It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should the world vote in a usa president?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   
I believe we should. If the USA want to dictate to other countries about their goings
on the far side of the world, so should we all.

If the USA wants to attack another country that might put the world in danger, then we
all have to decide if its the best outcome by someone who represents the world and not
just their own turf.

I suppose its sounds like im talking about the NWO but im not.
Just a leader of the free world that the world has actually picked.




posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Uh, no.

Thats not how it works. But I mean, if the entire world would like to become citizens of the United States, and they are 18 years of age, and have no criminal felonies, then they can ofcourse vote in for a new president.

So, otherwise, no.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Will you pay taxes to the US government as well?


Why dont you just become a US citizen (I think you can hold a dual citizenship) and then you can vote.

just my opinion.....



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Just because the U.S.A effects other countries this does not give the whole world a right to vote for the US leader lol.
If this was the case does it give U.S citisens a right to vote in other countries?



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 03:25 PM
link   
When it affects the whole planet yes. USA should stick to their own problems, they have enough of them. Would the world be any better off if the USA hadn't invaded those
countries? No. Yet the powers of the world got involved because of america's gung ho
approach to reasoning. tried to interveen, when asked not to do it they done it anyway.
What gives them the right?



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   
No. Thats a lame question. He is no the "leader of the free world". he is the president of the United States. If the world does not want the US leading the world, then maybe they should stop trying to put leadership roles on its shoulders, or expecting help and intervention in other affairs.

The US does have its problems, and the president should only worry about those.

Its called isolationism, and it works.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Yeah I agree that thesneakiod is wrong; but I sort of see where he is coming from. After all I agree with him that the world would be a better place if only say the Arab League had a say on whether the U.S went to war in their continent.
But there are more realistic alternatives...
What I think all the 5 English speaking nations could really do with is a referendum every time we go to war (accept in the event of a first strike involving nuclear weapons). That coupled with profitability laws exempting small media owners and penalising mass media monopolies like Rupert Murdoch's news international would really benefit the public good (and of course the world).

That said I 100% agree with Skadi-the-Evil-Elf about isolationism being the way forward. I don't know which is the biggest lie...
1. "You cannot isolate yourself from men in caves" (ever heard of a boarder-airport security?)
2. "We are taking the battle to the enemy" Right and the would-be suicide bombers came from which country? You guessed it England. What about the successful ones? Oh they were English too.
3. "Selling weapons to Israel during the war in Lebanon was in this countries interests" Ever heard of the word radicalisation? (at home or abroad).

These are all arguments used to justify America's self declared policy of "pre-emption". I think what thesneakiod is saying is a reaction against (or rather for moderation of) America's pre-emptive policy, which does so much harm to this world. Don't get me wrong I have no problem with Americans (in the same way I have no problem with English people) but I think both America and Britain are literally bloody awful nations (regarding most international dealings). Especially because if the population of the world did have a voice we would be following a more moderate (and dare I say wiser) coarse.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 07:40 PM
link   
The U.S. is lossing power. By the time a system is set up and agread apon by all the countries involved, it wouldn't matter anymore.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 11:50 AM
link   
When y'all become taxpaying citizens of this fair nation thats when you can vote. Otherwise, sorry...expressing your opinion on ATS is as close as you can get.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   
You accuse America of starting wars that place the world in danger, yet in a round about way, you have proposed starting a war.

Nations are of course governed according to their own interests. When these interests clash and a compromise cannot be reached, nations go to war.

What you propose is that American interests be checked in a hard and fast way (as opposed to through diplomacy). Your proposal therefore lays the groundwork for a war.

I have a different suggestion.

First: Realize that war is a sometimes unavoidable result of conditions in this world. Millenia of politics, philosophy, religion, and wars to end all wars have been unable to change this fact. Plato, Jesus, Ghandi, Nobel, Einstein, etc etc etc: centuries of great men in every discipline that man can learn have been completely unable to devise a way to stop war; some of them didn't even see fit to try.

