Just what would the world like us to do?

All of these posts about how much the world hates America and the man that we apparently voted into the Office of the President of the United States of America is actually getting rather insulting.

Its like your little sister pestering you with her finger in your face saying "I'm not touching you!".

Just what would the world........like us to do? Vote out the man we just voted in because you don't like him? Just give up the couple hundred years since the Revolutionary War that we fought to end opression by a greedy King who belived the *world* was his empire? Just toss our rights guaranteed by the Constitution out because the world doesn't like the person a majority of our country favors? Should we just let all the Nations in the world that did not like our decision of President come on in and take over our Government, not for the best of our citizens of the United States but for the world??

I do not agree with everything our President does and it is my right to voice that opinion. But Dag Nabbit I will stand behind him whether I voted for him or not. He is the leader of our country. If I don't like it I don't vote for his party or canidate next election year. That is MY choice. And if he really is wrong and doing illegal activies by God I will be the first person to stand up and yell for his resignation ala President Nixon.

I am willing to bet that weather or not a citizen of our country voted for Bush or for Kerry that the majority would not stand idle and let the rest of the *world* DICTATE to us how to run our affairs.

You are more than welcome to Immigrate to our country and become a CITIZEN of the UNITED STATES and then and only then make your opion and now better yet YOUR VOTE in the U.S.A count. It would then be your RIGHT to do so.

Pure childish name calling that has just degenerated to something a little below whale crap.

Ok I feel better. Thanks

Edited by TC for language.

[edit on 1-12-2004 by Thomas Crowne]

one point.
if it is in your eyes not ok to slag another countries head of state or country then surely its not ok for you to slag france,iran,syria.etc ?
or for you to slag liverals since the liberal party is not just american there are british,french,etc. version in fact the liberal party in america was based on the UK one.
also we are stateing our displeasure at your choice of president its our right. unless ofcourse your planning to invade britain because we have WMD?

to answer your question, what the world wants us to do?

I don't claim to know the full answer, but I do believe these are some of the issues:

play fair - treat all equally (something we claim to do, but don't)
take a more nuetral stance on the Palestine/Israel issue (past history shows a heavily favored Israeli stance)
be more cooperative in world agreements and policies (kyoto treaty and others)
get our priorities straight

I don't believe the world expects us to change President now that he has been elected, but they and many Americans didn't expect the issues that garnered Bush's win, would have been the ones that decided this election.

The world just can't seem to grasp how Americans push major issues under the rug and brush the obvious by.

If you don't want the world to state it's opinion in American Affairs, then perhaps America shouldn't meddle so much into the affairs of others.

Why is okay for Americans to criticize Cuba, Haiti, North Korea, Iran and others, but its not okay for them to criticize us??

it's just a matter of a difference of opinions and perspectives and if you're going put your two cents in, just be acceptance that you will get some change back.

I come from Australia, and to preface my comments I will say here and now that my country is a bloody disgrace also...

but...

If us Aussies, Brits and Yanks are going to kick the worlds ass over lack of democracy...We damn well should have a bit more respect for the standards of our own elections.

We also need to do more than pay lip service to justice and human rights, if where going to demand it of the rest of the world.

It seems all the 'nations of the willing' stand for is their own financial self interest.

Until such time as our nations can work our what, if anything, thay stand for anymore, we should exclude ourselves from world politics. The truth of the matter is that at this time with the people split almost 50/50 no government in the nations of the willing has a clear unequivocal mandate
to persue any position without internal compromise.

Were've got to try and set an example if we expect any respect whatsoever...

Mostly I just needed to vent. It is almost scary the way some people turn their opinions into downright anger. Hate is a serious connotation. What happens if or when that hate turns to violence against our country. People can get worked up into an almost seemingly drug induced frenzy that in the right circumstances turns violent. I would not want to see that hatred in words turn into violence against our elected leaders or country. If people get so worked up that god forbid our President was fataly wounded that would most certainly lead to the immediate start of a global conflict. It would be most interesting to see which of our allies alligned with us and who did not. Its starting to sound like the kind of situation could lead to a tradgedy akin to Archduke Ferdinand. The consequences of hate breeding violence could very well be the ugliest thing all nations as a whole would ever see.

