1
   

Views of the US election from non-US folk

 
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 07:38 am
nimh wrote:
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.

....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 ;-)).



That made me wonder how many ordinary Afghani & Iraqi locals actually possess computers, nimh. And even if they COULD vote, whether their time & energy might be taken up with day to day survival things? ....
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 08:50 am
msolga wrote:

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 ....


The history of the world for the last several centuries is one of extraterritorial involvement by great powers, The British Empire, France, Holland, Spain Russia, later the Soviet Union and more recently, China. There is nothing at all new in this, and, compared to the others listed we have done quite well. Moreover, with few exceptions, recent U.S. involvement was done in wise or unwise attempts to limit the spread of Soviet-influenced social and political revolution. Earlier actions were against Germany and Japan - in some cases, including the campaign in the South Pacific during WWII, our actions were welcomed by states threatened by aggression.

Perhaps you believe we have entered a new historical epoch in which the contests between nations and peoples have become irrelevant. Perhaps you are willing to rely on the good offices of the UN. I don't share those views.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 08:54 am
George

I'd hardly consider US intrusion in say, Chile, or Iraq (to name just 2) as a fair "contest".
0 Replies
 
fbaezer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 10:05 am
nimh wrote:
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!


If the BetaVote is right, then the rest of the world has no problem.
Kerry easily defeats Bush by 49% among US voters.

(and it would be lovely to interview the 41 Vatican priests, nuns and guards who have voted online) Smile
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 10:35 am
I'm waiting for the first non-US Bush supporter on this thread.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 01:17 pm
msolga wrote:
George

I'd hardly consider US intrusion in say, Chile, or Iraq (to name just 2) as a fair "contest".


I made no claim about "fair". Only necessary and important.

Australians had the recent chance to vote their participation out. They didn't do it. Why?
0 Replies
 
fbaezer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 01:36 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
msolga wrote:
George

I'd hardly consider US intrusion in say, Chile, or Iraq (to name just 2) as a fair "contest".


I made no claim about "fair". Only necessary and important.

Australians had the recent chance to vote their participation out. They didn't do it. Why?


Necessary, georgeob1?

Please explain why was the overthrow of President Allende and the installment of a Military Junta in Chile "necessary".

I respect you too much to believe that you may think Pinochet and Kissinger saved Chile from becoming another Cuba.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 02:13 pm
I have lots of family in Chile. Landowners, admittedy. They certainly paint a very grim picture of the dictatorship Alliende was establishing, and a very bright one of the evolution that has occurred since then. Apart from the smog, I find Santiago a very pleasant place.

Overall I woud say that Chile has fared much better from its revolutions than has Cuba. While the U.S. no doubt welcomed the Pinochet intervention, and was certainly willing to do what it could to destabilize the Alliende regime, the fact is that our efforts to influence Chilean affairs had failed when Alliende came into power. Ponochet represented himself and a large segment of the Chilean people, not the U.S.A.

Why is it that liberals assume that reactonary revolutions are the embodiment of evil, while "leftist" (but still totalitarian) ones are cerdited with great humanistic aspirations, despite the greater slaughter they usually entail?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 02:28 pm
Compare any slaughter actually committed under Allende with that committed under Pinochet and you might get a glimpse of the liberals' mindset on the topic.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 02:35 pm
Georgeob1 is on record here as arguing Pinochet's coup was a necessary thing and his regime did the country much good. When clicking that link also do read back Kuvasz's reply.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 02:42 pm
BTW, before the subject gets totally obsolete, voting day in the US is, by law, on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. It's been that way since 1845. Why, you might ask?
Back then we were largely a rural, agrarian society. November worked because it was after the harvest season (fall), before the planting season (spring), and, in most of the country before travel became impossible (winter). Tuesday was selected because farmers had to travel to their county seat, which could be a day away by horse, buggy or on foot. Voting on Saturday or Sunday would have meant men (men only voted) would have missed the day of rest, such as it was for farmers.
The Tuesday after the first Monday was designed to avoid have election day fall on the 1st. Businesspeople did their bookkeeping on the 1st, tallying up who owed what to whom.
johnboy actually wrote a history report on this when he was an 8th grader. It's funny what you remember sometimes, although I did have to jog my memory a bit. -rjb-
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 03:09 pm
Very explanatory!
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 03:09 pm
thanks for a timely post rjb

wahoowah
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 03:33 pm
Since 1845, wouldn't it be just about time to change it? And while they're at it, they could let all of us that the elections will affect vote. I'd let Americans vote in Slovak election too, why not, they can't mess it up much more anyway...
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 03:51 pm
furreners...always stirring the pot
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 03:57 pm
pot? where? where?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 04:17 pm
nimh wrote:
Compare any slaughter actually committed under Allende with that committed under Pinochet and you might get a glimpse of the liberals' mindset on the topic.


Pinochet had much more time. There is a difference between virtue and the lack of opportunity. Alliende had already suspended the Parliament and most Judicial authority when the coup occurred.

However your basic point has merit. It would benefit some of our liberal critics to compare the harm done by the United States with that done by previously dominant powers, including all of the European colonial empires, and the various former Socialist states.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 04:23 pm
i think that's history george...we should have evolved along enough to have sidestepped that kind of pitfall and more to the point: invading Iraq without a mandate would be a lesson that history would have taught us is best not done.

Oh, and two wrongs don't make a right..if I remember correctly
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 04:43 pm
Do you believe that nation states are evolving to better states and standards of behavior over recorded history? Where is your evidence? I don't think the history of the last several centuries - or even recent decades - would support that view.

There are two views of the question of a UN mandate - a substantial case can be made that there was one. Moreover, one could easily argue that none was necessary given the recognized norms of international law (norms based on actual behavior, not the fictions of internationalists). The still unfolding facts about the Iraqi (oil for food & bribes) payoffs to senior officials in Security Council Sate governments (including France), and UN officials may also influence the judgements of history here.

History offers us many, often-contradictory lessons. The trick appears to be in determining just which of them applies best in a given situation. The peacemakers of Munich were much faulted by history. We are still paying the price for the perfidy of the Allies at Versailles after WWI.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 05:01 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
However your basic point has merit. It would benefit some of our liberal critics to compare the harm done by the United States with that done by previously dominant powers, including all of the European colonial empires, and the various former Socialist states.

Oh yes, for sure, that too. But then you'd have to veer pretty far off into the twilight zone of the far left to still find people saying the US was/is as bad as the Soviet Union was.

As for today's events and the focus of public protest, truth is, the Soviet Union is history, and the US still is everpresent. And while more evil regimes than America's hurt their populations in ghastly ways in Birma, the Congo or Uzbekistan, their misdeeds affect the rest of the world little - hence the relatively smaller public focus.

But yes, anyone still falling into the moral equivalency trap (the kind that has one jumping the "well America does things wrong too" gun if some Cuban, Syrian or Zimbabwean state misdeed is pointed out) deserves only scorn. Vice versa, however, I see little merit in a response to any pointing out of American misdeeds that comes down to, "well if you look at the Soviets or Chinese you can see how much worse it could have been". That, too, is an excuse rather than an real answer.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 01:38:28