Global Poll Shows Negative Reaction to Bush Win

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by spitfiremkv
not caring about the rest of the world might have been OK in the 19th and early half of the 20th century.
It doesn't work like that anymore. The old barriers are slowly but surely being eroded.
The economy is becoming global.
 People from all over the world can communicate over the Internet.
although the US is the world's greatest power at this time, it cannot survive alone.
9/11 was a great tragedy, but it shouldn't push this country into isolationism and shouldn't justify use of force abroad in places which pose no threat for the US, purely for economic interests.

So are you saying we should base our vote on who we elect on world opinion?
No thanks

[Gh0stFT]

Originally posted by eagl
Maybe they'll be so terrified of the US taking action, they'll try to actually take care of some things themselves.

Naw, that would once again require people to DO SOMETHING.  Anyone who does anything gets slammed.

to do something, it dont have to be allways tomahawks and tanks, your bush is leading your nation into a oneway road.
instead of working togheter he preffer the millitary way,
to bad this leads to more isolation & more enemys.
Bush is/was your choice, live with it (at least we dont have to! thanks god!)
I can't believe what this man is doing with Amerika.

[Mighty1]

I couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks.

Why don't I care?

Simple! The rest of the world has been ignoring terrorist and allowing them to manipulate/infiltrate their Govt.

So when a country like the US finally says enough is enough they are forced to pick a side and they are afraid to do so because now if they pick the US the terrorist they ignored will strike.

Most countries would rather blame the US for everything instead of the people who are really at fault. Terrorist and their supporters.

If the rest of the world would quit being Pu$$ies there would be less terrorism thus ending the need for the US to go it alone.

[Muckmaw1]

Originally posted by Gh0stFT
to do something, it dont have to be allways tomahawks and tanks, your bush is leading your nation into a oneway road.
instead of working togheter he preffer the millitary way,
to bad this leads to more isolation & more enemys.
Bush is/was your choice, live with it (at least we dont have to! thanks god!)
I can't believe what this man is doing with Amerika.

Yes, Because diplomacy was working so well.....

The UN for example.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Gh0stFT
Bush is/was your choice, live with it (at least we dont have to! thanks god!)

Ahh, but you do have to live with it. That's why people take world opinion polls.

[GtoRA2]

Gh0stFT
You said

I can't believe what this man is doing with Amerika.

What do you mean?

[GreenCloud]

..YAAA>.Atleast the euro-linguine spines do nothing talk alots...understand this....



President Bush is doing what he said..and what a majority of Americans voted for


Clean your house..or we will send the cleaning crews to do it

[Glas]

3 things;

1)  Opinion polls like that are bullsh*t and just help to polarise people.

2)  The USA is not the World police.  Almost every country in the world had been the subject of a terrorist attack prior to 9/11, except the USA (ignoring an attack from within, in OK).  It was a heinous crime, but one of many unfortunately.

3)  Personally speaking, I would listen to the opinions of others around the world.  I might not agree with them, but I would at least listen to what they were saying, and check it out for myself.

[bustr]

Guys in this verbal mud assault you have lost the initiative. There is no need to defend the question of why we Americans don't elect our leader based on the opinions of foregin nationals. They don't elect their leaders by that logic either. And if we were to stick our noses into their national electoral process, they would tell us to bugger off.

It's understandable that with George W. Bush in office they now have to think about the real possibility of at the worst, a stray nuke smuggeled into one of their capitols, or at the least they themselves might have to give up being safe civillians and join in a conflict in thier life time.

It was eaisier with say Carter or Clinton in office. The world community liked the fact that neither man was willing to get their noses bloodied, but used diplomatic means to appease the terrorists. The price of up to 200-300 dead a year not really covered on front pages by the liberal and state owned medias helped sweep it under the carpet. And the terrorists were just a minor annoyment.

You have to think for a moment. If no one pisses off the terroists, and we can get through another 40 years with only 300-400 dead a year. Well then those complaining will have survived and not have to be bothered with it. It's the next generations problem.

It's kinda like living in a neihborhood where crime is rampent, but your neihbors are afraid to fight back because they are afraid to die. But the criminals are only killing 3-4 a year on average. Acceptable attrition. But when they discover you aren't willing to accept it and are armed and have no problem blowing away the criminals when they break into your home, the brown stuff hits the fan. Typically the community outrage is that you will piss off the criminal element and it will seek revenge on the community. If that doesnt sway your resolve then they are outraged that you would use a firearm to defend your self because you might accidentaly shoot one of them.

People who complain that you arent thinking about others\them when you make decisions tend to be concerned for their own wellfare, regardless of what good you accomplish.

[spitfiremkv]

Since WW1, the US has taken responsibility for the free world. Many Americans and possibly foreigners would prefer a different policy, but, by invading Iraq to restore 'democracy', Mr.Bush has shown  the US is still willing to police the world.  
Thus, the US cannot afford to ignore what the world has to say.
Pull out of Iraq, out of all the other contries the US has bases in, and then you can be as isolationist as you desire

[slimm50]

Originally posted by lada
ummm his point could be... what does  bush mean by safer world, while world outside of US feel less save.

it was probably just another "for sheep" phrase to get more votes.


And it result in falling credit of US all around  the world.

But you will not care untill you will be shoe cleaner of chinese farmers, who will buy your land

You and your ilk give meaning to the phrase "Misery loves company".

[SLO]

what!!!!

there's a world OUTSIDE the U.S....

no way man, the U.S. is the world...

[Rude]

Originally posted by lada
ummm his point could be... what does  bush mean by safer world, while world outside of US feel less save.

it was probably just another "for sheep" phrase to get more votes.


And it result in falling credit of US all around  the world.

But you will not care untill you will be shoe cleaner of chinese farmers, who will buy your land

Stop being a handsomehunk....at least out in the open.

[Stringer]

Originally posted by SLO
what!!!!

there's a world OUTSIDE the U.S....

no way man, the U.S. is the world...

As much as you guys are pre-occupied with it, you would think so, wouldn't you.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by spitfiremkv
Since WW1, the US has taken responsibility for the free world. Many Americans and possibly foreigners would prefer a different policy, but, by invading Iraq to restore 'democracy', Mr.Bush has shown  the US is still willing to police the world.  
Thus, the US cannot afford to ignore what the world has to say.
Pull out of Iraq, out of all the other contries the US has bases in, and then you can be as isolationist as you desire

You don't understand Iraq. We didn't go there to create a democracy, we went because Saddam would never comply with the cease-fire of the first war.

Saddam had to be taken out, we had to KNOW that Saddam would never be a threat. We had to make sure Iraq was in FULL compliance with the terms of the cease-fire. Pretty simple really.

And once we decided to take out Saddam, what would you suggest we do afterwards? Just leave? We have to stay until Iraq has a stable, democratic government.

The US gets played for the bad guy and it's not. The US could have whiped out Iraq and all resistance long ago, then just left them to pick up the pieces.

What we are doing in Iraq is very rational. It's logical.

If we wanted to, we could have flattened Falluja and any other area the resistance fightrs were hiding in. Instead we went in on the ground in order to spare the innocent people their lives.

Of all the people here that dissagree with the war, most of them have stated that Saddam had to go. Even Chirac said it's "probably a good thing that Saddam is gone. So, if every can agree that Saddam had to go, what is anyone upset about?

I love when people say that the war is wrong because the UN didn't approve of it, or that the US "went alone" These people......are they saying they would agree with the war if the UN had said it's okay?

Is that what pisses people off? Just that the UN didn't approve....otherwise everything would have been great?

People amaze me.