Should the rest of the world get a say?

[cbacon 0]

Published on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 by the Guardian / United Kingdom

 

Still No Votes in Leipzig

US Policy Now Affects Every Citizen on the Planet. So We Should All Have a Say in Who Gets to the White House

by Jonathan Freedland

 

 

There were few pleasures to be had following Bob Dole's doomed presidential campaign in 1996, but one was the unique brand of anti-charm adopted by the candidate. I was once on the receiving end of it myself, during a stop in New Hampshire. Dole had just inspected a factory and a huddle of reporters gathered to ask some questions. I was only three words into mine when the would-be president cut me off. He'd heard my accent and decided there was no point giving me the time of day. "No votes in Liverpool," he snapped, before calling on the man from the Kansas City Star.

 

I later heard a reporter from Finnish TV dismissed with a crisp "No votes in Leipzig". Dole's familiarity with both British accents and European geography may have been slightly off, but the point was clear enough. He was running in an American election: he needed to speak to Americans and Americans alone. No one else mattered.

 

At the time, that logic seemed fair enough. Americans were choosing their own leader to run their own government. Americans would pay the taxes and live with the consequences of their decision. It was up to them.

 

But now I'm not so sure. For who could honestly describe the 2004 contest of George Bush and John Kerry as a domestic affair? There's a reason why every newspaper in the world will have the same story on its front page on November 3. This election will be decisive not just for the United States but for the future of the world.

 

Anyone who doubts it need only look at the last four years. The war against Iraq, the introduction of the new doctrine of pre-emption, the direct challenge to multilateral institutions - chances are, not one of these world-changing developments would have happened under a President Al Gore. It is no exaggeration to say that the actions of a few hundred voters in Florida changed the world.

 

So perhaps it's time to make a modest proposal. If everyone in the world will be affected by this election, shouldn't everyone in the world have a vote? Despite Bob Dole, shouldn't the men who want to be president win the support of Liverpool and Leipzig as well as Louisville and Lexington?

 

It may sound wacky, but the idea could not be more American. After all, the country was founded on the notion that human beings must have a say in the decisions that govern their lives. The rebels' slogan of "No taxation without representation" endures two centuries later because it speaks about something larger than the narrow business of raising taxes. It says that those who pay for a government's actions must have a right to choose the government that takes them.

 

Today, people far from America's shores do indeed pay for the consequences of US actions. The citizens of Iraq are the obvious example, living in a land where a vile dictatorship was removed only for a military occupation and unspeakable violence to be unleashed in its place. The would-be voters of downtown Baghdad might like a say in whether their country would be better off with US forces gone. Perhaps John Kerry's Monday promise to start bringing the troops home, beginning next summer, would appeal to them. But they have no voice.

 

It's not just those who live under US military rule who might wish to choose the commander-in-chief. Everyone from Madrid to Bali is now drawn into the "war on terror" declared by President Bush. We might believe that war is being badly mishandled - that US actions are aggravating the threat rather than reducing it - and that we or our neighbours will eventually pay the price for those errors. We might fear that the Bush policy is inflaming al-Qaida, making it more not less likely to strike in our towns and cities, but right now we cannot do anything to change that policy. Instead we have to watch the US campaign on TV, with our fingers crossed - impotent spectators of a contest that could shake up our lives. (Those who feel the same way about Tony Blair should remember: at least we will get a vote.)

 

So we ought to hold America to its word. When George Bush spoke to the UN yesterday, he invoked democracy in almost every paragraph, citing America's declaration of independence which insists on the equal worth of every human being. Well, surely equal worth means an equal say in the decisions that affect the entire human race.

 

That 1776 declaration is worth rereading. Its very first sentence demands "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind": isn't that exactly what the world would like from America today? The document goes on to excoriate the distant emperor George for his recklessness, insisting that authority is only legitimate when it enjoys "the consent of the governed". As the world's sole superpower, the US now has global authority. But where is the consent?