Next: Consider your own fault in the matter. Even while foreign governments condemn America for this that and the other for the benefit of their people, those governments are encouraging and enabling us behind the scenes. The lives that every single one of us choose to lead have necessitated war as we know it. As I said at first, war is a fact of life. We could eliminate some causes, change the nature of wars, etc: with a lot of work we could reduce warfare to such a small scale that it would only be regarded as localized outbreaks of violent crime rather than actual war. To do that however, we would have to change, and people, even the biggest peaceniks, seem to be unwilling to do that. You can't wake up and put on your Chinese-made clothes, drink your Ethiopian or Columbian-grown coffee, hop in your South Korean KIA, drive to the gas station and fill up on Middle Eastern oil, etc etc etc and claim not to have any part in the conflicts involving those nations/regions.

You created the profit motive for the war in Iraq which scared the hell out of Iran, which made them go looking for weapons, which they got from the Chinese, who had the money to build the weapons in the first place because you bought sweatshop products.

You supported the land-owning aristocracy in East Africa who grow luxuries for exports while their people starve, and those people took that money and used part of it to back their favorite warlord in a neighboring country, so that they'd have access to a certain port or road or market etc. So guess what, you're a part of the problem in Somalia!

I don't care if you're from Switzerland; just because your government let America do the dirty work doesn't mean there's no blood on your hands.


And that brings us to the last thing I suggest in lieu of fighting a war to end all wars against America: DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. If your government commits forces to a war you don't approve of, don't pay your taxes: make them throw you in jail, then not only are you not funding the war effort but you're taking money away from it via the prison system.
If you're not comfortable going to jail, boycott whatever the war is being fought over: stop buying plastics and start riding a bike instead of driving- do your part to take away the demand for oil.
If you're not comfortable riding a bike, consider giving a few dollars to some organization which is doing its part: maybe a amnesty international, maybe the red cross or red crescent, maybe a political party that's worked for peace in a substantial way.
If you're not comfortable giving away the change from under your sofa... well then just shut up.

But hey, I've been wrong before. Maybe you all should attack us and try to demand a say in our government. Do me a favor though: drop by and have some coffee with me and give me a chance to take a dislike to you before we start this war. If I'm gonna have to shoot at someone, first I want to at least make sure I don't like them.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   
As soon as I get to vote for every leader of every country on the globe than yes, sure you can cast a vote. I bet Kim Jong-il is shaking in his boots.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by kuhl
Just because the U.S.A effects other countries this does not give the whole world a right to vote for the US leader lol.
If this was the case does it give U.S citisens a right to vote in other countries?


I could not have said it better myself.

No matter the situation in America or the White House, the right to vote for our leaders should rest in the hands of the American people, and no one else.

Anything else would open up a giant can of worms - and i hate to sound alarmist, but this could lead to a slippery slope where people are voting for the leaders in other countries.

I feel I have no right to decide who runs a country i am not living in nor a citizen of.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Nations are of course governed according to their own interests. When these interests clash and a compromise cannot be reached, nations go to war.

Nice reference to Warfighting. I am glad you guys read it, Maline. The other branches should too.


Originally posted by The Vagabond
Consider your own fault in the matter. Even while foreign governments condemn America for this that and the other for the benefit of their people, those governments are encouraging and enabling us behind the scenes. The lives that every single one of us choose to lead have necessitated war as we know it...
I don't care if you're from Switzerland; just because your government let America do the dirty work doesn't mean there's no blood on your hands.

I think this is what bothers me the most about the whining from other countries -- especially from Canada and Europe. They have all benefited from our dirty work. This is one of the best reasons not to do the dirty deeds anymore. Let them pay their own way.


Originally posted by The Vagabond
And that brings us to the last thing I suggest in lieu of fighting a war to end all wars against America: DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT...

They won't. Even when the our cultural slips result in an increadible declines in our economy and world presence, we will still be further up the slope than they are.

And, in answer to the original question, why would I ever want to have a non-American vote in a United States election? Would that French, Swiss, Canadian, or English person want me voting in their elections? I think not. How rediculous.

[edit on 8/29/2006 by Moon Pie]



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   


I believe we should. If the USA want to dictate to other countries about their goings


Well first pls dont say the USA wants to dictate,tell the truth;the govt of the usa wants to dictate. The majority of americans dont agree with the administrations foreign policy. Its the minority that does and they are the ones getting all the attention.

Also,the world voting for a president for the USA is not a good idea.Its not just the USA meddling in other ppls busines,but presidents bush's buttbuddy tony blair is right alongside us the whole time.

