babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » USA   » Talking to Americans About the Election

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Talking to Americans About the Election
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 17 October 2004 03:16 PM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Its really tough being "outsiders" and feeling powerless about being able to do anything about the U.S. election.

Here are a few sites I've come across where non-Americans can tell their American friends how important it is for them to get rid of President George W. Bush.

Earth to America

Voices '04

Canadians Against the Re-election of George Bush

And you can upload your videos to:
Talk to US


From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 17 October 2004 03:25 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'll send a message. I wish I could force myself to believe it might work. Those who we need to reach aren't going to read, let alone head, a message from foreigners. Why, that smacks of having to "pass a global test"
From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 17 October 2004 08:15 PM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'll send a message. I wish I could force myself to believe it might work. Those who we need to reach aren't going to read, let alone head, a message from foreigners. Why, that smacks of having to "pass a global test"

Well who knows? Each one of us might say something that magically changes a voter's mind. In a close race, the odd vote here and there might swing a state to Kerry.

Its grasping at straws I know but what the hell eh?


From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 18 October 2004 12:56 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The predictable response from American voters thankful for an outside perspective:

Dear Limey assholes

quote:
Have you not noticed that Americans don't give two shits what Europeans think of us? Each email someone gets from some arrogant Brit telling us why to NOT vote for George Bush is going to backfire, you stupid, yellow-toothed pansies ... I don't give a rat's ass if our election is going to have an effect on your worthless little life. I really don't. If you want to have a meaningful election in your crappy little island full of shitty food and yellow teeth, then maybe you should try not to sell your sovereignty out to Brussels and Berlin, dipshit. Oh, yeah - and brush your goddamned teeth, you filthy animals.

...

KEEP YOUR FUCKIN' LIMEY HANDS OFF OUR ELECTION. HEY, SHITHEADS, REMEMBER THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR? REMEMBER THE WAR OF 1812? WE DIDN'T WANT YOU, OR YOUR POLITICS HERE, THAT'S WHY WE KICKED YOUR ASSES OUT. FOR THE 47% OF YOU WHO DON'T WANT PRESIDENT BUSH, I SAY THIS ... TOUGH SHIT! *

...

Hey England, Scotland and Wales,
Mind your own business. We don't need weenie-spined Limeys meddling in our presidental election. If it wasn't for America, you'd all be speaking German. And if America would have had a president, then, of the likes of Kerry, you'd all be goose-stepping around Buckingham Palace. YOU ARE NOT WANTED!! Whether you want to support either party. BUTT OUT!!!


* I'm pretty sure I've run into this person on the internet before. The style. The prose.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 18 October 2004 01:13 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
See also rabble thread "How to dig up a Bush"
about the Guardian campaign.

From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 18 October 2004 01:14 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The bellicose attitude is one I associate with far too many Americans. All nations suffer their share of boors, but the Americans worship them; like previous fascists idolized the brownshirts.

BTW, have you noticed that the loonie has been going up? Four more years of Bush and the loonie will be at par with the US$.


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 18 October 2004 01:18 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey, you guys, help me with my letter to my adopted Ohio voter, over at the link that Contrarian has posted.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 18 October 2004 01:21 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
REMEMBER THE WAR OF 1812? WE DIDN'T WANT YOU, OR YOUR POLITICS HERE, THAT'S WHY WE KICKED YOUR ASSES OUT.

Um, check your history, All-Caps Man. The asses kicked during the War of 1812 were mostly American... and the White House was burned to the ground.


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 18 October 2004 01:21 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The bellicose attitude is one I associate with far too many Americans.

In this case I'd associate it with some well-meaning busybody sending me unsolicited advice about what I should be doing with my vote.

Can any of us honestly say we wouldn't be just as quick off the mark if someone from, say, France decided to mail us some rather condescending advice that we vote Harper next time around?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 18 October 2004 01:36 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This strikes me as a really bad idea. I expect the letters would be almost universally unproductive, with the possibility of doing some real damage.
From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 18 October 2004 01:39 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Can any of us honestly say we wouldn't be just as quick off the mark if someone from, say, France decided to mail us some rather condescending advice that we vote Harper next time around?

Understood. But, I suspect that most Canadians, if we replied at all, that we would do so politely.


