Should the rest of the world get a say?

[Guest MikeSC]

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?

*raises hand*

 

Oooh, I know the answer to that!!!

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I wanna be ethnocentric...

[Guest MikeSC]

I wanna be ethnocentric...

The only people who use that word are dirty hippies and Commies.

 

Just sayin'.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I'm not using the word -- I just wanna be it.

 

Hippie...

[Guest MikeSC]

I'm not using the word -- I just wanna be it.

 

Hippie...

Sounds like a weak cover-up for some deep-seated, internal Commie/hippieism.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

There's a little hippie inside all of us.

 

Even inside of Rant.

 

Of course, you have to make sure you inner-hippie is bound, gagged and beaten daily by your other inner-selves...

[Guest MikeSC]

There's a little hippie inside all of us.

 

Even inside of Rant.

 

Of course, you have to make sure you inner-hippie is bound, gagged and beaten daily by your other inner-selves...

Lord knows I made the mistake of letting my hippie not be bound and gagged.

 

Oh, you mean it should be inside of you?

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Only if you swing that way...

[bobobrazil1984 0]

Fine, let's give the rest of the world 1 electoral vote!

 

In all seriousness, No they shouldn't get any say at all.

 

I understand the argument, being that US policy DOES effect everybody, for some its life and death... but still, no.

 

If they really want a say, well then send a bunch of couples to the US, give birth here, making kids US citizens, wait 20 years, and let em all vote for who you want. Other than that, no sorry.

[Zorin Industries 0]

I read the Guardian and Freedland daily and I have read the article. I must say I believe that his tougne is somewhat in cheek here, I think hes simply taking potshots at American Unilateralism rather than seriously suggesting a complete change in a nations sovereignty

[Guest TJH]

I'm not even American, and that article pissed me off.

[St. Gabe 0]

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

Mikey,

Wrap your head in that flag just a little bit tighter, hopefully it will eventually cut off your air supply, that way you will be blind, deaf, ignorant, intolerant, and oh, yeah...Dead.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Calling all mods, I think we have a death threat in Aisle 3.

 

And please post more than you just did if you're going to quote that much text -- the buildup took the wind out of your sails...

[spiny norman 0]

Okay. I'm not going to argue with you that the idea of allowing people from other countries voting is incredibly stupid. Because it is.

 

But I think the fact that the majority of the world do not want Bush to be re-elected should make you think about his foreign policy and just how successful it could be when an overwhelming number of the world think Bush should be replaced.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Out of curiousity, how was this hippie "world poll" conducted? What was the sampling? I don't care enough to look this up on my own, but I am curious...

[St. Gabe 0]

Calling all mods, I think we have a death threat in Aisle 3.

 

And please post more than you just did if you're going to quote that much text -- the buildup took the wind out of your sails...

I really didn't threaten his life, I was just stating in a round about way that Blind faith almost always leads to peril

[redbaron29 0]

Why the fuck should we give a shit what other countries think. For the past century we worked our asses off to become the number 1 nation in the world, while they were all doing there own thing. We made the sacrafices that it took to get on top....and now that we are there...now these guys want a say. Well thats just tuff...they are gonna just have to deal with whoever we decide to put in there. I dont think we need to "be sensitive to the world community" and appologize for giving a cowboy the job. They are just gonna have to accept our judgement. It can't possibly be worse judgment then Italy and Germany made just prior to WWII.(which we bailed them out I may add) So screw the nations of the world

[spiny norman 0]

It can't possibly be worse judgment then Italy and Germany made just prior to WWII.(which we bailed them out I may add)

Yes, because Germany was in such a great position immediately following the Second World War.

 

And to say it doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks is a pretty awesome display of ignorance which perhaps perfectly exemplifies why the rest of the world may feel this way about America.

[Guest BDC]

I was talking to a british exchange student about this yesterday and he loved the idea. Thought it was GREAT. So I said that if he gets a vote for Kerry, I get to make Tony Blair his KING.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

And to say it doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks is a pretty awesome display of ignorance which perhaps perfectly exemplifies why the rest of the world may feel this way about America.

Thank you.

 

Fuck the world, or at least those that don't agree with us...

[bob_barron 0]

Calling all mods, I think we have a death threat in Aisle 3.

 

And please post more than you just did if you're going to quote that much text -- the buildup took the wind out of your sails...

I really didn't threaten his life, I was just stating in a round about way that Blind faith almost always leads to peril

So you respond to a well thought out long post by Mike by wishing him death and making a post that has nothing to do with the topic?

 

Go you!

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Yeah, because Mike's ignorant...

[Dr. Tom 0]

So you respond to a well thought out long post by Mike by wishing him death and making a post that has nothing to do with the topic?

Not only that, he's been doing it with two screen names.

 

I'll give him the chance to voluntarily stop using the newer one, though.

[Justice 0]

So you respond to a well thought out long post by Mike by wishing him death and making a post that has nothing to do with the topic?

Not only that, he's been doing it with two screen names.

 

I'll give him the chance to voluntarily stop using the newer one, though.

Oh come on, tell us who he also is? Can we take guesses?

[Guest MikeSC]

Mikey,

Wrap your head in that flag just a little bit tighter, hopefully it will eventually cut off your air supply, that way you will be blind, deaf, ignorant, intolerant, and oh, yeah...Dead.

Which would, shockingly, still leave me 100 IQ points ahead of you.

 

Wow, my first death threat in weeks. I'd be worried --- but since you claim to be European, you'll simply dither on the sidelines and not do a damned thing anyway.

-=Mike

[Special K 0]

If how the world feels toward us is of the utmost importance, then that should be reflected with a US citizens vote who feels similarly. If you wnat to vote Bush out, and think it's that important what America does, become an American citizen.

 

How is not liking this absolutely idiotic idea 'ethnocentric'? Last I checked the vast majority of Americans' ethnicities were of other countries, and mostly European.

 

Oh, and by virtue of their enormous populations, China and India would eventually take over the world. Awesome.

[Red Baron 0]

The logic of other countries voting is inane. There is no logic for this.

 

So if the Americans wanted to vote for a dumbass they do. If they want to vote for a flip flopper, they do.

 

Technically, we can vote for China, and vote for them out of communism (scary)

[Special K 0]

This is essentially a contentless post, but goddamn, let me reitterate that this is the STOOPIDEST goddamn idea I have ever heard in my life in an actual discussion about politics.

[Slayer 0]

I must say I believe that his tongue is somewhat in cheek here, I think hes simply taking potshots at American Unilateralism rather than seriously suggesting a complete change in a nations sovereignty

Umm...

 

We just got punk'd?

[Guest MikeSC]

I must say I believe that his tongue is somewhat in cheek here, I think hes simply taking potshots at American Unilateralism rather than seriously suggesting a complete change in a nations sovereignty

Umm...

 

We just got punk'd?

Well, the column seemed vapid enough to be penned by Mr. Kutcher...

-=Mike