 

By this logic, it is not a declaration of independence the world would be making. On the contrary, in seeking a say in US elections, the human race would be making a declaration of dependence - acknowledging that Washington's decisions affect us more than those taken in our own capitals. In contrast with those founding Americans, the new declaration would argue that, in order to take charge of our destiny, we do not need to break free from the imperial power - we need to tame it.

 

Such a request would also represent a recognition of an uncomfortable fact. It would be an admission that the old, postwar multilateral arrangements have broken down. In the past, America's allies could hope to influence the behemoth via treaties, agreements and the UN. The Bush era - not just Iraq, but Washington's disdain for Kyoto, the test ban treaty, the international criminal court and the rest - suggests that the US will no longer listen to those on the outside. As candidate Dole understood, only those with votes get a hearing.

 

Will this modest proposal fly? Will it hell. Despite Bush's smooth talk in New York yesterday, his position remains that America does not need a "permission slip" from anybody to do anything. If Washington won't listen to the security council, it's hardly likely to submit itself to the voters of Paris and Pretoria.

 

Besides, every good Republican knows the world is solid Kerry territory. A survey by pollsters HI Europe earlier this month found that, if Europeans had a vote, they would back Kerry over Bush by a 6 to 1 margin. Bush would win just 6% in Germany, 5% in Spain and a measly 4% in France. No Republican is going to cede turf like that to the enemy.

 

You would think those numbers would hurt Bush, making clear how unpopular he is in the world. But they don't. If anything they hurt Kerry, suggesting he is the candidate of limp-wristed foreigners and therefore somehow less American. We may find that a sorry state of affairs. But there is little we can do about it. In the democratic contest that matters most to the world, the world is disenfranchised.

 

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0922-07.htm

 

 

Further reference:

 

Poll Of 35 Countries Finds 30 Prefer Kerry, 3 Bush

 

Most Say Bush Foreign Policy Has Made Them Feel Worse Toward US

 

Washington DC: In 30 out of 35 countries polled, from all regions of the world, a majority or plurality would prefer to see John Kerry win the US presidential election—especially traditional US allies. The only countries where President Bush was preferred were the Philippines, Nigeria, and Poland. India and Thailand were divided. On average, Kerry was favored by more than a two-to-one margin—46% to 20% (weighted for variations in population, the ratio was not significantly different). Overall, one-third did not give an answer.

 

Canadians to Bush: Hope You Lose, Eh

 

The intense sympathy Canadians felt following the attacks of 9/11 -- something that manifested itself not just in acts of mourning and charity, but in a willingness to support whatever actions the U.S. deemed necessary -- has dissipated. In its place is a deep dislike of the bellicose new global reality, and a lingering distrust of Bush's motives.

 

Canadians against the re-election of George Bush

 

In short, US foreign policy directly effects the rest of the world, thus the rest of the world should have more of a say in whom runs the country. Of course to the average American this notion would seem asinine, but the principle behind I believe is just.

 

Discuss.

[Guest GreatOne]

And I'm supposed to care about Canada and 29 other countries (not even counting Kim jong Il) preferring Kerry where?

[cbacon 0]

That's the kind of ethnocentric attitude that has caused such outrage. You may not care, but the rest of the world does.

[Guest GreatOne]

No it's called paying attention to what you do, not what Europe, Canada, or Mexico is doing over here, nothing ethnocentric about it.

[{''({o..o})''} 0]

Let's say I want to paint my house. I'm leaning towards white, but some people who drive by think it should be blue. Should I automatically give them a say in it since they are effected by the color as they drive by?

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I would be outraged if foreigners were allowed to vote in Canadian elections and it would be hypocritical of me to want to vote in the American ones.

[cbacon 0]

No it's called paying attention to what you do, not what Europe, Canada, or Mexico is doing over here, nothing ethnocentric about it.

 

But when your actions begin to effect millions of others then it's in the best interest of the other parties to have a say.

 

Let's say I want to paint my house. I'm leaning towards white, but some people who drive by think it should be blue. Should I automatically give them a say in it since they are effected by the color as they drive by?

 

Painting a house and meddling in affairs of other nations and the very lives of their citizens are a tad different.

