Ogre Forums

As probably anyone noticed, an active debate related to the American election can be found at the thread How does the world see Americans (and McCain/Obama).
Couple of people, including myself, have expressed different views, and probably many readers are following it, without expressing their own vision on this somewhat sensitive subject.

The goal of this poll would be to allow anyone to express a choice anonymously, between the candidates; and collect a statistic on the question from the community.
The option "Blank vote" is also available to express that you wouldn't be interested in both candidates.
The poll is open for 90 days.

Thank you for voting

I don't know where I read this statement, but in a sense it was a true. From the back of my memory:
"The US presidential election has less influence on the life of a farmhand in Idaho than it has on one in Iraq."

I haven't yet voted, as I am still in opinion making process (not that it matters), though there is a favourite, not hard to guess.

haffax wrote: "The US presidential election has less influence on the life of a farmhand in Idaho than it has on one in Iraq."

That is truth.

haffax wrote:I don't know where I read this statement, but in a sense it was a true. From the back of my memory:
"The US presidential election has less influence on the life of a farmhand in Idaho than it has on one in Iraq."

Well, that's how the whole system was meant to be in the first place.

I put a blank vote, although I'd pick McCain over Obama.

Evak wrote:I put a blank vote, although I'd pick McCain over Obama.

hey thats a secret vote...

haffax wrote:I don't know where I read this statement, but in a sense it was a true. From the back of my memory:
"The US presidential election has less influence on the life of a farmhand in Idaho than it has on one in Iraq."

I don't know if it makes any difference. Although both candidates phrase their opinion on Iraq quite differently, put to practice what both have in mind sounds very similar to me. Yes to reinforcements and stay as long as needed.

@jjp: It is not specifically about Iraq, you can fill the blank with any other country you want. The original quote probably wasn't even Iraq.
USA is the most powerful nation in the world and their president one of the most powerful persons respectively. Only US citizen can vote.
It is merely a general statement about how democracy works in a globalized world. How much influence does the individual person have on the powers that influences his/her future.
So think about it in a broader sense.

I voted for Obama, even though I'm liberal. I believe he will become a great president; un-doing much of what the Bush Administration has done in the last 8 years. If McCain was elected; America will become even worse.

I think Obama going to speak in Germany today tells us what we need to know: He actually understands how important foreign policy is, and that we can't be isolated from the world, we can't simply cat unilaterally just because we want to.

I also think that McCain bashing on Obama for it tells us what we need to know about McCain. He claims to want to "talk to the heartland, help the average American"...but there won't be an America with Americans in it to help if we don't get our international head on straight.

voted for Obama, even though I'm liberal.

Well, is that the default choice when you are a liberal

BTW. He gave a pretty good speech today.

warmi wrote:

voted for Obama, even though I'm liberal.

Well, is that the default choice when you are a liberal

BTW. He gave a pretty good speech today.

Actually the word "liberal" has two different senses, which are somewhat opposed:
"Politic liberalism" which designate progressive ideas of the left side, mostly employed in the US.
"Economic liberalism" which basically means hard capitalism, commonly employed in Europe.

seems betajaen employed the economic version.

glad to see already 21 votes

syd wrote:

warmi wrote:

voted for Obama, even though I'm liberal.

Well, is that the default choice when you are a liberal

BTW. He gave a pretty good speech today.

Actually the word "liberal" has two different senses, which are somewhat opposed:
"Politic liberalism" which designate progressive ideas of the left side, mostly employed in the US.
"Economic liberalism" which basically means hard capitalism, commonly employed in Europe.

seems betajaen employed the economic version.

glad to see already 21 votes

Yeah, I know ... I just didn't realize he was from Europe (should have looked at his tag )

Well, thanks anyway ...

syd wrote: glad to see already 21 votes

Eh... it is 22 here.

I know absolutely nothing about US politics.

syd wrote:

warmi wrote:seems betajaen employed the economic version.

glad to see already 21 votes

Yeah, I know ... I just didn't realize he was from Europe (should have looked at his tag ).

Actually, I'm a bit of both. Well according to the article on Wikipedia. Except there is usually no party in my county that has my views, so I can never vote. I really hate the two party system some times.

I can and will vote here. While Mr. Obama appears an attractive change agent, he is nonetheless a bonafide member of the party of promises... free beer for all, we will pay for it by making the "rich" pay "their fair share".

I remember the last Democrat I voted for as President. An attractive prospect for change, a former governor of one of our Southern states, an "outsider", not one of the Washington crowd.

That choice did not turn out well. Since WW2 there have been no worse times than those that occurrred while Jimmy Carter was President of The United States. Inflation and unemployment were rampant, interest rates and taxes were sky high and the US muffed the only attempt they made to counter the entire US Embassy staff being illegally held in Iran because Mr. Carter wanted to be in charge by phone over the whole process. What a gutless micromanager he turned out to be.