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 18 October 2004 01:41 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Come on! We'd be thrilled that someone was paying attention to us! [But we might not change our vote.]
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 18 October 2004 02:24 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Americans hate being told what to do and what to think by anyone not having American citizenship credentials.
I think that the best approach might be to frame your letter in terms of a question which allows the voter the chance to educate you as to why their choice makes sense.
-for instance- John Kerry appears to be a more understanding candidate when it comes to responding to other countries around the world, is it important for Americans to feel that their president can communicate with other countries or is foreign policy not an issue in this presidential election? ( it might work , maybe)

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 18 October 2004 02:33 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cougyr:

Understood. But, I suspect that most Canadians, if we replied at all, that we would do so politely.


What makes you say that? We aren't even polite when Harper tells us to vote for Harper.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 18 October 2004 02:37 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyBrogan:
This strikes me as a really bad idea. I expect the letters would be almost universally unproductive, with the possibility of doing some real damage.

Agreed. I would be pissed off if an American wrote to me and asked me to vote for Harper or Martin. I think I'd be writing back telling the person to MYOFB.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 18 October 2004 03:12 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Then write them and demand that they vote for Bush!
From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
NDP Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5089

posted 18 October 2004 03:15 PM      Profile for NDP Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Personally, I think a Bush supporter responding to a pro-Kerry overseas campaign with such hatred, poor writing, and factual errors is only helping Kerry.
From: Cornwall, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
meyerteach
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7134

posted 18 October 2004 03:24 PM      Profile for meyerteach     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think that the realities of this election have caused us "hard-headed" Americans to become more open to suggestion.
From: United States | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 21 October 2004 10:28 PM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've talked to many, many Americans on this issue. The bottom line is, even those on the left could not care less about anything outside their borders. Of course, these people may not be representative of the population, but I think there are many, many factors to back up the point that they simply just don't care, don't know, don't want to know and don't even have a clue who we are, what our culture is like, and can't even say the name of any of our politicians. The fact that the policies of their government will effect us - not an issue. Remember, to the majority of Americans the UN is evil, therefore by extension the international community is evil (or at best always wrong).

That's sad...but very true in my dealings with Americans. And I have a lot of experience with this. It's always a waste of time IMHO. Bush is ahead in the polls. That pretty much says it there no? They don't care about their own country enough, then why should we expect them to care about anyone else's country?


From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 21 October 2004 11:01 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I talked to an American about the election just yesterday. She was asking about the logistics of our immigration system.
From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 21 October 2004 11:06 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
We can add the federal cabinet to the list of people who aren't supposed to talk about the election.

http://tinyurl.com/6wyte

quote:
Ottawa — Prime Minister Paul Martin served notice to his Liberal cabinet Thursday to clam up with their personal opinions on the U.S. presidential election.

He was responding to media questions in the wake of a newspaper column that quoted some cabinet ministers saying they favour Democratic candidate John Kerry over U.S. President George W. Bush.

"It's Kerry," Environment Minister Stephane Dion told Globe and Mail columnist Lawrence Martin. "Intellectually, I'm attracted to Kerry," said Human Resources Minister Joe Volpe.


It would have to be intellectually, since Volpe is opposed to equal marriage.

Although I'm no Bush (or Martin) fan, cabinet ministers really shouldn't be commenting on who they prefer, and they should know that without being told.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 21 October 2004 11:15 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:

Um, check your history, All-Caps Man. The asses kicked during the War of 1812 were mostly American... and the White House was burned to the ground.

Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 21 October 2004 11:21 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Um, check your history, All-Caps Man. The asses kicked during the War of 1812 were mostly American... and the White House was burned to the ground.

Um, not so much. That is, by any sensible measure (and there was absolutely nothing sensible about that war), the war was pretty much a draw. In the early days, the Americans stunned the British with some decisive naval victories; and the burning of the White House (by the British Royal Marines and bluejackets, not by Canadians, such as they were back then) was in retaliation for the burning of York.

Of course, by the twentieth century many Canadians outside York/Toronto would have cheered had it been burned, but...


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
shaolin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4270

posted 21 October 2004 11:27 PM      Profile for shaolin     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Remember, to the majority of Americans the UN is evil

Where does this come from? As far as I know, the average American is in favour of working within the UN. I believe a poll came out on this not all that long ago.