[KingPK 0]

Someone brought this up on a GameFAQs board (which proves how inane the whole thing is), so I just said "Fine, then we should be able to vote for the Presidents/PMs of France, England, Spain, Canada, etc, etc."

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

That's the kind of ethnocentric attitude that has caused such outrage. You may not care, but the rest of the world does.

So what? Fuck them if they have a problem. It's OUR elections and I don't give a fuck what any non-citizen thinks about the election. Who the U.S. people want is more important than anyone else.

 

This is without a doubt one of the dumbest thing I've ever even seen mentioned.

[Justice 0]

I think I speak for everyone when I say this is the stupidest non-INXS opinion on the CE board in a LONG time.

[2GOLD 0]

I think I speak for everyone when I say this is the stupidest non-INXS opinion on the CE board in a LONG time.

 

I dunno, I think we might have a tight race. Gotta admit though, this one is in the lead.

[Guest BDC]

Yes, because I want other countries picking my leader.

 

Seriously, think about how monumentally DUMB this is.

[Guest MikeSC]

That's the kind of ethnocentric attitude that has caused such outrage. You may not care, but the rest of the world does.

Good for the rest of the world. When they were busy dominating and colonizing everybody, they hardly rushed out to give people a voice.

 

They don't like what we do? Honestly, that's their problem.

But when your actions begin to effect millions of others then it's in the best interest of the other parties to have a say.

Then give us a voice in everybody else's election. Tony Blair would be one damned safe PM. Hell, we'd probably elect Thatcher, just to piss people off.

Painting a house and meddling in affairs of other nations and the very lives of their citizens are a tad different.

So, if we do nothing, we're not doing our part. If we do something, then we owe the world a voice in our elections?

 

I don't think so.

-=Mike

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I think I speak for everyone when I say this is the stupidest non-INXS opinion on the CE board in a LONG time.

I don't think this is quite up there with Doyo's conspiracy theory thread.

[EricMM 0]

If other countries feel like Bush's America has too much influence over world politics, then they should get off their butts and try and get to where America is.

 

There's no fucking way anyone from another country should be able to decide who leads another country.

 

And if you think Bush did exactly that towards Iraq or whatever, then fine, try and argue that. Try and argue that Bush is as much a threat towards something (safety, peace, whatever) but DON'T try and act like just because we're America, and the most important and influential country in the world we have to give some of our autonomy away.

[Guest MikeSC]

I'll have some fun and dismiss this article.

I later heard a reporter from Finnish TV dismissed with a crisp "No votes in Leipzig". Dole's familiarity with both British accents and European geography may have been slightly off, but the point was clear enough. He was running in an American election: he needed to speak to Americans and Americans alone. No one else mattered.

That whole "President of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" monicker should have tipped them off long before Dole uttered a word.

Anyone who doubts it need only look at the last four years. The war against Iraq, the introduction of the new doctrine of pre-emption, the direct challenge to multilateral institutions - chances are, not one of these world-changing developments would have happened under a President Al Gore. It is no exaggeration to say that the actions of a few hundred voters in Florida changed the world.

That's life for you.

 

When we let the world do what it wants, genocides tend to go on unchecked (see Rwanda and Sudan).

 

We give the world ample chances to do something --- when they refuse, then it's up to us, much to our annoyance, to do ALL of the damned work.

So perhaps it's time to make a modest proposal. If everyone in the world will be affected by this election, shouldn't everyone in the world have a vote? Despite Bob Dole, shouldn't the men who want to be president win the support of Liverpool and Leipzig as well as Louisville and Lexington?

Bitch, please. I don't see candidates running to gain our support --- why should our candidates run to gain THEIR support?

Today, people far from America's shores do indeed pay for the consequences of US actions.

Less so than, oh, the heyday of the British Empire. Just mentioning it.

The citizens of Iraq are the obvious example, living in a land where a vile dictatorship was removed only for a military occupation and unspeakable violence to be unleashed in its place. The would-be voters of downtown Baghdad might like a say in whether their country would be better off with US forces gone. Perhaps John Kerry's Monday promise to start bringing the troops home, beginning next summer, would appeal to them. But they have no voice.

