Foreign polls favour Kerry by 2-1 margin

[Cowperson]

Interesting story at government controlled/Liberal media site CBSnews.com which cites polling done in 30 countries, revealing respondents favour John Kerry by a 2-1 margin over GW Bush.

Canadians prefer Kerry 61% to 16%.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/13/...ain642860.shtml

Cowperson

[troutman]

Too bad we can't vote.

You can get involved though:

Canadians for Kerry:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canadians4Kerry/

http://www.gordonpape.com/pub/iwb2408.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/jaredryanevans/

http://www.victoria.indymedia.org/print.php?id=18546

Canadians for Bush:

http://www.republicansabroad.ca/canadianfriends.htm

http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=50

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Just goes to show how Bush has managed to alienate the rest of the world with some of his policies. I'm sure at least a few of the people showing support for Kerry are really in the 'anybody but Bush' crowd...

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by FlamesAllTheWay@Sep 13 2004, 06:38 PM
Just goes to show how Bush has managed to alienate the rest of the world with some of his policies. I'm sure at least a few of the people showing support for Kerry are really in the 'anybody but Bush' crowd...

It's really sad when you think about. After 9/11, most of the world was willing to go to the wall for America, and all that good will was p*ssed away.

I can only imagine how things might have been better with a gifted diplomat like Clinton in power instead of a hawk.

[Bertuzzied]

How can Bush be leading in the US? are they that brainwashed? I guess after this election we will definately know American mentality.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Sep 13 2004, 12:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Sep 13 2004, 12:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAllTheWay@Sep 13 2004, 06:38 PM
Just goes to show how Bush has managed to alienate the rest of the world with some of his policies. I'm sure at least a few of the people showing support for Kerry are really in the 'anybody but Bush' crowd...

It's really sad when you think about. After 9/11, most of the world was willing to go to the wall for America, and all that good will was p*ssed away.

I can only imagine how things might have been better with a gifted diplomat like Clinton in power instead of a hawk. [/b][/quote]
Exactly, that's what i've been saying for awhile now. There was tons of sympathy for America after 9/11, but that's effectively changed into dislike and hatred as a result of some of the Bush admin's descisions (Iraq...). 3 years later, and we are waaaay worse off than right after 9/11, in my opinion...

[moon]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Sep 13 2004, 06:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Sep 13 2004, 06:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAllTheWay@Sep 13 2004, 06:38 PM
Just goes to show how Bush has managed to alienate the rest of the world with some of his policies. I'm sure at least a few of the people showing support for Kerry are really in the 'anybody but Bush' crowd...

It's really sad when you think about. After 9/11, most of the world was willing to go to the wall for America, and all that good will was p*ssed away.

I can only imagine how things might have been better with a gifted diplomat like Clinton in power instead of a hawk. [/b][/quote]
Gifted Diplomat like Clinton??

How it would be different?

Well for one Clinton would have probably recieved the news of the attacks while getting a hummer from an Intern rather then talking wiht children in an elementary school.

Also, the terrorists would probably have been invited to the White House to see which state they would like to be given rather then having to have Clinton try and defend the US from any other attacks and risk the possibility of another war. They also would have been forgiven for their crimes and probably Clinton would have shown how it was Americas fault that 9/11 occured.

[FlamesAddiction]

[quote]Originally posted by moon@Sep 13 2004, 07:00 PM

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction,Sep 13 2004, 06:41 PM

Also, the terrorists would probably have been invited to the White House to see which state they would like to be given rather then having to have Clinton try and defend the US from any other attacks and risk the possibility of another war. They also would have been forgiven for their crimes and probably Clinton would have shown how it was Americas fault that 9/11 occured.

Clinton showed when he took action in Bosnia and Kosovo, that we wasn't afraid to take an undiplomatic approach with hostile entities. I hardly think that he would have negotiated with terrorists.

Say what you want about the man, but even a lot of republicans would admit that the guy has a knack for diplomacy.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

[quote]Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Sep 13 2004, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by moon,Sep 13 2004, 07:00 PM

Clinton showed when he took action in Bosnia and Kosovo, that we wasn't afraid to take an undiplomatic approach with hostile entities. I hardly think that he would have negotiated with terrorists.

Say what you want about the man, but even a lot of republicans would admit that the guy has a knack for diplomacy.

No he wouldn't negociate with terrorists, but he sure as hell didn't do muhc in his 8 years in office to deal with the issue of global terrorism. What did he do when Al Quada attacked the American Embasies, or how about the USS Cole. His gifted diplomatic skills really took care of the problem then didn't they.

[FlamesAddiction]

It's easy to sit back now and in hindsight say that Clinton "didn't do anything" about terrorism, but before 9/11 happened, it was unlikely that he would have ever been given the support by his government to do what Bush is doing right now.

Of course, this is only relavent if you believe that Bush's actions will decrease terrorism in the long term - something I do not believe; therefore I cannot give Bush any credit for acheiving something that Clinton could not. History will tell I guess.

One other thing to keep in mind while talking about Bush's supposed success on terror - 9/11 occured under his watch, not Clintons.