From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 21 October 2004 11:32 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'd rather not continue the thread drift, 'lance, but the American objective in the War of 1812 was to drive the British out of North America so they could achieve their Manifest Destiny. The British objective was to stop them from doing so. I don't see how anyone could see that as a draw.
From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 22 October 2004 12:59 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The idea of people trying to influence foreign countries elections is nothing new. I saw a documentary about the first past-war election in Italy in 1948. The US was afraid that the Communists would win and they mobilized Italian-Americans to write letters to their family in Italy urging them not to vote Communist.

One difference is that this was Italian-Americans being organized to write letters to people they actually knew in Italy (ie: friends and relatives). I think that this approach is probably way more effective than writing to perfect strangers.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 22 October 2004 02:27 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not that I think anyone should interfere with another coutries elections, but there is afterall a long American tradition of foriegn election interference . . . compared to their interference what logical grounds do they have to complain about a few friendly letters?
From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 22 October 2004 02:33 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
what logical grounds do they have to complain about a few friendly letters?

The grounds are called American Exceptionalism. It is the purview of the truly powerful. When you read up on it, it all makes sense. It's a fascinating topic.

...actually, no it's deeply depressing, especially when you see how the representatives of the bastion of democracy have so openly embraced it and actually use the term in defense of actions the Americans have taken lately.

[ 22 October 2004: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 22 October 2004 03:33 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't see that logical grounds are the issue. Counterproductive is counterproductive. And it wouldn't work with us either, although I'd say few Canadians would be as flat-out slobbering ignorantly vicious in responding as the guy in the fuck-off-Limeys letter. Hopefully few Americans are that bad either.
From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Leuca
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6495

posted 22 October 2004 04:11 PM      Profile for Leuca     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
America needs Bush. The World needs Bush. If the Americans want to choose Bush, let them choose Bush.

The last thing Canadians need to be doing is telling Americans how to vote in their own election. We wouldn't appreciate the US sticking their nose in our politics.

Kerry is a man who wants to be President. He's been eying the job ever since he was a young man, maybe even before. He has no vision, no new ideas, just warmed over Democratic drivel. He's not worthy of your support, why can't you see that? Take off your blinders, their impairing your vision.

If you Canadian NDPers were standing on principle you'd prefer Americans to be voting Nader.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 22 October 2004 04:19 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The world needs Bush? Yikes!
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 22 October 2004 04:20 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maybe it was said in a sexual way???

[ 22 October 2004: Message edited by: Briguy ]


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 22 October 2004 04:23 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, this is one American who is all in favor of bush.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 22 October 2004 04:24 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Even in a sexual way...yucck! If anything, the world needs more ... Cheney, if you get my drift.

Americans would be meddling in our politics if it were in their interests to do so. You can bet on that. And come to think of it, they are, and always have.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 22 October 2004 05:22 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
America needs Bush.

America needs Bush like Stephen Harper needs a "street name".

quote:
Kerry is a man who wants to be President. He's been eying the job ever since he was a young man, maybe even before.

You mean like when he was a zygote?

quote:
you'd prefer Americans to be voting Nader.

Actually we'd prefer them to simply be Nader. And we'd like that retroactive to 1999.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 22 October 2004 05:52 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Kerry is a man who wants to be President. He's been eying the job ever since he was a young man, maybe even before.

This is a bad thing why?


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 22 October 2004 06:22 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Because, Scout, ambition is bad!


Unless you are a Republican, of course.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leuca
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6495

posted 22 October 2004 08:56 PM      Profile for Leuca     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This is a bad thing why?


quote:
Because, Scout, ambition is bad!


There's nothing wrong with having some ambition in life, of course. Certainly you could not argue that someone who became the President of the US lacked ambition. But there is a difference between wanting to 'be' the President and wanting to accomplish something as President or wanting to be the President in order to accomplish something.

Reagan for example sought the Presidency because he had vision, and he wanted to actualize his ideas into reality. Bill Clinton on the other hand had no particular principles that he was not willing to compromise. Clinton wanted to be the President and he had a lot of fun being the President, but there's not much one could look back and say boy, am I glad he was the President, he accomplished so much. He was too busy with coke parties and orgies in the White House. He didn't stand for anything except re-election.