Perhaps they'd want a Wahhabist in the White House who will unleash a jihad against, oh, England.

 

You never know.

It's not just those who live under US military rule who might wish to choose the commander-in-chief. Everyone from Madrid to Bali is now drawn into the "war on terror" declared by President Bush. We might believe that war is being badly mishandled - that US actions are aggravating the threat rather than reducing it - and that we or our neighbours will eventually pay the price for those errors. We might fear that the Bush policy is inflaming al-Qaida, making it more not less likely to strike in our towns and cities, but right now we cannot do anything to change that policy.

Sucks to be you. We feel the world's propping up of Saddam long after he proved himself to be a guy who'd use WMD against his own people was a HUGE problem. When we mentioned it to, oh, the French --- care to guess how well they responded to that?

 

I feel that the lack of action in Sudan is offensive on every level. The UN won't even refer to it, officially, as genocide. Sudan is on the Human Rights Commission IN SPITE of a genocide.

 

When the "world" gets its shit together, then bug us. The int'l body the world controls, the UN (God knows the US doesn't, despite being the financial and military arm of it), is the most ass-backwards, fucking useless body on Earth.

 

BTW, I suppose this author proposes to give the US a vote in who runs the EU, too, right?

So we ought to hold America to its word. When George Bush spoke to the UN yesterday, he invoked democracy in almost every paragraph, citing America's declaration of independence which insists on the equal worth of every human being. Well, surely equal worth means an equal say in the decisions that affect the entire human race.

I thought left-wing blogs had fucking moronic opinions put on it.

 

News Flash for the World: The US would be all-too-happy to leave the lot of you to your own devices. However, when we do that, you FUCK EVERYTHING UP.

 

The "world" can't be trusted to manage a bowel movement.

 

No way I want MY country beholden to any shit-kicker in another land.

That 1776 declaration is worth rereading. Its very first sentence demands "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind": isn't that exactly what the world would like from America today?

Just checking --- we aren't having to drag the UN kicking and screaming to even threaten possible sanctions against Sudan at some point in the future for the minor crime of GENOCIDE, right?

 

Yeah, I'll listen to the "world" lecture me on respect for mankind, especially considering Europe's bang-up job of doing just that when they had a drop of power historically.

The document goes on to excoriate the distant emperor George for his recklessness, insisting that authority is only legitimate when it enjoys "the consent of the governed". As the world's sole superpower, the US now has global authority. But where is the consent?

I didn't see Britain refusing our aid during WW II.

By this logic, it is not a declaration of independence the world would be making. On the contrary, in seeking a say in US elections, the human race would be making a declaration of dependence - acknowledging that Washington's decisions affect us more than those taken in our own capitals. In contrast with those founding Americans, the new declaration would argue that, in order to take charge of our destiny, we do not need to break free from the imperial power - we need to tame it.

Fine. Pay our taxes, follow our laws, abolish your own governments, vow allegiance to the US and we can talk.

 

As long as you want your sovreignty, there is no way in hell we'll give up ours.

Such a request would also represent a recognition of an uncomfortable fact. It would be an admission that the old, postwar multilateral arrangements have broken down. In the past, America's allies could hope to influence the behemoth via treaties, agreements and the UN. The Bush era - not just Iraq, but Washington's disdain for Kyoto, the test ban treaty, the international criminal court and the rest - suggests that the US will no longer listen to those on the outside.

Out of curiosity, can the author name a single country on Earth who follows the Kyoto Protocols? I can't.

 

And the test ban treaty? Seeing as how nuclear proliferation hasn't really slowed down as of late, apparently, we were hardly the first to ignore it.

 

The int'l criminal court? With that, the "world" can happily go off and fuck itself silly.

 

You know what? You're right.

 

We DO NOT CARE WHAT THE "WORLD" THINKS. We haven't in many, many years and, thanks to the ineptitude of groups like the UN, we likely never will again.