[RougeUnderoos]

[quote]Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard@Sep 13 2004, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction,Sep 13 2004, 07:04 PM

No he wouldn't negociate with terrorists, but he sure as hell didn't do muhc in his 8 years in office to deal with the issue of global terrorism. What did he do when Al Quada attacked the American Embasies, or how about the USS Cole. His gifted diplomatic skills really took care of the problem then didn't they.

Don't forget though that your pal Bush was on a pretty isolationist course before this happened. His plan on dealing with global terrorism was to withdraw.

As for 9/11, it's pretty much a universal belief that "nobody could have seen this coming". Not Clinton, not Bush.

Just to contradict myself though, there is some amount of debate as to whether the current administration had some warning but chose to ignore it.

[Cowperson]

[quote]Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Sep 13 2004, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard,Sep 13 2004, 01:12 PM

Don't forget though that your pal Bush was on a pretty isolationist course before this happened. His plan on dealing with global terrorism was to withdraw.

As for 9/11, it's pretty much a universal belief that "nobody could have seen this coming". Not Clinton, not Bush.

Just to contradict myself though, there is some amount of debate as to whether the current administration had some warning but chose to ignore it.

Good point Rouge. Bush was considered very weak, if not disinterested, on foreign matters, needing the appointment of Dick Cheney to his team to get over the hump.

If I'm not mistaken, prior to his being elected president, GW Bush had been outside the continental USA only twice in his lifetime, once to Mexico.

The accusation in the aftermath of 9/11 was that his team had been largely disinterested in al-Queda and other critical foreign matters . . . . but that only fit the pattern some had suggested before the election.

Cowperson

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard@Sep 13 2004, 01:12 PM
No he wouldn't negociate with terrorists, but he sure as hell didn't do muhc in his 8 years in office to deal with the issue of global terrorism. What did he do when Al Quada attacked the American Embasies, or how about the USS Cole. His gifted diplomatic skills really took care of the problem then didn't they.

I posted this in another thread, but it seems relevant in response to this:

Clinton introduced a couple major anti-terrorism bills during his terms as president ( http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/m...aw/h3355_en.htm and http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/m...aw/s735_enr.htm ). He also bombed targets in Sudan and Afghanistan, which was applauded across the board ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polit...react082198.htm ), thus sending a message to terrorists without drawing America into war. He warned of the threat of terrorism against American in 2000( http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/storie...inton.security/ ). Also, it was Clinton's military, which was roundly criticized by the Bush admin, that was used in Afghanistan and to some extent, Iraq. Another article that shows what Clinton did to combat terror ( http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules...article&sid=686 ). Seems a little left-wing bias to me, but it outlines some of the things Clinton did as president.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

That message sure was sent well actually damn I don't think it did a thing. Bush was president for 8 months, and he gets the blaim for 9/11, that is just absurd. Clinton did little to counter terrorism in his 8 years. Those few cruise missiles that were sent over are a sign that he was tough on terrorism. He did nothing to insure that the USA wasn't attacked again. Actually with his sending a few bombs over he proved that America won't do much. George W. didn't do much to counter terrorism before 9/11 no one will argue that, but come on don't give me the Clinton would have been great for America due to his diplomatic abilities because words only mean so much, and hell that was for the most part all Clinton was, words.

FlamesAddiction it is just a difference of opinion. Personally I think gettting rid of a guy who put money towards terrorists and killed his own people using Chemical Weapons and Biological Weapons and was activallytrying to get a nuclear program is a good thing and will decrease the threat of a major terrorist attack in the long run.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard@Sep 13 2004, 02:36 PM
That message sure was sent well actually damn I don't think it did a thing. Bush was president for 8 months, and he gets the blaim for 9/11, that is just absurd. Clinton did little to counter terrorism in his 8 years. Those few cruise missiles that were sent over are a sign that he was tough on terrorism. He did nothing to insure that the USA wasn't attacked again. Actually with his sending a few bombs over he proved that America won't do much. George W. didn't do much to counter terrorism before 9/11 no one will argue that, but come on don't give me the Clinton would have been great for America due to his diplomatic abilities because words only mean so much, and hell that was for the most part all Clinton was, words.

I'm not saying Bush or Clinton was responsible for 9/11, i'm just responding to you saying that Clinton did nothing to combat terror. I think he did alot, and i've shown why I think that. Maybe you could show me what Clinton didn't do or present something to back up you claim that Clinton didn't do anything to combat global terrorism besides your opinion.

Bush's plan to combat terror around the world was to basically withdraw American forces everywhere. That, in my eyes, is doing nothing to combat terror. But then 9/11 changed that and here we are.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Bertuzzied@Sep 13 2004, 06:46 PM
How can Bush be leading in the US? are they that brainwashed? I guess after this election we will definately know American mentality.

Yes, I am brainwashed.

At least, however, I'm not a complete moron.

[sbailey924]

I get the feeling most people my age (college age) don't really look at the issues. Most people are either all for Bush or all against Bush, and anything that supports their position, they take as truth. In my area, most people are quite conservative, and if you specifically point out issues (without bringing up political party stances), often they will contradict the way they say they believe. If one of the rich frat boys finds out I'm a Democrat, they start name-calling me, but they don't say anything constructive (just high-five their friend wearing a pastel Polo shirt).