I heard Kerry thought it would be wonderful to serve on a Swiftboat, in that it would be like Kennedy and his PT Boat. I mean this guy had delusions of grandeur as far back as that. If he had accomplished anything of substance as a Senator over the last 20 years maybe he could point to it and say that is my vision. However, there isn't much there.

Look at Nader, he could easily fall in line and call for the election of the Democratic nominee. But he's chosen to take a much more difficult path, the road less traveled. He has ideas, he has values and beliefs he's not willing to compromise. He's a man that's willing to stand up for himself, stand up for his principles in spite of the viscious barrage of negative rhetoric coming from entrenched interests, I have a lot of respect for that. And I disagree with Nader vehemently on many key issues, but he's man worthy of respect. Taking money out of politics and killing these so-called 'Free Trade' agreements are two very important issues that I wholeheartedly agree with him on.

Kerry and Bush are indistinguishable on both of those issues. He's the kind of guy who'll say whatever he thinks you want to hear to make you happy. Kerry does not deserve your support.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 22 October 2004 09:04 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I watched Nader being interviewed on CNN yesterday. I'm now totally convinced that the man is suffering from some early stage of dementia. He was ranting and raving like lunatic with absurd delusions of grandeur. If, by chance, you were an American who might on the face of it actually agree with some of what nader stood for, all you would have to do would be to see him in action and you would conclude that he was a lunatic. He is doing nothing but discrediting every idea that he believes in.

Its really sad that a man who has accomplished so much in his life has to end his time in public life on such a low note. There's something to be said for quitting while you're ahead.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
John_D
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5620

posted 22 October 2004 09:30 PM      Profile for John_D     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If I could take the thread drift in a new direction...

To be fully accurate, we should say that most of the asses kicked during the War of 1812 were Native American. Both sides used their Indian allies as proxies fairly extensively. Further, the settlement at the end of the war basically saw the Yanks concede any designs on Canada in return for the British renouncing any support for Native nations below the 49th. This made the eventual American conquest of the continent's interior inevitable, and was a horrible turning point in the history of subjugation of North American natives.


From: Workin' 9 to 2 in the 902. | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 22 October 2004 11:23 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
I'd rather not continue the thread drift, 'lance, but the American objective in the War of 1812 was to drive the British out of North America so they could achieve their Manifest Destiny. The British objective was to stop them from doing so. I don't see how anyone could see that as a draw.

Kind of an ex post facto interpretation, though, considering that the phrase "manifest destiny" wasn't coined until 1845. In 1812 there was hardly a consensus among American elites that any such idea was a good one.

Another, more immediate British war aim -- and the one that actually provoked the war -- was to seize and prosecute, i.e. hang, pressed seamen who had quite justifiably deserted the Royal Navy and joined the young US Navy, or the merchant fleet. (In which process, of course, they managed to seize some American-born sailors). Classic imperial arrogance of the sort that was certainly nascent among American politicians of the day, but which they were hardly in a position -- yet -- to exercise.

"Manifest Destiny" was obvious rubbish of course, but I actually have a certain sympathy for the American position in the War of 1812. Not of course for their invasion of Upper Canada, but certainly for their early trouncing of the Royal Navy.

[ 22 October 2004: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 23 October 2004 03:10 AM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Leuca:
I heard Kerry thought it would be wonderful to serve on a Swiftboat, in that it would be like Kennedy and his PT Boat.
Now you've convinced me. That Kerry guy sounds terrible -- I mean, what kind of sucker would actually have served in Vietnam?! So I guess I'm just going to have to support the worst President in U.S. history, the draft-dodger who has blown over $200-Billion on killing tens of thousands of people and making the world less secure.

From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Leuca
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6495

posted 23 October 2004 11:01 AM      Profile for Leuca     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
the draft-dodger who has blown over $200-Billion on killing tens of thousands of people and making the world less secure

The idea that one has to have served in the Armed Forces in order to be President was thrown out a long time ago. Clinton was called a draft dodger when he was running, so what!

The US has changed since WWII, FDR's sons flew missions in that war, 'everybody' went. Let's be clear, the US Army today or for some time now is not made up of the sons and daughters of the beautiful people. The Bushes did nothing much different than what many others with their influence did. Even Kerry only served 4 months in Vietnam when normal tours of duty there were longer.