As I have said, I do not agree with all of the Presidents agenda and do not necessarily agree with happenings in Iraq. But soldiers are there and I will support them and our President. The last thing any soldier from any country will want to hear is about a killing of a national leader from hatred and dislikeing the way the country is being run domesticaly or foreign affairs.

If you don't like, just like a radio change the station. I don't see to many getting to worked up over Sadam gassing people. Or genocide in Rwanda. Instead of turning hatred toward the U.S. just spend that energy and get troops there now, not a few UN pansies but a BUNCH of troops and put a stop to it.

The world would like us to stop acting in our own interests and instead act in their interests. They'd like us to stop moving out of step (unilaterally) and instead willingly submit to globalization.

Oh, and alot of them would like us to cease existing too.

Originally posted by devilwasp

also we are stateing our displeasure at your choice of president its our right

and you think the liberal guy, who said hed do the same thing that the incumbent did, would make everything all better?

Originally posted by Flange Gasket
If us Aussies, Brits and Yanks are going to kick the worlds ass over lack of democracy...We damn well should have a bit more respect for the standards of our own elections.

Well said.. very well said

Originally posted by KrazyIvan


and you think the liberal guy, who said hed do the same thing that the incumbent did, would make everything all better?

ahh i never said that please dont try and twist my words.
i simply stated that we are not happy about your choice of presidnet. i never made any comment on who to pick.

If you don't like, just like a radio change the station. I don't see to many getting to worked up over Sadam gassing people. Or genocide in Rwanda. Instead of turning hatred toward the U.S. just spend that energy and get troops there now, not a few UN pansies but a BUNCH of troops and put a stop to it.

infact if you noticed we did but hey its ok good old Bush can sell them chemical and biological weapons its all ok oh wait he invaded kuwait thats not good oh no quick lets invade!
a few UN pansies is actually some of our finest so unless you are calling your own troops and our troops pansies you might want to change your tune.
a BUNCH of troops are not peacekeepers they are there to remove an enemy not act as police that job should be for MP's or UN. the fact you are opposed to is the fact the UN does arm its troops but doesnt allow them to escelate violence until fired upon.

The rest of the world wants us to continue to give billions to feed other nations' people but stay out of the way of murderous dictators(Saddam), hell bent dictators(Kim), incompetent dictators(Milosevich), former enemies(Iran), uncarring warlords(Somalia), and suicide bombers(Lebanon).

Originally posted by Langolier
The world would like us to stop acting in our own interests and instead act in their interests. They'd like us to stop moving out of step (unilaterally) and instead willingly submit to globalization.

Oh, and alot of them would like us to cease existing too.

Ouch, thats a scary thought. You will assimilate, you will conform. Reminds me of that old Macintosh commercial during the Superbowl.

I do know that devil. My point being 100 UN peacekeepers is going to do nothing to quell a leader hell bent on anihilating a race.

Originally posted by Frosty
The rest of the world wants us to continue to give billions to feed other nations' people but stay out of the way of murderous dictators(Saddam), hell bent dictators(Kim), incompetent dictators(Milosevich), former enemies(Iran), uncarring warlords(Somalia), and suicide bombers(Lebanon).

the rest of the world wants you to keep your g** da***d nose out of delecate situations. ever heard of makeing a situation worse than it is?
sure you solved the problems by blowing up thier army but that forces them to fight dirty.
also these insurgents are using tactics that americans would use agaisnt an enemy country.
not all tactics would be used but most of the tactics would be backed if the insurgents where fighting an enemy power of both america and the insurgents of that country.

Originally posted by Flange Gasket
If us Aussies, Brits and Yanks are going to kick the worlds over lack of democracy...We damn well should have a bit more respect for the standards of our own elections.

What? Kicking the world over lack of democracy, what nations have we invaded lately simplu due to their lack of democracy? Standars of election: just don't whine and make up stories of election fraud everytime your candidate loses, and you will see the integrity of elections, at least hur in the US, is quite strong.

Originally posted by just_a_pilot


I do know that devil. My point being 100 UN peacekeepers is going to do nothing to quell a leader hell bent on anihilating a race.

Who said it was 100? or 100,000 troops?
The point is the UN has had more exsperience than the US at this.
This leader is doing what it takes to protect his or her family from harm like Any person would do.
Ethier that if he or she is religiosly motivated then he or she is just doing what he or she thinks needs to be done to do their lords/god/whatever's bidding. this has been done before by western countries as well.