 

There is NOTHING anybody can do to make us give a shit because we fully recognize what a shithole the world is WITHOUT our Herculean efforts to try and stop genocides.

 

When was the last massive genocide "the world" stopped? Hell, the "world" couldn't even get off its ass and stop the Holocaust. Hell, the French couldn't ship their Jews off fast enough.

 

And we're supposed to take these fucktards seriously?

 

We do more good for the world than anybody else. Period.

Will this modest proposal fly? Will it hell. Despite Bush's smooth talk in New York yesterday, his position remains that America does not need a "permission slip" from anybody to do anything. If Washington won't listen to the security council, it's hardly likely to submit itself to the voters of Paris and Pretoria.

Not "Hardly likely". If a candidate suggested that, he'd be lucky to get three votes nationally. If a President decided to do it, he'd be impeached instantaneously.

 

We do not trust the "world", and with good reason.

 

Try reading Washington's farewell address for a real solid basis for American foreign policy.

Besides, every good Republican knows the world is solid Kerry territory. A survey by pollsters HI Europe earlier this month found that, if Europeans had a vote, they would back Kerry over Bush by a 6 to 1 margin. Bush would win just 6% in Germany, 5% in Spain and a measly 4% in France. No Republican is going to cede turf like that to the enemy.

No AMERICAN would do that, you fucking moron. I'd give 10 year olds here the vote before I'd do anything less than punch a Frenchman for offering me an opinion on the American system.

You would think those numbers would hurt Bush, making clear how unpopular he is in the world. But they don't. If anything they hurt Kerry, suggesting he is the candidate of limp-wristed foreigners and therefore somehow less American. We may find that a sorry state of affairs. But there is little we can do about it. In the democratic contest that matters most to the world, the world is disenfranchised.

Cry me a fucking river. The "world" can have its UN, where the US --- you know, the biggest money and military contributor --- cannot possibly get an American to run things there.

 

The UN, much as people hate to say it, is under very little US influence.

 

So, tell me --- how has the UN been doing as of late? Respect for humanity been a major part of its initiatives?

 

And it's refreshing to see all of the money WE'VE sacrificed so the "world" can live the lives of perpetual teenagers has been so appreciated.

 

In hindsight, we'd have been better off letting the Soviet Union conquer Europe.

-=Mike

[Guest CronoT]

As much as I find myself annoyed to be agreeing with Mike, this is almost as fucking brain-dead retarded as the new gov't in Iraq saying it's okay for Saddam Hussein to run for President of Iraq.

 

I'll file this under: "What the fuck did you think was going to happen?"

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

While I don't think anyone outside of the country should be meddling in our elections (we have plenty of fucks who do that already, Hi Kathleen! I DO think lowering the voting age to the day you start earning a paycheck and paying taxes is a great idea.

 

No taxation WITHOUT representation! Whoo!

[Guest INXS]

This is moot as the US elections are fixed in favor of Bush anyway

 

This is a really silly suggestion but I do see the logic behind it. It has become more noticeable perhaps with the actions of Bush these last few years that America's actions have a knock on (and in some cases. disastarous) effect throughout the world.

 

Perhaps if Bush invades Syria or Iran (most likely) after he gets re-elected (which he will), some countries might get together and liberate the American people from the oppressive Bush regime!

 

Anyway, tongue back in cheek and in short, only Americans should be allowed to vote for in the US elections.

[Dr. Tom 0]

I actually read this article just now, as opposed to just glancing at the headline last night. This is one of the most ridiculous suggestions I've ever heard, and it pisses me off. Fuck every stupid, knuckle-dragging, slow-to-act motherfucker in Europe who wants a say in American politics, fuck the asshole who wrote this shitty excuse for an article, and fuck every cretin who agrees with him. Fuck them all with a razorblade dildo.

 

Maybe if a lot of countries would get their heads out of their asses, they'd see that the era of polling opinions and waiting for your allies to do something is gone. America has acted when it needed to. We don't need some sissy in office who would get the opinion of spineless shithead world leaders instead of just acting to protect his people.