You can't blame Bush because he can't get more help from other nations in fighting the War on Terror. They want the security but aren't willing to share the cost. Right now, however, the focus of the US should be on winning this war that the US didn't ask for. Not on worrying about whether we have the support or the ok from some European countries to go ahead. The US was attacked on it's own soil. These people killed 1,000's of innocent people. But if they could have, if they could figure a way to kill 10,000's or 100,000's of people they would. That is not an option no matter what the cost, it's time to wake up to that reality and the nature of this war.

Then you have a guy like Kerry. He speaks on just about every side of an issue. His arguments are full of holes, that's not just rhetoric, just take a close look at his own words. As an example, during the first debate, Kerry claimed that his plan included bringing France and Germany into the coalition. I don't believe he could do it in the first place, but set that aside, he also belittled the contribution of the other countries. He said Britain only has 8,000 troops, Australia and Poland together have less than 4,000, and no other country has more than 100. So he's going to get France and Germany to join in and even if he could actually get them to particpate which I doubt, I guarantee you their contribution would not be anywhere near that of Great Britain's, which he minimized the importance of. Just one specific eg. where his argument lacks logic or consistency.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Leuca
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6495

posted 23 October 2004 11:09 AM      Profile for Leuca     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I watched Nader being interviewed on CNN yesterday. I'm now totally convinced that the man is suffering from some early stage of dementia.

I guess if you heard Nader call the Democratic party decadent which it is and controlled by corporate money which it is I can see how you'd come to that conclusion. Not.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
meyerteach
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7134

posted 23 October 2004 01:26 PM      Profile for meyerteach     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think that Americans generally aren't aware of world issues. This is coming from one. But if there is any excuse for that it is that there is so much at stake in this election that world events outside of the invasion of Iraq pale in comparison. Sure, Haiti isn't a great place to take the family. Yeah, North Korea is still under the control of one crazy s.o.b., But, in my opinion, the fanatics that America is chasing after in Iraq and elsewhere are no worse that the fanatics that currently run the US.
From: United States | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194

posted 24 October 2004 04:11 PM      Profile for thorin_bane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
could someone tell me if there is a way for me to filter our leuca's comments...not censoring...just so I don't waste my time on crazy posts.
From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 24 October 2004 08:02 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I think that Americans generally aren't aware of world issues.

That's very true. Someone made up the term "Great Power Autism" to describe it.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 24 October 2004 09:12 PM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The idea that one has to have served in the Armed Forces in order to be President was thrown out a long time ago. Clinton was called a draft dodger when he was running, so what!

When a draft-dodging President unleashes his multimillion-dollar sleaze-bazookas against a guy who DID actually serve, it's very relevant. Not because it particularly matters what happened thirty years ago, but because it reveals the depth of moral degradation and hypocrisy that this President will sink to in his desperate attempt to hold onto power.

quote:
They want the security but aren't willing to share the cost.

No, they recognize that Dubya's Excellent Adventure has greatly decreased the security of the US and the world, and provided the likes of bin Laden with a ready pool of recruits into the forseeable future. Hell, every one of those Abu Ghraib photos probably flooded al-Qaeda's recruiting stations with 10,000 angry young men itching for revenge against the imperialist infidel.

The fact that you Bushlickers can't perceive that brain-bonkingly obvious reality certainly isn't the fault of any Europeans. Look in the mirror, dude. The problem's with you.

quote:
Right now, however, the focus of the US should be on winning this war that the US didn't ask for.

Drivel. The neocon sofa samurai around Bush -- Wolfowtitz, Perle, et al. -- have been itching to invade Iraq for years. 9/11 just provided a ready-made pretext for what they already planned to do.

Oh, and for the 100,000th time -- Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11!!!!! NOTHING! NOTHING! NOTHING!

quote:
Not on worrying about whether we have the support or the ok from some European countries to go ahead.

It was not a few nasty and disobedient European countries that were opposed to Bush's war, but the entire towering edifice of international law which has been built up over the last three hundred years. The war is an act of naked aggression, and as such is completely and utterly illegal. Full stop.

quote:
The US was attacked on it's own soil. These people killed 1,000's of innocent people. But if they could have, if they could figure a way to kill 10,000's or 100,000's of people they would.

And Bush's reaction, and yours, is to vastly increase the pool of people who want to do just that. Smooth move.

