Should the world vote in a usa president?

It will be a cold day in hell when the rest of the world vote for our government [like the Euros] They have done such a good job voting in THEIR governments HAHA, that I think they should reap their rewards of their quaqmires instead of adding to our own.

Err... simply put NO! People have worked too hard in this country to be able to vote, and they were US citizens, now the entire world should just be allowed to vote for OUR government? Don't think so.

*Just waiting for someone to come out with the "You think your vote counts"? So this thread can end*

Originally posted by thesneakiod
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.

That is not going to happen. Nor should it, I mean would you like it if all the world voted for the UK's prime minister? It simply is not the right of other people to vote for our leader, doesn't make one bit of sense.

Ummmm, YEAH! Right! Could you imagine how Al Qaida and Hammas would vote? Next thing you know, we got another dumbass like Clinton or Carter in there again!

Originally posted by CreeWolf
Ummmm, YEAH! Right! Could you imagine how Al Qaida and Hammas would vote? Next thing you know, we got another dumbass like Clinton or Carter in there again!

Yeah cos you have got a real winner in bush haven't you

Actually, let me revise how I stated my opinion.

If the rest of the world can get its crap together then sure, it should vote in our elections. But since, for the most part, the world can't find it's own butt with both hands, that won't happen.

Originally posted by thesneakiod

Originally posted by CreeWolf
Ummmm, YEAH! Right! Could you imagine how Al Qaida and Hammas would vote? Next thing you know, we got another dumbass like Clinton or Carter in there again!

Yeah cos you have got a real winner in bush haven't you

Beats anything you could possibly come up with because at least it was our choice. And that my friend is what this country is all about. Even the people who didn't vote made their choice how ever much I might disagree.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
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.

Im glad you said it so I didnt have to type 100% agree

This is freak'n stupid.

America should let the anti-American irrational radical muslims tell us who should be in charge of our country?

America should let the Euro-centric Europeans decide who runs our country?

Oh sure ... they'd all put in someone who would DESTROY this country. The radicals because we are 'infidels' and the eurocentrics because they are JEALOUS and their own countries are failing so miserably they can't stand to see America do well.

DUMB

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Its called isolationism, and it works.

You have voted Skadi_the_Evil_Elf for the Way Above Top Secret award.
You have two more votes this month.

Kudos!

I've been trying to visualize who the world would vote for should the improbable happen...and quite frankly the vision is distrubing on many levels...many of you think that Bill Clinton would imediately be sworn back in as President...(shudder)...nope, Jimmy Carter would be, the most ineffectual President ever inflicted upon our nation...Jimmy phlippin' Carter. Scarey, huh...

But then I realized that this can't happen because the rest of the world doesn't vote in our elections, though they do attempt to buy election results (George Soros). Thank goodness that most of us are still capable of thinking for ourselves...

Memo to self...remember to contact the NWO for a list of the candidates who meet the criteria...

Oh crap! Did I leave that in? I'm doomed...



[edit on 1-9-2006 by seagull]

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Its called isolationism, and it works.

To a certain degree however I'm not for total isolations, it's a big world out there and we cant afford to hunker down, we have places to go, people to see, things to do. Get my drift?

[edit on 1-9-2006 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Its called isolationism, and it works.

To a certain degree however I'm not for total isolations, it's a big world out there and we cant afford to hunker down, we have places to, people to see, things to do. Get my drift?


[edit on 1-9-2006 by WestPoint23]

I agree, but at thesame time, I think we need to find a moderation. I mean, being the worlds self righteous god warrior police squad doesnt last long, look at Rome.

And Isolation just allows us to be surprised attack like in Pearl Harbor. We can hide away, butthe worlds too small for us to hide lol.

And yeah, we Have people to See, places to bomb, oil to pillage.

Isolationism is a comforting notion...but unfortunately the world has a nasty habit of coming in the back door, whilst we are slamming the front door.

It didn't work in the 30's when the world was a much larger place...I can't for the life of me think why it would now? Convince me...I'd make a great convert to the cause...

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.

This is the most bumbest most out of this world questions I have ever seen. I have a few things to say.

Granted, Bush started an illegal war in Iraq, but NO country had to get involved unless they wanted to. Why do you think Russia and China did not offer any troops? So no, they did not "HAVE" to get involved.

The U.S. relationship with Russia and China is not the best and we let Pakistan keep their nuclear weapons. Secondly, the U.S. does NOT have the largest arsenal in he world. That still remains in the Russian hands. They have a large reserve force, though I think the U.S. has the larger active force, so in that sense, you are right. And the U.S. is not the only one likely to use a nuclear weapon during war. That power rests in the hands of seven, possibly eight countries. So, should the world decide who leads those countries?

And then there is an inherent porblem in your logic, every country in the world has a say in the activities of this world. The U.K., Germany, Russia, China, France and more all make decisions for the world.

Don't tell me the world should vote for a U.S. President, if that's so, then the world should vote for a Chinese President. Why should one man have the power to control 1/5 of the world's population?