Originally posted by Frosty


What? Kicking the world over lack of democracy, what nations have we invaded lately simplu due to their lack of democracy? Standars of election: just don't whine and make up stories of election fraud everytime your candidate loses, and you will see the integrity of elections, at least hur in the US, is quite strong.

iraq twice! come on! the second time there was no need to invade except to secure the oil.

Originally posted by devilwasp
the rest of the world wants you to keep your g** da***d nose out of delecate situations. ever heard of makeing a situation worse than it is?
sure you solved the problems by blowing up thier army but that forces them to fight dirty.
also these insurgents are using tactics that americans would use agaisnt an enemy country.
not all tactics would be used but most of the tactics would be backed if the insurgents where fighting an enemy power of both america and the insurgents of that country.

No argument from me there. If they want help ask, if not let them just continue on their way. Only problem is with the people who live here that immigrated from places such as Iraq and are citizens now. They tend to be loud, very loud about doing something. But I am to the point of just saying do whatever ya want world we should sit back and watch em blast eachother. Nooooooo problem. Borders closed. Call us if you need us.

[edit on 12/1/2004 by just_a_pilot]

Delicate situations? When Somalian warlords where stealling food intended to go to the "truly" needy which was paid for by US dollars, we had a right to stick our nose in that business because it involved us as well. When Kim Jong Ill threatens our ally S.Korea and stockades an army that in turn allows for the inadequate feeding of his civilians, it is our business. When a mad dictator named Suddam violates his terms of conditions and surrender layed out by the UN repeatadly, it becomes our business to intervene before the situation escalates to an all out war. When a country whose leader praised the kidnapping of US workers in his country and does nothing to help relieve the situation but advertises for further events of similarity, we need to step in. When South American drug lords who illegal supply the US each year with tons of coc aine, and that nations government does not have the resources to combat, we need to take over the situation.

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Frosty


What? Kicking the world over lack of democracy, what nations have we invaded lately simplu due to their lack of democracy? Standars of election: just don't whine and make up stories of election fraud everytime your candidate loses, and you will see the integrity of elections, at least hur in the US, is quite strong.

iraq twice! come on! the second time there was no need to invade except to secure the oil.

What!?!?!? Maybe you forgot that Saddam attacked Kuwait FIRST. Kuwait had no feasible military, we came to their aid. We did not even dispose of Saddam the first time or impose a democracy! The second war with Iraq should have came 10 years earlier when he repeatedly violated UN Sanctions. Those UN workers you speak of sure did have lots of experience. Experience at what? Finding WMD's that Suddam said weren't there? Yes! Someone needed to do something about it. Remember what happened when Hitler and Rothschild amassed a gigantic military, an illegal military, and nobody did a single thing about it? This is the same situation only Saddam continuely lied about the status of the WMDs. What makes you or anyone else think that this time was different?

Originally posted by Frosty
Delicate situations? When Somalian warlords where stealling food intended to go to the "truly" needy which was paid for by US dollars, we had a right to stick our nose in that business because it involved us as well.

really? so it was YOUR food and YOUR citizens huh?
dont think so.
delicate situation are situations which are not perfect but are not the worst they could be. thats how peace is established.

When Kim Jong Ill threatens our ally S.Korea and stockades an army that in turn allows for the inadequate feeding of his civilians, it is our business.

if the south korean's ask for your help then it is but until then no it isnt.

When a mad dictator named Suddam violates his terms of conditions and surrender layed out by the UN repeatadly, it becomes our business to intervene before the situation escalates to an all out war.

i take it these are the WMD claims huh? the massive arsesonel of one ton of radioactive (completely safe i might add) ore and one missplaced shell of chem warheads which most probably was supplied by the previos "freedom" president who is the current presidents father.

When a country whose leader praised the kidnapping of US workers in his country and does nothing to help relieve the situation but advertises for further events of similarity, we need to step in.

you need to save the workers not destroy the country.

When South American drug lords who illegal supply the US each year with tons of coc aine, and that nations government does not have the resources to combat, we need to take over the situation.

no you need to get the UN to take action. aka you need to push and get countries around the globe to help.
now lets see 1 superpower versus drug lords. tough battle.
UN versus drug lords. easy battle.

[edit on 1-12-2004 by devilwasp]