Of course, I imagine it's beyond your ability to comprehend that provoking a US attack on a Muslim country was precisely the purpose behind 9/11. A deliberate smack across the nose of the bull, in order to infuriate it and make it do something really really stupid. And sadly, Bush has reacted precisely as intended. Resulting in heaping piles of mutilated Muslim corpses splattered all over al-Jazeera TV, and US troops occupying a bitterly hostile oil-rich country in the heart of the Arab world. Bin Laden could have asked for no better service from the dipstick in the White House than what he has received.

But of course you reject all that, right? Too complicated, right? Go ahead, avoid reality and go back to your chant: "They hate our freedoms... they hate our freedoms... they hate our freedoms...."

Amazingly, I actually agree with your last paragraph ripping into Kerry's "plan" for Iraq. I agree. It's stupid. Every bit as stupid as Bush's insistence that the US hasn't already lost the war. The only reason I prefer Kerry is because he is (marginally) more likely to face those facts, do the inevitable and pull the hell out before even more damage is done. Unlike the Shrub, who thinks he's appointed by God and thus entirely incapable of failure.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 24 October 2004 10:21 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by 'lance:
Kind of an ex post facto interpretation, though, considering that the phrase "manifest destiny" wasn't coined until 1845. In 1812 there was hardly a consensus among American elites that any such idea was a good one.

They may not have called it that, but the idea certainly predates 1845.

quote:
"Manifest Destiny" was obvious rubbish of course, but I actually have a certain sympathy for the American position in the War of 1812. Not of course for their invasion of Upper Canada, but certainly for their early trouncing of the Royal Navy.

'lance, why do you hate Canada?


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 25 October 2004 04:56 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Back on topic, it occurs to me that various U.S. administrations have not hesitated to “comment” on elections in other countries. In 1953, they commented on the election in Iran by deposing the democratically-elected government and installing the Shah. In 1954, they commented on the election in Guatemala by throwing out the democratically-elected President and installing a brutal military dictator. They did the same thing in Chile in 1973, where September 11 was an infamous date long before 2001. They commented on Nicaraguan elections in the 1980s by funding a paramilitary campaign and mining harbours. All we did was call their President a moron.
From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 25 October 2004 08:58 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's more like it! I'm all for fomenting a coup in the US.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 25 October 2004 12:20 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I swear that I didn't read Linda McQuaig's latest column before I wrote my last post in this thread.
From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 25 October 2004 01:39 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
An interesting article. I hope this is the right place to post this.
How to Make New Enemies
By ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI [national security adviser in the Carter administration]
http://tinyurl.com/5fqw4

[ 25 October 2004: Message edited by: VanLuke ]


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 25 October 2004 04:09 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As to Brzezinski, I don't really agree with him but at least his ideas aren't stark raving nuts.

Frankly, the best policy for Iraq would be to pull out first, and then see if anyone there wanted any transitional UN forces.
The best policy for Iran would be to leave them the hell alone. They've got internal issues to work out, and they'll work out best if it doesn't seem to them like there's outsiders trying to push them around.
His suggestion on Israel/Palestine is . . . probably the best a mainstream American can make in the current political climate there. It does envision something like a solution, and a UN presence there would probably be a good idea.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 27 October 2004 02:12 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Did anybody see Peter Mansbridge with an audience in Pennsylvania last night? There were video hookups with Canadians making statements or asking questions and the audience speaking in turn; all very polite. And Rex Murphy reading selected e-mail - I bet he censored a lot

It was bad enough hearing many of the Americans talking about how they need a strong leader like Bush ; but CBC had at least three Canadian Bush supporters who said the invasion was the right decision, etc. Where did they find these people [one was from Calgary, naturally ] Are they trying reverse psychology or what?

The most moving was the woman in Halifax who gave up her American citizenship because of Iraq. A soldier from Gulf War 1 regretted that she had given up her freedoms, etc. [I was too apoplectic to hear all he said] and she was crying.


From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 27 October 2004 02:23 PM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
shaolin, this comes from reading a lot of right wing sites on the net, from listening to the words of both Bush and Kerry, and from speaking to a lot of Americans. Given the voting history in the US against all sorts of UN treaties, the fact that the US openly despises the EU (read Germany and France) and given the media is pro-right - it simply follows that the majority of Americans get their ideas and attitudes about the UN from these sources. Its the current flavour of the year - bash the UN. Claim that anything the UN does will destry the US (see Kyoto and various other treaties the US fails to sign).

