Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

This question is focused on non US citzens.

So what do you Guys (PC: people) Think? Who's the best presidential candidate, and why? How does your countries media portray the US election, or does it mention it at all? Do you feel your opinion is pretty much in consensus with the rest of your country’s’?

By Sixsixty (Sixsixty) on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 01:05 pm: Edit

Who's the best presidential candidate, and why?
Kerry hands down. Obviously as internationals we're concerned about the way the international political arena shapes up, and in my opinion Bush is destroying the very fabric that holds the nations together when he ignores the United Nations time and time again. The only reason why the world is still ostensibly linked is because of the US's financial and military might, and I think that Bush is banking too much on these. The way he ignores the concerns of the international community is extremely annoying, as is the way the sovereignty of certain countries have been compromised. Take for example the Phillipines. When Arroyo agreed to a withdrawal of personnel in exchange for a hostage, the US indicated that this would affect bilateral relations. This doesn't seem like democracy in the international context to me, rather it strikes me as being rather USSR-esque, exerting pressure on another country to amend her stance due to the country's dependence on a superpower. Kerry has said that he will take the views of the international community into account when making any international decisions, and that's a huge plus.

How does your countries media portray the US election, or does it mention it at all?
I read most of my stuff online and from places like the International Herald Tribune... so I can't say.

Do you feel your opinion is pretty much in consensus with the rest of your country’s’?
Most of the youths, I think, have viewpoints that are fairly more liberal, and hence in line with the democrats. In contrast, the older folks tend to believe in the unilateral use of force by the usa.

By Jajas2 (Jajas2) on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 01:11 pm: Edit

Bush is pretty vilified throughout most of the world, especially in Canada and Europe. Not even the Conservatives will publicly voice support for him, and saying a pro-Bush comment is one of the surest ways to lose public support. Sure, much of this attitude isnt based on fact and is mostly arbitrary and overwrought, but the fact remains that Bush has done a terrible job communicating with the rest of the world. He seems to forget, and this is vital, that the terrorists aren't just at war with America, theyre at war with ALL OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION! They attacked America because it's the biggest, most visible target, but they will attack any Western nation if they have the chance. So his swagging 'cowboy' attitude and determination to do everything unilaterally is pretty disconcerting since we're all in this together and the war on terrorism would be a lot stronger and well respected if all or even most Western nations were invloved to the fullest. You have to remember, Europe is on the front lines of the war on terror, their Muslim populations as a percentage are much greater than the US and a large muslim population always has a certain small percentage that supports and funds terrorism (sad but true). That, combined with thier porous borders and liberal immigration policies means that its harder to stop an attack there than in America.
That being said, its no surprise, really, that most Canadians and Europeans support Kerry. He certainly has appealed to the foreign community
(stroked our egos a little, lol).

By Jl87d (Jl87d) on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 06:39 am: Edit

Bump, Any others?

By Siavash8p (Siavash8p) on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 01:47 pm: Edit

I am an Iranian and it is very interesting for me to follow the campaign. If I could vote, I would vote for Kerry. There is no reason to choose Bush. When foreigners know America as a superior country, then they expect to see someone superior representing it. If America believes that they are a superior country, then they are expected to have a president with a better image.
BTW, I do not support Iran's governement in amy shape. But even Iran's theocracy has managed to develope some social comfort for the citizens. For example, people don't have to deal with medical problems that people struggle in U.S.
My father has broken his elbow few years ago and he has 13 pins in his elbow, and every once in a while, these pins after serving their purpose try to get out of the bone and pop out of the skin. Last year, when we were new to U.S., one of these pins started to pop. We did not have medical insurance; therefore, no physician agreed to operate this minor surgery. After a long time that the pin was literally tearing the skin from the other side, someone agreed to take the pin off. After staying in the "EMERGENCY ROOM" for almost 35 hours, he took the pin off. This surgery has cost us about 20 American dollars in Iran because of the national insurance, but the same thing with worse service cost us around $2500-$3000.
Sory for this little nonsense, but what I was trying to say was the fact that this superior country struggles with some fundamental social issues that are solved in other countries. As a person who has experienced living in such country, I expet more social service for people.
I lived in Tehran when I was in Iran. Tehran is a large city(almost 11 million people)with great amounts of social services. Now I live in Fort Worth, Texas, and I cannot even see one sidewalk here!!! If you want to buy a bottle of coke, you have to drive for 30 minuets to get to a store. Our economy is extremely underdeveloped, and if we didn't have oil, our country would be even worse, but think about it: in Iran with such a messed up system, you can get a mile of cab ride costs around 30 American cents. Yet there is no public transportation in the place that I currently live.
This doesn't mean that Kerry is the best person to acquire all of these social issues and it is literallty impossible to develope some social services such as MEDICARE in four years or even eight years of service. All America needs is time and the right person to use this time.

