2
   

New poll sugests majority of Americans want off world stage.

 
 
roverroad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2005 07:52 pm
Sturgis wrote:
According to what you are saying the numbers can only go up...this is great news!


Those who disapprove in his performance is at what, 72%? I guess that can continue to go up. Though, I thought it was maxed out a month ago, but it just keeps going up.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2005 11:20 pm
Re: New poll sugests majority of Americans want off world st
roverroad wrote:
A new poll is suggesting that for the first time in over a decade, a majority of Americans want their government to be less aggressive on international politics. That we should stop being the worlds police and even that America shouldn't always take the leading role. What are your thoughts on this?

The Article


This from the poll:

"The public was more likely to say the United States should remain the only superpower..."

This is what you would call having your cake and eating it too, and proof that it is a damned good thing we don't have a system of pure democracy in this country.

We are not niche players like Switzerland and Canada.

Al Qaeda attacked us because we are sticking our noses in their business as they have attacked other nations like England, Australia, Spain and now Jordan. If we withdrew within our borders and stopped sticking our noses in everyone's business - including Al Qaeda's - where might we likely find ourselves within the next ten years?

There is a high probability that the world would have seen it's first nuclear war, and people like roveroad would be cursing the then administration for policies that resulted in the deaths of millions and the poisoning of a large part of the world.

Without America sticking its nose in the business of the Middle East, it and a fair portion of Western Asia will become controlled by Radical Islamists. Since many experts today say that nuclear weapons in Iran is almost inevitable, just imagine what the likelihood would be in a Post-Imperial America world. Pakistan would almost certainly fall to radical Islamists and they already have nuclear weapons. Without the US sticking its nose in North Korea's business, it's a near sure thing that would eventually sell their nuclear secrets to an Arab Caliphate in the Middle East.

It really would be foolish to assert that with a withdrawn America, the Islamists in the Middle East and Western Asia would be satisfied to live within their current borders and in peace with the rest of the world, but even if they did, the centuries long enmity between Sunni and Shiite moslems would reach a boiling point. Persian Shiite Iran will never allow itself to be ruled by any Arab Sunni entity, and it is hard to imagine that either group will resist the urge for unification.

And how will Israel react to the withdrawal of military support from the US and the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Islamic fundamentalists who have long vowed to wipe her from the face of the earth? Will Israel wait for the first Muslim nuke to fall on Tel-aviv? Somehow I doubt it.

And think of the escalation of hostilities between India and a fundamentalist Islamic Pakistan without the US to rein in these two nuclear powers? How many horrendous terrorist attacks will India endure?

But what about the rest of the world? Wouldn't they step up and take over the role of international policeman?

Sure they would.

Europe would be too busy fighting internal battles with insurgent Islamic citizens or too afraid to risk such battle by taking on a robust Islam in the Middle East. China and Russia have shown themselves to be rather hamfisted when it comes to intervention, and both nations face threats from radical Islam within their spheres of influence, if not their borders, and therefore it seems unlikely that they would exercise much restraint when squaring off against a nuclear Islam.

Put all these ingredients together and a boiling stew of nuclear possibilities is the result.

A policy of American isolationism is a policy of disaster for America and the world.

How engaged America must remain is subject to debate, but I say in for a penny, in for a pound.
0 Replies
 
Mortkat
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Dec, 2005 01:45 am
A great post by Finn. I do not think that it will be intelligently rebutted.

As for the ubiquitous polls-Those with poor memories will not recall that Bill Clinton had a 37% Job Approval Rating in Jan. 1993 and yet was re-elected the next term.

Polls? Fox Opinion Dynamics measured President Bush's Job Approval Rating at 42% Approving 48% disapproving and 10% unsure.

With the 10% unsure splitting, the President's rating would be 47% and it is a long long time until November 2006.

However, I can confidently predict two things.

Bush will serve as President until Jan. 2009

Bush will NOT run again for President in 2009
0 Replies
 
roverroad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Dec, 2005 03:19 am
Mortkat wrote:

Bush will serve as President until Jan. 2009


Current trends are indicating that it's likely that the Democrats will win both the house and the Senate, giving them the power to impeach. 2009 is a long way away for Bush to stay out of trouble. More and more corruption is being exposed every week. The only reason he has job security rite now is because it's a Republican House and Senate.

Mortkat wrote:

Bush will NOT run again for President in 2009


Obviously...


Your Point about Clinton's approval rating is valid, keep in mind, he was impeached. Bush will be impeached and ejected.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Dec, 2005 09:07 am
roverroad wrote:
Mortkat wrote:

Bush will serve as President until Jan. 2009


Current trends are indicating that it's likely that the Democrats will win both the house and the Senate, giving them the power to impeach. 2009 is a long way away for Bush to stay out of trouble. More and more corruption is being exposed every week. The only reason he has job security rite now is because it's a Republican House and Senate.

Mortkat wrote:

Bush will NOT run again for President in 2009


Obviously...


Your Point about Clinton's approval rating is valid, keep in mind, he was impeached. Bush will be impeached and ejected.