I have had far too many a debate on various US vetos regarding UN treaties, and the US position has always been - us first, regardless of science, or harm to other countries. I am afraid to say this is my experience. It is maddening to explain to people that perhaps looking outside their borders might actually help them as well. Not interested. Save a few wonderful souls who care to see life beyond the US. Unfortunately, their voices are silenced and they themselves are open to attack. Its a nasty, nasty game that is being played down south.

The new PC in the US is apathy and isolationism. Sad but true.


From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 27 October 2004 02:53 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I linked this site to another thread, I forget which; website

The author points out the religious right's view of the UN and other things we consider good - that they:

quote:
...feel they dare not oppose this or any war because talking about peace, objecting to war's human cost, or even referring to the United Nations has become associated in their minds with the Antichrist and eternal damnation, thanks to fictional works based on Thessalonians such as the Left Behind books and video (this video makes clear the fearful reasoning behind the knee-jerk reactions of many pro-war Christians against peace itself, peacemakers of any kind [poignant indeed in light of Jesus' teaching, "Blessed are the peacemakers"], the Middle East "road map," international dialogue and cooperation, and any form of human rights accountability)...

From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Leuca
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6495

posted 06 November 2004 02:02 PM      Profile for Leuca     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
No, they recognize that Dubya's Excellent Adventure has greatly decreased the security of the US and the world, and provided the likes of bin Laden with a ready pool of recruits into the forseeable future.

That is complete bullshit. There is a time for reasoning with opponents. And then there's times where you just have to face the reality that you're going to have to kick their ass. This is one of those times. You can't reason with Al Qaida, you can't appease them and give in to their demands, what message does that send to them and other would be terrorists. The US has dwawn a line in the sand, what they will not tolerate. And they have these bastards on the run, looking over their backs, right where they live, not training and planning for their next attack, or at least not doing so as easily. They are under a microscope right now, the US has them in view and are going after them.

quote:
Oh, and for the 100,000th time -- Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11!!!!! NOTHING! NOTHING! NOTHING!

That comment shows that you have a complete lack of understanding of what's going on. The Taliban didn't attack us either but the world still went into Afghanistan under the leadership of the US. We went there because the Taliban allowed the Terrorists to train and plan attacks against the US unimpeded and with full support. And what was the result of allowing that situation to fester. 1,000's of innocent Americans and people from many other nations were savagely killed. They wanted to kill a lot more.

So after that the rules of the game changed. Bushes' view is that he will never allow an attack like that to happen again using all the resources of the US military machine available. He will never allow a situation to develop where terrorists have a 'home' to plan attacks against the US indisciminantly. So Bush and his team felt that Iraq was a place in the world like that. I would have preferred that he had forced the hand of Sadaam more than he did to make it absolutely clear that he had no choice but to attack Iraq, but he did what he did. And there we were. But we knew that Sadaam had WMD's. We knew that because he used them before, on the Kurds, and once you have the ability to make WMD's you don't lose the knowledge. We also knew that he had the resources necessary to make them at a moments notice, because he was sitting on billions of dollars of oil wealth. So do you allow a situation like that to fester, allow Sadaam to possibly have the opportunity to put a deadly weapon into the hands of terrorists to be used against US citizens, or do you attack the brutal dictator, invade his country and take him out? By taking him out the US has absolutely guaranteed that Sadaam will never use WMD's against anyone ever.

By that action the US has sent a clear message to other nations that it has the means and the will to protect the security of the US going wherever they feel there is a danger. That it will not take any chances with its security. They have places like North Korea and Iran on notice. And they have a country like Libya voluntarily complying with US demands. They also have the potential to help create a truly free and democratic Iraq which clearly would have numerous benefits to the security of the US, the Middle East and the World.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
intheright
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6998

posted 06 November 2004 02:29 PM      Profile for intheright        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Leuca:


By that action the US has sent a clear message to other nations that it has the means and the will to protect the security of the US going wherever they feel there is a danger. That it will not take any chances with its security. They have places like North Korea and Iran on notice. And they have a country like Libya voluntarily complying with US demands. They also have the potential to help create a truly free and democratic Iraq which clearly would have numerous benefits to the security of the US, the Middle East and the World.