Sorry for the the poor composition. I really liked to talk about foreign policies and foreigners views on them. I guess I will try later. I can't make a point, because my class bell is about to ring.

By Driver (Driver) on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 02:01 pm: Edit

I too am impressed with the Iranian health care system, where the theocracy has real doctors who will perform eye, finger, hand, and/or foot removal at the behest of mullahs carrying out sharia sentences--at no charge to the patients. I hear the health care system is great in Cuba, too, as it was in Iraq. Go Kerry/Edwards...who would want to impose the corrupt values of western civilization on such utopian societies?

By Xdad (Xdad) on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 03:08 pm: Edit

Now I live in Fort Worth, Texas, and I cannot even see one sidewalk here!!! If you want to buy a bottle of coke, you have to drive for 30 minuets to get to a store.

There is reason why we call it cowtown! Sidewalks are just too damn hard on the high-heeled boots local hicks like to wear, and then those darn spurs simply make too much noise on pavement.

On a serious note, I really feel for you to have landed in a country that is so known for its lack of convenience!

By Alexandre (Alexandre) on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 03:37 pm: Edit

"Go Kerry/Edwards...who would want to impose the corrupt values of western civilization on such utopian societies?"

I realize you are being sarcastic Driver, but do you think it is right for a country to "impose" anything on another country...even if you think it is the right thing to do? More importantly, do you think it is possible to sucessfully impose one's set of believes on another person...or nation when that nation is not ready and when the believes are so different?

I personally learned a while ago not to discuss politics with people I do not know, so that is the extent of my discussion, but I must say I find your ability to discuss a topic with civility severly lacking.

By Driver (Driver) on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 03:52 pm: Edit

"I realize you are being sarcastic Driver, but do you think it is right for a country to "impose" anything on another country...even if you think it is the right thing to do?"

Were I writing a textbook on the perils of teaching moral relativism, I would put this quote on the dedication page. There is a serious lack of historical perspective among today's young people, and much of the blame must be laid at the feet of the people who are paid to "educate" them. My answer to your question is yes, of course...and I don't blame you for your unwillingness to continue the discussion unarmed.

By Alexandre (Alexandre) on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 05:14 pm: Edit

To each his own I suppose. Like I said, it is pointless to discuss history or politics with somebody I do not know. What exactly do you mean by; "...and I don't blame you for your unwillingness to continue the discussion unarmed."

I must say, I find it presumptious that you should assume to know more than I on this subject.

By Driver (Driver) on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 05:23 pm: Edit

Well...you were the one who fired off an ad hominem and then retreated, cloaking yourself in civility. Feel free to engage, if you wish. No one is stopping you.

By Jm2006 (Jm2006) on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 07:16 pm: Edit

bump

By Joseancer (Joseancer) on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 07:32 pm: Edit

I have a question, and its certainly not a serious one, but I'm interested to know nonetheless. Do foreign english-speakers laugh when they hear George Bush speak? Just wondering.

-Jose

By Sixsixty (Sixsixty) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 07:23 am: Edit

Doesn't everyone?

By Chavi (Chavi) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 04:16 pm: Edit

Kudos, Driver!

By Joseancer (Joseancer) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 04:44 pm: Edit

"There is a serious lack of historical perspective among today's young people, and much of the blame must be laid at the feet of the people who are paid to "educate" them."

hmmm... perhaps you could enlighten us driver, on the countless number of wars that have been fought over spreading superior "values", without resulting in the abuse of the people supposedly being "saved". I'd love to hear about it. I'm sure our own country's history will provide lots of material for you

-Jose

btw nice e-mail address kill4peace

By Driver (Driver) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 05:48 pm: Edit

When I responded in the affirmative to Alexandre's question above (10/6/04, 3:52pm) I didn't mention Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, because, well... it just seemed so obvious. But then, that presupposed at least a marginal historical perspective on your part, so...my mistake. WW2 would be an example. So would our own Civil War, to an extent.

By Joseancer (Joseancer) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 08:57 pm: Edit

We entered into WW2 only because of a direct threat against our own nation from the two nations you’ve mentioned.. whose empires were spreading around the world.. if Hitler had stayed within the boundaries of his own nation and Japan in its own as well, we would not have entered the war. As you stated, they were imperial regimes/nations.. clearly not a parallel with what we're discussing, which involves our attempts to manipulate internal domestic affairs of foreign nations.

Our own Civil War? do I even have to comment on that? I'm sure there are plenty of cases in which we've spread our "superior values".. to foreign countries..., without abusing the people who clearly were lucky enough to be chosen by us for "adjustment".

or perhaps i've just been told all of this by the people paid to "educate me".

-Jose