So if the world were to vote for our president,then the world should choose brittains pm as well,or maybe canada's while you're at it.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 04:46 AM
link   
I find it interesting that in the Court of World Opinion, every nation except the U.S. is encouraged to pursue its sovereignty. By allowing foreign citizens a vote for the President seeks to destroy that sovereignty.

Besides, there are just too many problems that would arise:

Countries that had a majority vote would feel that they should receive preferential treatment from the U.S.

Or

The world will now know how it feels to find out a president is a failure after he’s in office and they have no one but themselves to blame by putting him (or her) in office.

Lastly,

The world won’t be able to blame the U.S. for everything anymore because they have chosen to dictate how the U.S. should run things.

It’s just a bad idea all around.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Just as soon as you become a tax paying citizen of the US and meet all the requirement to be a voter you can certainly vote for my president otherwise not a chance. Who we vote in to be our leader is our choice not yours. Further if you and your countrymen and women don't like the US's leadership role feel free to step up to the plate and take over if you can do a better job otherwise quit whining. Frankly if it were up to me we would discontinue all aid and concentrate on our own issues and while we're at it close our borders. But of course, we can't do that it might offend other countries after all we are just supposed to give money and fund the majority of the UN while UN delegates break our laws in NYC and because they are delegates get away with it. I wonder if I could go to another country and ignore their laws and traditions and get away with it? Somehow I don't think so nor should I be able to just as ppl who come to this country for whatever the reason should follow ours.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Phew! To say ive touched a nerve is an understatement And of course ive got to disagree. When your country starts an illegal war that all the major armies
HAVE to get involved in, it does become our business whether you believe that or not.

When you have a president who wants to rid the world of nuclear capabillities(but not
from the countries he likes)while at the same time hoarding the biggest arsenal
in the world, the country who by the way have been the only ones to ever use a nuclear
bomb in a war, not once but twice, it becomes a problem for all of us. So we should all choose who is in control of that power.

Its simple, if you make decisions for the world, the world should decide if that person
is the right man to make them. Not just a quarter of the population who actually felt
like voting.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesneakiod
Phew! To say ive touched a nerve is an understatement And of course ive got to disagree. When your country starts an illegal war that all the major armies
HAVE to get involved in, it does become our business whether you believe that or not.

When you have a president who wants to rid the world of nuclear capabillities(but not
from the countries he likes)while at the same time hoarding the biggest arsenal
in the world, the country who by the way have been the only ones to ever use a nuclear
bomb in a war, not once but twice, it becomes a problem for all of us. So we should all choose who is in control of that power.

Its simple, if you make decisions for the world, the world should decide if that person
is the right man to make them. Not just a quarter of the population who actually felt
like voting.


Fine, then sanction us, with your army. Other then that, your not dealing with our political business, just as we arent yours.

Its not like we're the first country to do this. Its not like mighty ol England never invaded countries.

You may disagree with our country's actions, many of us do to, but you wont vote in our political system. The entire concept is assinine, first of all. Secondly, it would be a political influence thats outside of the nation. Countries dont work like that, especially America. We wont even let a non-national born citizen to become president because of potential external political ties.

And I could tell you, first and foremost, that I would gladly die before I let some other nation vote in our political elections.

Fight us or join us, if you want something to change.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Before you stigmatize the US for using the Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you might want to look into what the losses might have been on both sides had the Invasion of the home islands taken place as planned in early 1946 or late 45.

Estimates that I've seen ranged on the Japanese side into the millions, that's millions, losses on the Allied side into the tens, possibly hundreds of thousands. Granted, these are congecture, but something tells me these numbers would have been fairly accurate. As cold blooded as it sounds, and it is...the atom bombs dropped on Japan may, and I say may, have saved thousands, possibly millions of lives. Obviously, we can not know whether that is true or not.

Back on track...

Unless, or until, you are a citizen of the US, you ain't getting a vote. So its really a moot point.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Not so fast, here. Maybe the sneakoid is onto something. Let's let everyone in the world vote in the U.S. elections. Hell, let's let the ETs vote, too. That way there's more of a universal spread-the-blame opportunity when things go haywire.

Now notice I'm saying let them vote. I'm not suggesting we actually count those votes.

Lest we forget, even the residents of Washington, D.C. weren't permitted to vote for president until the 1964 election.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join