQ?"
The man replied, "50."
The robot then said, "So, you gonna vote for Bush again?"
`
This link was sent to me by the same A2K member. (Thanks, C!) And hey, we get to vote! Check out the site to vote & see how folk in other countries voted!
BetaVote.com
What if the whole world could vote in the U.S. presidential election?
In today's world, all nations are inextricably interconnected. The
United States is the most powerful and influential nation in the world.
Everyone everywhere will be affected by the upcoming U.S. presidential
election.
What if the whole world could vote in this election?
Please choose a candidate and select your country, then click the VOTE
button.
For more information, please see the Frequently Asked Questions.
Comments are welcome and should be submitted via the Comment Form.
Thank you for participating!
If you are a U.S. citizen, please remember to vote for real no matter
where you are.
http://betavote.com/
~
The only two countries to select Bush from the very long list:
Liechtenstein George W. Bush by 11%
Niger George W. Bush by 63%
Check out the list & vote!:
http://betavote.com/
msolga wrote:Yeah, voting on Tuesdays is strange .... Hardly an ENCOURAGEMENT to participate! We always vote on Saturdays & we also have uniform voting system Australia-wide.
We vote on weekdays, always ... on weekends, many people are out for the day or even all weekend, visiting friends or family or on an outing; and considering it's a bother to get absentee forms or the permission to vote elsewhere than your own precinct, it would actually be more discouraging to vote in weekends.
But opening times for the polls have been extended the past few elections; now you can vote from, I dunno, 7 in the morning (I wouldnt know that) to 9 in the evening. (Looked it up: 7:30 AM to 9 PM).
We dont have uniform voting systems either; most towns have now switched to voting machines but some smaller places and Amsterdam, I believe, for some reason, still vote with paper ballots and the red pencil.
I earnestly hope President Bush is reelected. Certainly the polls suggest a very close race.
I'll confess to being a bit put off by suggestions from posters here from other countries that somehow "the world" (or certain other parts of it) should have a voice in the U.S. election, usually because we are such a dominating power, etc, etc.
Generally these folks are also (appropriately) fond of the independence of their own countries, or at least unwilling to see their countries follow the U.S. lead in areas they don't like. OK by me, but please don't deny us the same right.
The EU now comprises a population and a GDP larger than those of the U.S. Perhaps Americans should start complaining of a monolitic Europe undeservedly dominating the world. (Some here do that already). The fact is that if Europeans want to see certain aspects of world affairs handled differently, it is within their power to do so, All they have to do is to act purposefully and decisively. The history of the last several decades reveals a pattern of failures in this area and a strong preference for illusory mechanistic 'solutions' over facts.
Perhaps it is less uncomfortable for liberals in both Europe and Australia to worry and fret about U.S. politics than the several truly serious issues confronting them much closer to home.
That BetaVote.com is too interesting. About as scientific as my straw poll of the office of course but actually, the results per country are pretty illustrative! They are pretty coherent.
At the very top-end for Kerry, of the countries where more than 1,000 people voted, we unsurprisingly see France (95%) and Germany (94%) as well as Austria (95%), Switzerland (95%) and Luxembourg (93%) - all of Old Europe; along with Finland (93%) and, surprisingly, Ireland (94%) and Portugal (93%); Lula's Brazil (95%) - and, for some intrigueing reason, all the break-away Yugoslav states: Bosnia (92%), Croatia (96%), Slovenia (94%).
<wondering whats up with that ... why would the Bosnian, Croats, Slovenes turn away from Bush so strongly, so collectively? Do they yearn back for Clinton? Bush enjoys a much larger minority in Serbia and Macedonia (as well as Albania), be it on a much smaller total of votes>
Meanwhile, on the "top" end for Bush, apart from the only two states where he's actually in the lead that msolga mentioned (Liechtenstein and Niger), there's Afghanistan (45%) and Iraq (46%), no less, with a total of some 3,000 votes from the former and a thousand for the latter. Symbolic score for Bush! Though truth be said there's probably a lot of expats among them. Next up, still counting only countries with >1,000 votes, are Poland (35%) and ... nothing for a long while ... then Russia (15%), Chile and the Netherlands (11%), Italy, Slovakia, Australia and Canada (10%) (sorry, girls, sorry Blatham, sorry myself ;-)).
Way to go Liechtenstein!!!!
georgeob1 wrote: ...I'll confess to being a bit put off by suggestions from posters here from other countries that somehow "the world" (or certain other parts of it) should have a voice in the U.S. election, usually because we are such a dominating power, etc, etc.
Generally these folks are also (appropriately) fond of the independence of their own countries, or at least unwilling to see their countries follow the U.S. lead in areas they don't like. OK by me, but please don't deny us the same right.
Er ... The US has had this unfortunate tendency to involve itself in other countries in "the world", george .... To name a few: Chile, Guatemala, Iraq, Indonesia, Afghanistan .... And your ambassador to Oz has very rudely interfered in our internal affairs during the recent election campaign here. People in the countries I've mentioned might just have valued their independence as much as you do. Given this tendency of the US to "involve" itself in many other countries, surely it's reasonable that we might want to voice our thoughts on your election? We don't want to invade you, interfere with the affairs of your country, or install a puppet regime in the US. Of course, we don't have the power to do that, unlike the US has done to others. We'd just like a more enlightened approach to "the world" from your government, that's all ....