Actually,
I read an article just recently (I will find it and post a link) that said that while the Dems do expect to make some gains in both the house and senate,NEITHER party expects the dems to become a majority in 06.
The might in 08,however.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Dec, 2005 09:17 am
Which party will dominate congress as a result of the upcoming election is a guess at best. It will hinge on events yet unseen. My guess is that the democrates wll pick up seats but remain the minority party.
0 Replies
 
ralpheb
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Dec, 2005 10:53 am
Looking at these posts I must agree. Me should pull out of every country. Close all our embassies, and stop trade with all countries. We should practice complete and total isolationism. There that will teach everybody.
We should elect a democratic president and have a complete democratic congress.

I'm up for it.

We should reduce our military to nothing more than border patrols. Say, one team for 500 miles. Eliminate our Coast Guard, and make everyone who has a firearm turn it in.
Prayer should be eliminated, and all churches should be closed. No reference should ever be made to any form of supreme being that may or may not exist.

Did I cover evrything?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Dec, 2005 10:57 am
ralpheb wrote:
Looking at these posts I must agree. Me should pull out of every country. Close all our embassies, and stop trade with all countries. We should practice complete and total isolationism. There that will teach everybody.
We should elect a democratic president and have a complete democratic congress.

I'm up for it.

We should reduce our military to nothing more than border patrols. Say, one team for 500 miles. Eliminate our Coast Guard, and make everyone who has a firearm turn it in.
Prayer should be eliminated, and all churches should be closed. No reference should ever be made to any form of supreme being that may or may not exist.


Did I cover evrything?


No,you forgot that we should also cease ALL forms of foerign aid.
Including food,medical,financial,disaster assistance,humanitarian flights,and everything else.
All international companies based in the US must immediately cease ALL foreign operations also.
All foreign diplomats and embassies must be closed and their representatives removed from this country,by force if needed.
0 Replies
 
ralpheb
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Dec, 2005 11:08 am
sorry, thanks. That should teach everybody a good lesson.

What lesson? I have no idea!
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Dec, 2005 11:18 am
ralpheb
It is apparent that you considered all aspects of the situation prior to exposing us to your considered opinion. Sad
0 Replies
 
ralpheb
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Dec, 2005 11:21 am
oh yes. I believe with complete and total conviction everything I put down.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 08:25 am
Now, a new poll suggests most others want the US off the world stage too.

Of a list of powers including Russia, China, India and Europe, the US has only Iran ahead of it in the negative balance between people thinking it fulfills a negative role in the world vs those who think it fulfills a positive role.

Europe's role is the one most often seen as positive.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41287000/gif/_41287042_influ_graph_203.gif

Article: Iran 'has negative role in world'
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 08:30 am
Here's far more details on that research:

Global Poll: Iran Seen Playing Negative Role

US Continues to Get Low Marks

Views of China, Russia, France Down Sharply

Europe and Japan Viewed Most Positively


http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/images/overview.png

http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/images/USA.png

In comparison:

http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/images/europe.png

http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/images/france.png
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 02:49 pm
roverroad wrote:
The thing is, people like like Hussein only have grudges against the US because we are always medaling in their business. So if we mind our own business we wont have to worry about those threats will we?


That is incorrect. The aggression of rogue states would become more pronounced if someone were not there to police them.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 03:00 pm
roverroad wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
So let me get this straight.
A majority of Americans wany us to stop ALL foreign aid,of any sort.
Does that include food,medical,military,financial,disaster relief,the CDC,any any other type of aid we provide?

Does that include closing ALL our embassies and consulates worldwide and bringing every US diplomat home?

Does that include closing EVERY foreign embassy in the US and ordering all of those diplomats out of the country?

Does that include removing EVERY US serviceman and their families from EVERY US overseas base,and canceling all of our treaties with foreign countries?

Does that include leaving the UN and ordering them out of the country?


That all sounds like a good idea to me, except for closing the Embassys. Look at it this way, Binladin had no desire to attack Canada or Switzerland. Not many people want to attack neutral countries.


Osama did want to attack other countries besides us though. His goal was to conquer the Islamic world and then genocide all the non-Muslims therein.

It is true that he attacked us because we were meddling. He correctly deduced that we would prevent his wave of conquest once it started, and incorrectly deduced that 9/11 would make us pull back from the world and let his conquest go forward.

The miscalculation was much like Japan's miscalculation regarding Pearl Harbor.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Mar, 2006 04:16 pm
nimh wrote:
Now, a new poll suggests most others want the US off the world stage too.

Of a list of powers including Russia, China, India and Europe, the US has only Iran ahead of it in the negative balance between people thinking it fulfills a negative role in the world vs those who think it fulfills a positive role.

Europe's role is the one most often seen as positive.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41287000/gif/_41287042_influ_graph_203.gif

Article: Iran 'has negative role in world'


What a riot.

Only someone who thinks that the interests of foreign nations should be the overriding factor in the establishment of US foreign policy would give any weight to this poll.

What a surprise that the ineffectual, appeasers in Europe are considered positive.

Humanity is a funny lot. They tend to either worship or hate the guy on top. In either regard their emotional response is rarely, if ever, rational.
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
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/11/2020 at 01:25:33