Foreign influence:How many John Kerry supporters on ATS are actually non-americans?

Well, Clinton invaded?
Clinton killed 30,000 = innocents?
We lost 1000,'s of troops?
He went in under the pretext of WMD's and lied to the world?

Dont compare apples to oranges.

The CLINTON ERA is now gone.
Get over it.

Originally posted by dgtempe

This just shows your intelligence.......that is a pretty big accusations, so I guess Clinton would be one also?

My intelligence is fine, thank you.
Who did Clinton murder?

This shows your intelligence. Yep, big accusations is my thing.
But they're TRUE.

OK so who did Bush Murder? Lets see your choices will probably will say troops in Iraq, civilians in Iraq, WTC folks.

To which I say is bullship , but I could say the same thing for Clinton

Waco
OKC
TWA800
Somalia
The USS Cole
and on and on



So what say you?

Originally posted by dgtempe
Well, Clinton invaded?
Clinton killed 30,000 = innocents?
We lost 1000,'s of troops?
He went in under the pretext of WMD's and lied to the world?

Dont compare apples to oranges.

The CLINTON ERA is now gone.
Get over it.

I'm not comparing apples to oranges. Did Clinton send troops to a foreign land? Did those troops kill innocent people? At what point does one become a mass murderer? Does it take a thousand deaths to be labeled one?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning (sp?) the action in Iraq.

Well what about Rhwanda? Why didnt Clinton go in there like he did Bosnia? I mean Bosnia has shippiles of oil also. Why isnt Bush going into Sudan?

Bush is no mass murderer, Clinton would be closer to that title in abortions alone.

Put a little salt and pepper on your Bush and eat it.

You Bush fanatics are something else.
Good day.

Originally posted by dgtempe
Put a little salt and pepper on your Bush and eat it.

You Bush fanatics are something else.
Good day.

I'm not a Bush fanatic. I just like all sides of the story. Sorry if I have offended you. I just figure if you claim Bush is a mass murderer, then Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter etc. must be mass murderers also.

Good day.

Originally posted by onlyinmydreams
If we presume that it's ok for foreigners to have a say in american democracy (for the sake of the ideals behind democracy)... and that it's morally 'ok' for foreigners to use dirty tricks to influence american democracy... then we are also saying that American sovereignity should be surrendered to the world in general.

I'm sorry, onlyinmydreams. But this paranoia of yours is just too much... What is your problem here, exactly? That 'a foreign agent' will trick some poor US citizen into voting for John Kerry by posing as an american citizen and criticizing Bush? I this seriously what you're concerned about? Or are you simply afraid that if a US voter is being made aware of the general foreign dislike of the way the Bush Administration is handling their foregin policies, it may have an actual impact on his/her opinion?


[edit on 9-10-2004 by Durden]

I feel that underlying OIMD's post is the feeling that "Americans know best" about their country and the values of their potential leaders. As a result what people of other nations say, its only secondary, it doesn't carry the weight of an american talking about american politics.

Do you think the North Koreans know who is the best person for them to vote for. What about the Iraqi's? Do they genreally know who is best?

No. Why not? Because they are trapped in their society unable to get an objective outside viewpoint to their situation. Beacuse of that they are easily swayed by appeals to jingoism, propaganda, and just plain lies.

People on the outside can have a better understanding of what is happening in a society because they are not biased to emotive issues. (Is it unpatriotic to think the war in Iraq is wrong?).

They don't CARE how many american flags are waving behind a speaker, it has no impact on their decision making, whereas owing to a thorough indoctrination in schools and the media, I think jingoism has a huge inpact on the Americans in general.

They may also have a better ability to judge the impact of the policies on the outside world. (Don't forget when Bush was claiming WMD were in Iraq, and the weapons inspectors were saying they were not, Bush was the one who was wrong. Who now will admit that the french were RIGHT?)

Also because they are NOT surounded by the continual hype and strong views of others in their society about the American elections they are better able to make a carefully chosen choice.

There is none of the residual socialization (my daddy / freinds / communty vote this way I should too, how hard it would be for a kerry supporter in texas )

There is also none of the personal gain involved. I am not swayed one way or the other by where a new factory, new jobs etc will be placed. Attempts at economic bribery fall flat.

So in the end you can get a clearer cleaner less manipulated view of the contenders when you are not actually in the country.

Besudes it impacts on the world far more than the Australian elections, and for that alone non americans should be allowed to voice in freedom and with equal value their opinions.

Ethnocentricism and xenophobic comments only serve to dismiss valid points of view that may be more accurate than those in the society.

[edit on 9-10-2004 by Netchicken]

Wow NetChicken! Well said.

Too bad you're a mod. I would have voted you for WATS.

Originally posted by Gools
Wow NetChicken! Well said.

Too bad you're a mod. I would have voted you for WATS.

I second that. Well put, NetChicken. Well put .

I agree with 99% of what you say Netchicken. Many times, outsiders do have a better understanding of the impact candidates would have on foreign issues.

But, for many of us, the economy and health care are just as important if not more. In this regard, it would be pure speculation on people residing outside the US to endorse one candidate or the other. Don't get me wrong, foreign policy can directly effect domestic issues.

September 11th changed things in the US. It opened our eyes and made us realize that we can't govern the world without it effecting life inside the US. We shouldn't, however, focus entirely on Iraq and foreign policy while letting our domestic life deteriorate. Does this mean pulling out of Iraq and focusing our time and money internally? I'm not sure.