 

Gah, this infuriates me. The fucking GALL... argh.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

That's the kind of ethnocentric attitude that has caused such outrage. You may not care, but the rest of the world does.

The rest of the world can lick my nuts.

 

It's shit like this that fuels the one-world-government wackos...

[Guest Cerebus]

Should the rest of the world get a say?

No.

 

Edit:

You would think those numbers would hurt Bush, making clear how unpopular he is in the world. But they don't. If anything they hurt Kerry, suggesting he is the candidate of limp-wristed foreigners and therefore somehow less American. We may find that a sorry state of affairs. But there is little we can do about it.

Thank God for that.

[Guest Cerebus]

In a related article...

 

No French or German turn on Iraq

By Jo Johnson in Paris, Betrand Benoit in Berlin and James Harding in Washington

Published: September 26 2004 21:13 | Last updated: September 26 2004 21:13

 

French and German government officials say they will not significantly increase military assistance in Iraq even if John Kerry, the Democratic presidential challenger, is elected on November 2.

 

Mr Kerry, who has attacked President George W. Bush for failing to broaden the US-led alliance in Iraq, has pledged to improve relations with European allies and increase international military assistance in Iraq.

 

"I cannot imagine that there will be any change in our decision not to send troops, whoever becomes president," Gert Weisskirchen, member of parliament and foreign policy expert for Germany's ruling Social Democratic Party, said in an interview.

 

"That said, Mr Kerry seems genuinely committed to multilateralism and as president he would find it easier than Mr Bush to secure the German government's backing in other matters."

 

Even though Nato last week overcame members' long-running reservations about a training mission to Iraq and agreed to set up an academy there for 300 soldiers, neither Paris nor Berlin will participate.

 

Michel Barnier, the French foreign minister, said last week that France, which has tense relations with interim prime minister Iyad Allawi, had no plans to send troops "either now or later".

 

That view reflects the concerns of many EU and Nato officials, who say the dangers in Iraq and the difficulty of extricating troops already there could make European governments reluctant to send personnel, regardless of the outcome of the US election.

 

A French government official said: "People don't expect that much would change under a Kerry administration, even if things can only get better. We do not anticipate a sudden honeymoon in the event Kerry replaces Bush.

 

"A lot depends on who is in power in both Washington and Baghdad. If there's change in both countries then it's possible we would re-examine our position, but I don't expect a massive change either way."

 

A German government spokesman declined to comment on the outcome of the US presidential election. But the feeling in Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's office is that, if anything, Berlin is growing less rather than more likely to change its mind as security conditions deteriorate in Iraq.

 

Mr Schröder would also be unlikely to renege on his 2002 electoral commitment not to send troops as a new general election looms in 2006.

 

There is no sign that the German public, which loathes the US president, would accept risking German lives to salvage what is widely seen as Mr Bush's botched war.

 

In fact, high-ranking German officials are privately concerned at the prospect of Mr Kerry becoming president, arguing it would not change US demands but make it more difficult to reject them.

 

Both France and Germany, however, have said they would contribute to the reduction of Iraq's debt and participate in economic and environmental development programmes. Berlin already trains Iraqi security forces outside Iraq and France has said it would do so.

 

Mr Kerry is expected to make Mr Bush's record of alienating foreign capitals and undermining US credibility in the world one of the chief arguments on Thursday night when he confronts the president in the first presidential debate.

 

The televised debate, which is expected to be watched by more than the 46.6m people who watched the debate in 2000, will focus on foreign policy and national security.

 

In a speech hammering Mr Bush for his decision to lead the US into Iraq, Mr Kerry said last week that in Afghanistan "I will lead our allies to share the burden."

 

He continued: "the Bush administration would have you believe that when it comes to our allies, it won't make a difference who is president. They say the Europeans won't help us, no matter what. But I have news for President Bush: just because you can't do something, doesn't mean it can't be done."

 

The German government continues to oppose sending troops to Iraq under any circumstance.