Of course, when America elected a strong President after the disaster from Plains, GA, the leaders of Iran couldn't wait to release the hostages and avoid the wrath of America. The rest of the world can whine and complain about George Bush all they want, there are many people in the US that remember that after Iraq was invaded and Saddam Hussein was deposed, Moahmmar Ghadaffi of Libya (who promoted the bombing of a jet in Scotland, among other notorious acts of terrorism support) came running to make peace with the US. You will never stare people down if they know you won't throw a punch.

No, I am not buying Mr. Obama's "change", as the change he promises will set the US back to the policies that prevailed during the golden era under that great leader of the party of promises, Franklin Roosevelt. At least Mr. Roosevelt wasn't a gutless wonder that promised to unilaterally surrender by deciding in the middle of a war when the war should end.

<* Wes *>

Be careful friends, strong presidency should not be interpreted as use of might power to bully other nations into your feet, even if it resort to lies and the effect could be thousands (or even hundreds of thousands) life thrown into disarray or lost all together. Strong should be the ability to say and do the right things even if it is not a populist idea. And even if it cause your life or something to lesser extend like wealth. I know it sounds utopian but something need to be said here

Specifically, if Iraq invasion was done with the nod from UN and all attacks on the Iraqi soil were done with full consult from the warfare experts, then I bet everyone would be okay with it. But as we all already know, it didn't happen at all and no amount of reasonings can be made to justify it. It is plain wrong, simple.

Jimmy Carter maybe a toothless tiger, but at least he has the gut the write a book like this:- Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.

should not be interpreted as use of might power to bully other nations into your fee

Of course not.

Specifically, if Iraq invasion was done with the nod from UN

In terms of political legitimacy ,the UN is just a discussion club – a way for nations to attempt to resolve their problems - that’s all.
How can you ascribe any sort of legitimacy to the UN when at least 1/3 of its voting members ( including some in the security council) are tyrants themselves who got their place in the UN by enslaving their own population and as such have no legitimacy whatsoever.
Sure, it is a great forum to get together and at least attempt to resolve issues before bombs start flying but, in no way I want my president to be limited by any “consensusâ€

warmi wrote: In terms of political legitimacy ,the UN is just a discussion club – a way for nations to attempt to resolve their problems - that’s all.

and

How can you ascribe any sort of legitimacy to the UN when at least 1/3 of its voting members ( including some in the security council) are tyrants themselves who got their place in the UN by enslaving their own population and as such have no legitimacy whatsoever.

The crux of the matter is this: a special technical envoy headed by Hans Blix had been appointed by UN to investigate the so called WMD and they say, hey no.. there is no WMD. But as we all knew it, Bush just went ahead and invade Iraq. Hans Blix team had mentioned it as clear as he could, but they were ignored. That is the biggest problem, Iraq as we all know now, had long abandoned the WMD program because they couldn't afford anymore. They were poor and now even poorer.

And I am not even touching the problem of some people reinterpreting things into their own need when they are not of his favor.

But as we all knew it, Bush just went ahead and invade Iraq.

Yeah, that pretty much proves my point.

They were poor and now even poorer.

No, they aren't.
http://indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=iz&v=65

And I am not even touching the problem of some people reinterpreting things into their own need when they are not of his favor.

That's also sometimes called taking care of national interests - again, it proves my point.

warmi wrote:

But as we all knew it, Bush just went ahead and invade Iraq.

Yeah, that pretty much proves my point.

What point? Bush the bully? For me, it is crystal clear. It is a big time screw up. What bothers me is some argument that goes here and there and finally concede that nothing is wrong with Bush - nothing is really wrong with US foreign policy. He is a strong president, he did it with good intention blah blah. Meh.. it really really bothers me.

Now moving ahead, the mess must be cleared and if indeed Obama wants to pull out the troop, he must also ensure that the region will not dive into catastrophe as feared by McCain.

syedhs wrote:

warmi wrote:

But as we all knew it, Bush just went ahead and invade Iraq.

Yeah, that pretty much proves my point.

What point? Bush the bully? For me, it is crystal clear. It is a big time screw up. What bothers me is some argument that goes here and there and finally concede that nothing is wrong with Bush - nothing is really wrong with US foreign policy. He is a strong president, he did it with good intention blah blah. Meh.. it really really bothers me.

Now moving ahead, the mess must be cleared and if indeed Obama wants to pull out the troop, he must also ensure that the region will not dive into catastrophe as feared by McCain.

No ... it is not about Bush being good or bad but rather about your claim regarding the UN.

Again, I am not really defending Bush. You might very well be right that he is going to be remembered as one of the worst presidents in history.

What Bush did in 2003 is not to be judged in terms of potential legitimacy (or lack thereof) as defined by the UN but rather his suitability as the leader of this country and his potential failure in advacing American interest.