Do I respect the opinions of foreigners? Absolutely. We cannot exist without each other. I just want everyone to know that while their opinions on our election are appreciated, please keep in mind that when it counts, I'm going to vote for what is best for me. I'm sure all of you would do the same. I can't imagine someone in the recent Australian elections thinking "I know I agree with Howard, but perhaps Latham would benefit the US more." I know this is simplistic, but I think it kind of proves the point.

Thankyou for your dismissive compliment dcgolf.I am humbled by your magnamity in allowing me to comment on foreign issues only. Obviously you do not agree with 99% of what I say, otherwise your post would not be as it is...

Originally posted by dcgolf
I agree with 99% of what you say Netchicken. Many times, outsiders do have a better understanding of the impact candidates would have on foreign issues.

[edit on 9-10-2004 by Netchicken]

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

However, something that persons not American fail to comprehend: We aren;t voting for your benefit, we are voting for ours. We are going to elect the candidate we feel is going fix OUR mess, and make America a better place for its citizens.

The above having been said,
mostly I do think that the comments from citizens of other countries are informative and important. We do need to take into account how our choice of a president can effect different parts of the entire world.
Bottom line though, I believe that a safe and secure US will benefit the whole world.

Mary

To separate what is good for the US and what is good for the rest of the world is virtually impossible. The US economy is implanted around the world (where can you not buy Coca-Cola?). Terrorism is bound to arise from the hatred created when the US acts in her interests (i.e. defending a 'sacred lifestyle') without regard for international consequences. How about a president aware of that?

From what I've seen, the line between "foreigner" and voter is even blurry. When I was registering at the embassy here in Paris, I met three French Americans that had never lived in the US registering to vote for the first time. Like it or not, this is the reality of the US citizenry. Let's not be so pretentious.

Define "safe and secure" Mary.
This is one of those political euphemism's that appeal to emotive reactions.
EVERYONE wants their country "safe and secure".

The big quesiton is how is that achieved? By not defining "safe and secure" you are allowing whoever you elect free reign to interpretate that and use it for any policy they wish.

Originally posted by Mahree

Bottom line though, I believe that a safe and secure US will benefit the whole world.

Mary

[edit on 9-10-2004 by Netchicken]

Originally posted by Mahree
We do need to take into account how our choice of a president can effect different parts of the entire world. Bottom line though, I believe that a safe and secure US will benefit the whole world.

As Mary said American voters will take that into account, but we will vote for who we think is best for us, our familiers and our communities as a whole. The rest of the world will factor in, but WILL not be the deciding factor.

NetChicken: as Mary said, safe and secure is a valid point. You asked what is safe. The relative term safe has changed some since 911. Are we safe now? No, will we be safe in the future? Yes, but as Bush warned on the outset, the WOT will take time.

Do I feel that non-US voters have a right to comment on the US elections?: Yes, totaly. Esp the foreign policy part. On domestic issues, Im not sure how you can come up with a qualified opinion unless you have direct experience with the system. And alot of voters will decide who wins based on domestic issue. Take a look back at the what happened to Bush Sr. It was not foreign policy that voters made thier choice on it was domestic issues.

It is interesting that so many people outside of the US have a strong opinion on the candidates (not foreign policy mind you, but the domestic) yet the Brits just had an election that almost altered the balance in the House of Commons, and Aus just had one with Howard winning. Funny there were little to know discussion of either on ATS.

Originally posted by Netchicken
Thankyou for your dismissive compliment dcgolf.I am humbled by your magnamity in allowing me to comment on foreign issues only. Obviously you do not agree with 99% of what I say, otherwise your post would not be as it is...

Originally posted by dcgolf
I agree with 99% of what you say Netchicken. Many times, outsiders do have a better understanding of the impact candidates would have on foreign issues.

[edit on 9-10-2004 by Netchicken]

I didn't mean to suggest that foreigners could only comment on foreign policy. I said that they probably have a better understanding of foreign issues. I just meant that a majority don't have the same concerns regarding healthcare, social security etc. that voting Americans do. I could not comment on health care issues during foreign elections because:

A) I don't live there
B) They don't effect me

Sorry if I offended. It was not my intention.

[edit on 9-10-2004 by dcgolf]

Netchicken,

I agreed with you and well said, I do not have any political "Party" affiliations, my grudge is with how our present president has done with our country, some do not understand that I was in favor of everything bush did, until the day our troops went form heroes to victims. People that do not live in US and do not vote for the elections do not have that die hard political affiliation.

I do not have that devotion of a particular party I care for the one in power because his decisions affect me my children and my country.

I find so childish the name calling of anti American, bush hater and communist, well I tell you what if it was kerry making all these mistakes I would have been in the other side of the parties, but then some do not understand about that, you either with one or the other is no such thing as in the middle.




[edit on 9-10-2004 by marg6043]

OK here is the best darn bumber sticker I ahve seen in a while! Hehe how true do you think it is?




I just love this one!

Originally posted by Netchicken
Define "safe and secure" Mary.

One of my definitions for "safe and secure" would be that there not be a repeat occurrence of that horrible day, 9/11.

Our next president will need to do whatever it takes to keep this from happening again.

The terrorists are hitting all over the world. To stop terrorism would be to keep the world "safe and secure". And then we may all prosper from not living in fear.

Mary