 

Berlin was one of Europe's most vocal opponents of the invasion of Iraq and, with sizeable forces in the Balkan and Afghanistan, it has also argued its troops are overstretched.

 

Although the government did not oppose Nato's decision to start training inside Iraq, it still thinks the deployment is counter- productive.

 

"Nato personnel will become targets for attacks," one official said on Sunday.

 

They would all vote for Kerry? Most likely Nader would be the president if the idiots running the Guardian had their way.

[Guest MikeSC]

This is moot as the US elections are fixed in favor of Bush anyway

INXS, just a suggestion, but don't write anything ever again.

 

And, at what point can we stop inaccurately labelling France and Germany as allies?

-=Mike

[2GOLD 0]

This is moot as the US elections are fixed in favor of Bush anyway

INXS, just a suggestion, but don't write anything ever again.

 

And, at what point can we stop inaccurately labelling France and Germany as allies?

-=Mike

 

When they fail at another attempt at world domination.

[Slayer 0]

I think I speak for everyone when I say this is the stupidest non-INXS opinion on the CE board in a LONG time.

You got my voice

 

This is moot as the US elections are fixed in favor of Bush anyway

INXS, just a suggestion, but don't write anything ever again.

Yeah really, he's as bad as that unger guy

[Guest MikeSC]

This is moot as the US elections are fixed in favor of Bush anyway

INXS, just a suggestion, but don't write anything ever again.

 

And, at what point can we stop inaccurately labelling France and Germany as allies?

-=Mike

 

When they fail at another attempt at world domination.

So, now is good, then?

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

This is moot as the US elections are fixed in favor of Bush anyway

INXS, just a suggestion, but don't write anything ever again.

 

And, at what point can we stop inaccurately labelling France and Germany as allies?

-=Mike

Now, now. Don't blame the messenger.

 

Link...

 

Voting arrangements in Florida do not meet "basic international requirements" and could undermine the US election, former US President Jimmy Carter says.

 

He said a repeat of the irregularities of the much-disputed 2000 election - which gave President George W Bush the narrowest of wins - "seems likely".

 

Mr Carter, a veteran observer of polls worldwide, also accused Florida's top election official of "bias".

 

His remarks come ahead of the first TV debate between Mr Bush and John Kerry.

 

They are expected to discuss the war on Iraq and homeland security during the programme on Thursday.

 

Both men have cut back on their campaign touring to go behind closed doors and rehearse the arguments and techniques they will need during a series of three debates to be held over two weeks.

 

Each has held mock debates with aides standing in for their opponent.

 

Tens of millions of television viewers are expected to watch Thursday's head-to-head.

 

Mr Kerry, a debating champion at high school and college, will hope it can help him claw back a deficit in the polls variously put between 3% and 9%.

 

In an article in the Washington Post newspaper, Mr Carter, a Democrat, said that he and ex-President Gerald Ford, a Republican, had been asked to draw up recommendations for changes after the last vote in Florida was marred by arguments over the counting of ballots.

 

Mr Carter said the reforms they came up with had still not been implemented.

 

He accused Florida Secretary of State Glenda Hood, a Republican, of trying to get the name of independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader included on the state ballot, knowing he might divert Democrat votes.

 

He also said: "A fumbling attempt has been made recently to disqualify 22,000 African Americans (likely Democrats), but only 61 Hispanics (likely Republicans), as alleged felons."

 

Mr Carter said Florida Governor Jeb Bush - brother of the president - had "taken no steps to correct these departures from principles of fair and equal treatment or to prevent them in the future".

 

"It is unconscionable to perpetuate fraudulent or biased electoral practices in any nation," he added.

 

"With reforms unlikely at this late stage of the election, perhaps the only recourse will be to focus maximum public scrutiny on the suspicious process in Florida."

[Guest BDC]

Jimmy, go build a house.

[Guest Cerebus]

That's the kind of ethnocentric attitude that has caused such outrage.

 

By the way...

 

Thinking that only citizens of your country should vote in elections IN that country is ethnocentric now?

 

Seriously, do you know how stupid that sounds?