International Reaction to US Election

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Drachasor
Does that somehow make the ones America does support better?

Did I say that?! NO. What I am saying is that there's more to world misery than blaming America for all the woes. America certainly has a role in the misery — as do other nations, corporations and individuals — and a role in that which is good. Hmpfh. Don't we all wish the world was more black and white? Well, it's not. That's reality, and sometimes it bites.

Dang, I guess you think that the Holocaust wasn't so bad because Stalin killed more people.

SIR, YOU'RE COMING *THIS* CLOSE TO CROSSING A RED LINE. Cease and desist while you still can.

*sigh*

The point of my post was how America has fostered hatred against America; keep in mind the context!

-Drachasor

And how is my pointing out that the misery of the world is shouldered by more than one entity contraindicating that?

Gatekeeper

[Drachasor]

My point about the Holocaust was to be absurd.

I wasn't talking about how other countries had done bad things, that wasn't the issue at hand.

I was talking about how America had done bad things and supported such regimes. I was talking about how this has caused many of their current problems.

For some reason you decided to "correct me" and say that other entities had engaged in similar behavior. Well, I was never claiming that and this "correction" misses my point on the causation of current American problems entirely.

I never even began to blame America for all of the worlds woes. I was merely saying that America needs to accept the woes it does cause. Right now we, as a people, do not.

To say that "other people are really bad too" misses the point entirely. Just like responding to you with Holocaust vs. Stalin's murders comment -- which was meant to be facetious.

-Drachasor

PS. My apologies if I came across as rude, but I have had a frustrating week and not enough sleep.

[notyoueither]

Is America supposed to force regime change everywhere at once? Or do you have to go along to get along in some cases?

I find it funny that people call down the US for getting rid of Saddam, and then criticise the US for getting along with other regimes in the next breath.

Which way do you want it?

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Is America supposed to force regime change everywhere at once? Or do you have to go along to get along in some cases?

I find it funny that people call down the US for getting rid of Saddam, and then criticise the US for getting along with other regimes in the next breath.

Which way do you want it?

Support for unpopular regimes can be withdrawn, you know. There's a difference between not taking a regime down and propping it up.

-Drachasor

[notyoueither]

I agree. Who has the US propped up lately as compared to in 1980? You have to remember, there was a Cold War, and then it ended.

Outside of the House of Saud (putueee) who are they propping up today?

[Drake Tungsten]

Other way around. We just haven't figured out how to break it to you yet.

Yep. I got one of the Canuck girls drunk last week and she accidentally informed me of the horrible truth. Then, we made out. Tasted vaguely of maple syrup...

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I agree. Who has the US propped up lately as compared to in 1980? You have to remember, there was a Cold War, and then it ended.

Outside of the House of Saud (putueee) who are they propping up today?

Egypt? United Arab Emirates? Quatar? Bahrain? Pakistan?

Did we not initially support the Liberian regime of Charles Taylor until outrage over his support of the butcher-rebels in neighboring states made doing so untenable?

[the_ceebs]

How about Israel?

there's a huge ammount of financial propping up going on there

[baginda]

One of Indonesian reactions:

http://www.thejakartapost.com/detaileditorial.asp?fileid=20041105.E01&irec=0

Bush's world

Congratulations to George W. Bush on winning a second term as president of the most powerful nation in the world. In yet another cliff-hanger, Bush defeated Democratic challenger John Kerry by capturing 274 electoral votes to his opponent's 252 electoral votes. Bush also won a slim 51 percent majority in the popular vote.

We congratulate the American people for concluding this important process and commend their enthusiasm in carrying out their civic duty by coming out in large numbers to vote.

Indonesian leaders should also learn from the graceful conduct of both candidates -- the loser graciously conceding and the winner magnanimous in victory. Although the campaign was often bitter and political differences remain, both Bush and Kerry underlined the need for healing and unity in their final speeches.

Certainly there is a lesson to be learned in this, a custom to be embraced by the future leaders of Indonesia's young democracy.

No small consideration should be given to Kerry, who could have protracted the process through legal suits. His wisdom in allowing the electorate, not judges, to determine the outcome of the election is a mark of true statesmanship.

This election also taught us a little more about the average American. About their hopes and perceived fears; of their awareness, or lack thereof, of their place in the global community.

We learned of the depth of conservative moralism in American society, their economic preferences and, most importantly, their biases in the war on terror.

Who American voters elect is entirely their own prerogative. We, as friends of the United States, respect their choice. Governments around the world, out of decorum, also have welcomed the election of Bush.

Nevertheless, amid the exclusively American complexion of many of the election issues, the grand theme of the election was inherently of a global nature. The 2004 U.S. election was in essence a "referendum" on Bush's war against terrorism and his unilateral invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

It is probably for this reason that people around the world were aghast when they woke up to find Bush had been reelected. It is incomprehensible to many outside the United States how such a developed society could still trust a man who waged war under false pretenses.

It is not our place to say there is a prevailing sense of "letdown" at the American choice, but how else but with disappointment could the international community react to an affirmation of an administration that espouses unilateral preemptive strikes against sovereign states.

We can only attribute support for this narcissism to the narrow-minded id brought about by an isolationist mentality -- the world according to America, because America is the world.

Millions around the globe adore America -- its people, culture, democratic ideals and respect for the rule of law. But millions more despise the country's conceited policies that disrespect the rights of other nations.

This election provides the White House the opportunity to mend fences with the global community, much in the way Bush pledged to reach out to Kerry's Democrats. Bush can choose to stoke international animosity by continuing as a global bully -- a world am-Bush-ed by unilateralism and nationalist chauvinism. Or he can attempt a reconciliation by listening to friends and respecting the United Nations.

For its part, Indonesia should continue to engage with the United States and the Bush administration. The underlying people-to-people relationship is too strong to collapse under the pressures of short-term real politik.

Despite his victory, the election also sent a strong message to Bush: Almost as many voters as supported him -- just 3.5 million fewer -- believed he was wrong in his policies.

Whether or not Bush heeds this message will determine his legacy as a great president or one of "folly, noise and sin".

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap


You yourself just said this is a false arguement, given that the US went to war with germany only after a German declaration of war. So Europeans have plenty to ***** about the US.

The USA was already actively supporting Britain through the neutrality patrols (which included the US navy depth charging a german Uboat on april 10 1940), destroyers for bases deal, and lend lease (amongst other). The USA was neutral on paper prior to Germanys declaration of war, but in fact it was a close british ally.

Sure its a 'what if', but without the foresight of Roosevelt, and the american military support, Germany would have won the battle of the Atlantic, Britain would have been starved for supplies, and would have eventually fallen to the nazis.

In an eerie parallel to what we see today, appeasement-minded *******s like Joe Kennedy Sr. (like father like son) fought to stop the unilateral american actions.

[WotanAnubis]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Sure its a 'what if', but without the foresight of Roosevelt, and the american military support, Germany would have won the battle of the Atlantic, Britain would have been starved for supplies, and would have eventually fallen to the nazis.

However, we still wouldn't be speaking German, I think. Even if the US lend aid to the Soviet Union, the SU war machine after the battle of Stalingrad was nigh unstoppable. Sure, without a second front in the West, the march towards Berlin and beyond would take longer, but they'd get there in the end.

Then communist states would be installed all over Europe. America *might* have lost its super-power position, but Soviet Europe would probably eventually collapse under the corruption that also caused the collapse of the real-life Soviet states.

As a result Democracy would flourish once again in Europe. A bit later than planned, perhaps, but it'd be there. So we probably wouldn't be speaking Russian.