This is one of the best posts I have read on the site. Good work!


From: Regina | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 06 November 2004 02:36 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Outside the paragraph on Afghanistan, it was a totally idiotic post. Bush did not invade Iraq because of WMD. They knew there was no basis to believe any were there, which turned out to be the truth. They invaded for three primary reasons: to spread U.S. influence in the region, oil, and a personal vendetta. Over 100,000 Iraqis have died as a result, as well as over 1000 troops. They died for a lie, and for the lawlessness and disdain for the truth that typifies the Bush administration.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
intheright
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6998

posted 06 November 2004 03:29 PM      Profile for intheright        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
Outside the paragraph on Afghanistan, it was a totally idiotic post. Bush did not invade Iraq because of WMD. They knew there was no basis to believe any were there, which turned out to be the truth. They invaded for three primary reasons: to spread U.S. influence in the region, oil, and a personal vendetta. Over 100,000 Iraqis have died as a result, as well as over 1000 troops. They died for a lie, and for the lawlessness and disdain for the truth that typifies the Bush administration.

ah, to be a Democrat. Andrew Coyne has a great column today, he writes: 'Ah, Democrats: so intolerant in their tolerance, conformist in their nonconformism, preachy in their militant secularism.'


From: Regina | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 06 November 2004 03:33 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
You're an idiot.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 06 November 2004 06:20 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have to agree, and apologize to Leuca. This clown is a moron.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Leuca
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6495

posted 06 November 2004 08:03 PM      Profile for Leuca     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Bush did not invade Iraq because of WMD. They knew there was no basis to believe any were there, which turned out to be the truth.

That's not my understanding. Intelligence reports showed otherwise. Blair, not a guy that would do Bushes bidding for the hell of it, came to the same conclusion. All the Senators and Congressmen that voted to give the President the power to go to war, including many Democrats, believed they had WMD's. But wether Sadaam actually had WMD's on the ground ready to go, or near completion, is irrelavent to the reality that he had them in the past, we know that because he used them, you don't lose the knowledge once you've built them, and he certainly had the resources available to do so. That's a real threat by any standard. I would have just liked it better if Bush had taken Scott Ritter's arguments more into account, before he invaded.

I watched a debate between Buchanan and Gingrich where the two argued whether going into Iraq was the right thing to do. Buchanan was against and Gingrich argued in favour of the invasion, the debate took place on CNN Sunday Politics show with Wolf Blitzer. Although I agree with Pat on a lot, Newt had the stronger arguments. There are dangers and potential pitfalls carrying out this invasion and transformation of Irak, but the benefits of free and democratic ally in the Middle East as rich and powerful as Iraq would be tremendous.

quote:
They invaded for three primary reasons: to spread U.S. influence in the region, oil, and a personal vendetta.

I don't see anything wrong with the first reason, esp. if it brings peace and order to a part of the world whose hallmark is chaos and extremism.

To say personal vendetta, that's hard to prove, without getting inside Bushes' mind. I know, I know it's not a pleasant thought for you.

quote:
Over 100,000 Iraqis have died as a result, as well as over 1000 troops.

Death and destruction is part of war. We all want to see the killing end. If the insugents would stop fighting and join the process towards democracy underway in Iraq right now, it wouldn't be necessary. But they are clearly not interested in following that path. They are going to have to be hunted down and killed. And once that is completed the peace process will begin in ernest. I have a feeling that the Iraqi people hunger for stability and a normal life. I believe it is within reach.

quote:
lawlessness and disdain for the truth that typifies the Bush administration.

Bush is not the horrible, inhuman monster that the left portrays his as. I don't love Bush, he's not my first choice for US pres but he's not the dangerous man liberals believe him to be. It's a hysterical, illogical point of view not based in reality.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 06 November 2004 08:15 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by intheright:

ah, to be a Democrat. Andrew Coyne has a great column today, he writes: 'Ah, Democrats: so intolerant in their tolerance, conformist in their nonconformism, preachy in their militant secularism.'


Yes, imagine that. They're intolerant of bigotry. They're intolerant of people who would amend the constitution to deny rights to a group in perpetuity.

Once upon a time there were actually Republicans who were intolerant of bigotry too.

My rights are NOT a matter of opinion. Anyone who thinks they are gets no tolerance whatsoever from me.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca