quote: Each email someone gets from some arrogant Brit telling us why to NOT vote for George Bush is going to backfire, you stupid, yellow-toothed pansies
posted
Is it so hard to believe that people affected by the actions of the world's only superpower desire some way to affect the way it is run? He may not be right, but the sentiment is understandable.
As a Canadian, this coming election is perhaps more important than our federal election this summer, yet I have no say whatsoever. I accept that this isn't going to change short of annexation, but that doesn't mean I can't rightly feel bitter about it.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
To the internationals: until you're prepared to let the US choose who your president or prime minister will be don't even bother entertaining some theoretical, hypothetical idea that you might have a say as to who will be ours. Don't forget, the US is still the third most populous country on the face of the earth.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say that Republicans are not known for their ability to plan things a decade in advance. They'll come up with a new comparison when the old one gets unflattering. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The second article doesn't seem to be serious. The author himself states, "Will this modest proposal fly? Will it hell." It seems to be more of a thought exercise.
On the other hand, we have been pretty free with proclaiming our president "the leader of the free world." He's an unelected leader with respect to most of his populace, that's for sure. Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Iraqis have had their lives affected by the American president more in the past two years than I have, that's for sure.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: So we should let citizens of Iraq and Afganistan vote in the US election, then?
First, they have to ask for a vote. The way they would do that is by asking to become part of America.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So if the Iraqis indicated that they don't want America around and are influenced by its policies without being able to take part in choosing them, if America stays, it is an unconscionable tyrant.
posted
I think that it was a dumb idea to get people sending letters- it's not very tactful (although I'm sure every letter was written in a very tactful way).
Nevertheless, the response was honestly no better, and the way the Guardian posted even the most offensive ones is obviously going to merely reinforce the British view of Americans.
quote: I HAVE BEEN TO YOUR COUNTRY, THE COUNTRY OF MY ANCESTORS, AND I KNOW WHY THEY LEFT.
posted
If Canada were to "overrun" the U.S., it would look like a bad case of rush hour traffic -- except that the Canadians would be a lot more polite and apologetic about everything.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So when do I get to vote in the British elections? Or the German, French, Russian ones? They have affected the world just as much as we have. When do I get my say about Jaques, can't spell his last name? Do I get to vote in countries I don't live in? Oh. I guess not. Do the people of Iraq and Afghanistan get to vote for their own country. Well, apparently they do. Afghanistan just did, and Iraq will soon. So no, I do not think that people from all over the world should be voting for who's president in the US, unless I get to vote for their leaders in my highly un-educated-about-the-issues- that-affect-their-country state. And from what I can see, it seems like the only people supporting this are the people I've seen supporting Kerry. How do you know that giving the world the capability to vote in this election would change any outcome of this election? Argh. I said I wasn't going to post in a political thread again. I'm done, that's the last one, I swear!
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To put this into perspective, the Brits wrote some letters. That's it. Just wrote some letters. They are not trying to vote in the election or anything. They're not bribing people or threatening them. They just wrote some letters.
I have a friend running for Congress in upstate New York and I sent emails out to the people I know who could vote for her telling them why I think she'd be a good idea and directing them to her website. I don't think that I'm inappropriately trying to influence their election. People outside of an electorate can express their opinion on who they think would be a better choice and try to convince the people who are actually voting as to why this person would be a better choice. I don't really see where the outrage is coming from.
posted
Yeah, MrSquicky, but don't you think it's condescending when people from other countries write letters to tell us which candidate to pick? As if they know better? As if Americans are all stupid children who need to be taught how to vote for the right guy?
posted
No, katharina, but I don't see the people writing these letters all that open-minded about ideas that oppose their own either.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's condescending that they express their opinion about a matter that they think effects them a great deal? No, not really. Is it condescending that I email people in NY about a race I can't vote in and whose outcome would affect me a great deal less than the Presidential election would affect the Brits?
They were specifically targeting voters who have said that they were undecided and giving them their perspective. Saying that they shouldn't be allowed to do this seems to me to be more condescending. You're essentially saying that their opinions don't matter and that they shouldn't even be allowed to express them.
You're even being condescending to the people who are receiving these letters, because obviously they can't be trusted to make up their minds under such trickily persuasive things as having a letter written to them. This is a marketplace of ideas situation. The Brits are presenting ideas that people either accept or reject. If we trust them to vote under the bombardment of BS propoganda that is designed to be trickily persuasive when it comes from American sources, I don't see how they suddenly can't control themselves when someone from another country writes them a letter.
edit: FT, I think you're inferring more than can be justified here. If the tone of the letters were "Look here, ya dumb Yank, this is who you have to vote for, so get off your fat, lazy can and do it." then, yeah, that'd be condescending. If the letter said, "Your choice of President effects the whole world and here's what at least one non-American thinks about it." than, no, that is not condescending.
posted
I'm not outraged.. I think it's laughable. I think it is pretty clear that the majority of the rest of the world wants Kerry to win--and I couldn't care less. We're a sovereign nation--not a part of a collective world government.
I really feel like nationalism is seen as being somehow a bad thing now. My cousin, a democrat-supporter, was telling me a few years ago how she couldn't even say she was proud to be an American. There was no trace of nationalism left in her. It's like she would be ashamed to have some sort of bias for her home. I think at that moment she would happily join the U.S. into a world-wide government. No more countries at all. (This part I don't find laughable.)
I'm not feeling very eloquent today--less than usual, anyway. I don't think I'm expressing my thoughts very well.
posted
I'm proud to be an American; it's an enormous part of my sense of self, and shapes my worldview to some extent.
On the other hand, I am not proud to share a country with some of the drooling nationalists who pretend that only their form of pride is worth the having.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, I can only see this campaign as having the opposite of the desired effect--or no effect at all. I think most people receiving these letters will be appalled at the audacity of a foreigner thinking to tell them who to vote for. They might laugh and throw it away or get angry. Who knows? But I doubt anyone (or not many) will change their mind based on the letter. Perhaps if they're undecided, they might vote against whoever the letter recommends.
posted
Yeah, I think the campaign will backfire, precisely because Americans are highly unaccustomed to having to consider foreign opinion and might well find it unpleasant. I think the mere fact that the British thought for a minute that we might welcome their opinions indicates a certain gulf between our worldviews.
quote:You're essentially saying that their opinions don't matter and that they shouldn't even be allowed to express them.
That's quite a jump. I label their behavior condescending and out of the blue what I'm actually saying is "They shouldn't have a right to express their opinions."
I never said that or even thought that, but I can understand people having a negative reaction to these letters.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: On the other hand, I am not proud to share a country with some of the drooling nationalists who pretend that only their form of pride is worth the having.
That's something of what I was trying to say. I am very proud to be an American--but I expect people in other countries to be just as proud to be from where they're from. It's natural to be nationalistic--to have an attachment to your village, community, country, etc. It doesn't mean people in other villages are inferior--although that sentiment has often been attached to feelings of nationalism. I think in this new age we can be nationalistic without being condescending.
Can't help feeling a little for the poor souls who wish so very much they could vote in the U.S. elections and can't. Why don't they get out there and work towards making THEIR country as influential as ours is?
-Katarain
Edit: Oh yeah, they are. They're writing letters to influence us.
posted
Katarin, A little while a friend of mine pulled out his credit card to pay for something and I saw that it had an American flag graphic across the whole thing. I had an immediate negative visceral reaction. Not because I don't love America or the flag, but because the flag has been so degraded by the people and the issues (such as the "screw what the rest of the world thinks" setiment) that it has been associated with. For me, the tragedy isn't that people burn the flag, but that the flag has been made worthy of burning by the people who have sullied it by twisting it towards their own ends.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katarain, I think you're using the word "nationalism" where the word "patriotism" might be more appropriate.
By the way, you are aware that Britain had a pretty good run at being influential, right? That aside, how important do you think a country has to be before we, as Americans, need to spend even a second listening to what its people think?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah, I think the campaign will backfire, precisely because Americans are highly unaccustomed to having to consider foreign opinion and might well find it unpleasant.
That is true of some Americans.
However, it is also true that many foreigners don't consider the opinions of us either. They don't question why someone like me would actually support Bush. They aren't interested in my reasons. They just chalk it up to me being a stupid American in need of their guidance.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, in all fairness, I know your reasons and think they're all pretty bad. Perhaps they do, too.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Katarain, I think you're using the word "nationalism" where the word "patriotism" might be more appropriate.
That may well be the case. I'm really not sure of the difference, though. I was looking for a word that includes a sense of pride in your homeland. Which would that be?
quote:By the way, you are aware that Britain had a pretty good run at being influential, right? That aside, how important do you think a country has to be before we, as Americans, need to spend even a second listening to what its people think?
Well, I'm not really sure what you mean by Britain being influential. Politically, I can see it. They elect leaders and we elect leaders, then our leaders get together and... influence each other. You know, they work together.. or they don't. Depends. But on a personal level, such as with individuals writing letters or speaking to Americans, I don't see that as having a precedent.
England is a pretty little country, but a fairly formidable one, wouldn't you say? They do carry much influence and power. I enjoyed visiting there. I think whomever they elect as Prime Minister likely has a large influence on worldly matters. But I don't think to have a voice in their elections. There are many domestic matters the PM deals with, just like our President.
So, no, I don't really care to listen to what other countries think about our election--whether they're from Britain, or Germany, or Japan, or China, or Zimbabwe. I don't care. I do, however, expect the leader that is elected to deal with those other countries appropriately. And if we elect someone who goes to war with the world, then I'd expect them to get a force together to take us down... and I hope there would be many of us from within to help with that effort.
I don't, however, believe Iraq falls into that category. It was called Operation Iraqi Freedom from the beginning, and helping those PEOPLE is what was important. Now, it's just time to set them on their own path as best we can to independence, and hopefully, freedom. There are many dissenting opinions on how or if we should do that, so everyone HERE can vote on that, too.
posted
I'm adding this instead of editing. I realized I said something in that last paragraph that I really don't believe, and is frankly, quite appalling to my own sensibilities.
Perhaps Iraq should include on its ballot whether they want Americans there "helping" them to finish setting up their country. Perhaps they preferred a dictatorship, however brutal it was, to having us help them set up a democracy. Really, it is up to them, and however ironic it is to use a democratic process to vote AGAINST a democratic process, they should have that right as well. I just hope they would be informed enough of their decision and to know that the Americans are NOT planning to stay forever. (And I don't believe Bush is planning that. You might disagree...but this paragraph is about what I believe. )
I just wanted to clarify, because it was extremely arrogant to suggest that we SHOULD have the only vote when it comes to what happens to the Iraqi people.
posted
"It was called Operation Iraqi Freedom from the beginning, and helping those PEOPLE is what was important."
Out of interest, do you believe that it is impossible to name an operation for something other than what it is actually meant to accomplish?
I ask because our invasion of Afghanistan was originally called "Infinite Justice;" in response to criticism, they changed the name to "Enduring Freedom" -- which was why, when we invaded Iraq, we called the operation "Iraqi Freedom," in the same way that "Desert Shield" became "Desert Storm."
By the same token, our invasion of Panama was originally called "Operation Blue Spoon" until, at soldiers' requests, it was renamed "Operation Just Cause." Do you believe that renaming it made it more just of a cause, or less about the spoons?
posted
"Actually, you've proven yourself pretty incapable of knowing someone else's reasons on this matter."
No, not really. I've proven myself pretty unlikely to AGREE with them, and very unlikely indeed to do anything but mock them, but I would argue that it's perfectly possible to understand someone's motivations and concerns and still dismiss them entirely.
-------
BTW, Katarain, were you aware that even before we completed our invasion of Baghdad, the Bush Administration was drawing up construction plans for a massive Middle Eastern intelligence headquarters to be built in central Iraq -- a building that would cost several million dollars and finish construction in 2007?
Do you believe that we would devote years to erecting a very expensive American intelligence base if we entertained for a moment the idea that we would honor any request to leave Iraqi soil?
posted
Well, I think that name is what we've been working toward in Iraq and what is happening over there. Elections are planned, Iraqi people are being trained to take over what the military is doing now, and Saddam has been removed from power. It seems to me that the people are much more free than they were. And yes, some of them hate that Americans are there (probably for a variety of reasons, but at least SOME of the reasons probably have to do with a personal loss of power), but we will leave soon. And then they'll be on their own, perhaps even with a nice, organized military that can go make war on other nations in the middle east. (I have so much faith in them.) So, yeah, I think they are gaining their freedom. What they do with it, as Freedom requires, is up to them.
quote: BTW, Katarain, were you aware that even before we completed our invasion of Baghdad, the Bush Administration was drawing up construction plans for a massive Middle Eastern intelligence headquarters to be built in central Iraq -- a building that would cost several million dollars and finish construction in 2007?
Do you believe that we would devote years to erecting a very expensive American intelligence base if we entertained for a moment the idea that we would honor any request to leave Iraqi soil?
No, I wasn't aware of that. Is this a little like an embassy? Wouldn't it be different from having so many soldiers on the ground all over the place? It seems that with the terrorism and trouble in that area, it's probably a good idea to have an intelligence base there--at least in OUR best interest. I don't know about the Iraqi best interest. I do know that the military held (or is still holding) a small military presence in Germany after World War II. Different circumstances, perhaps, but America didn't really interfere in their politics... did they?
posted
"What they do with it, as Freedom requires, is up to them."
So, to be clear on this, you would be okay if they set up a tyrannical fundamentalist regime that immediately began launching terrorist attacks on the United States? Because it would have initially won a popular vote?
-------
"Is this a little like an embassy?"
No. It's an intelligence headquarters. Our embassy is a different building (and was, for a while, the old Presidential Palace. But that's another story.)
-----
To my knowledge, BTW, America interfered quite a BIT in German politics until we trusted them again (around 1949, IIRC). In fact, we wouldn't've let them hold elections as early as they did if not for Soviet meddling in eastern Germany.
posted
"I really feel like nationalism is seen as being somehow a bad thing now."
Nationalism is bad. First World War anyone? A bit of nationalist sentiment is fine, but nationalism has been responsible for so many horrific wars and atrocities, to call it a good thing would be, frankly, ignorant.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
we can be nationalistic without being condescending.![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
for the poor souls who wish so very much they could vote in the U.S. elections and can't. Why don't they get out there and work towards making THEIR country as influential as ours is?
