|
|
|
Forum Poster
 
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 15:13
Posts: 59,
Visits: 399
|
|
Patriotism is far more important to Americans than we are used to. A high proportion of them don't have passports 'cos they have no intention of leaving their country even for a vacation, and know very little about the rest of the world. Their media doesn't tell them much.
Bush was good at pushing the patriotic button and making people (particularly the poorer ones) believe he would keep them safe and look after American interests.
Whether a majority actually believed him is another question.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 22:24
Posts: 38,
Visits: 115
|
|
| Hi NL newleprechaun (16/07/2008)
... Americans are quite naive and gullible. How on earth did they manage to vote Bush in for a second term, when he is such a laughing stock? He's not just a laughing stock to us but to a significant number of Americans too. I think there are several reasons why he was voted in for a second term.Firstly he had started a War, and the US Press is overwhelmingly Nationalistic, therefore would not criticise the government while the country was at war - compare with Thatcher in the UK after the Falklands. Secondly, the US is probably the most insular and inward-looking Democracy in the World, it only ever loooks after its own self-interest, and has little or no regard for the interest and well-being of other nations or people - see its attitude and activities in Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, Iraq (while it was arming Saddam Hussein against Iran), Afghanistan (when it funded and armed an then relatively insignificant freedom fighter from Saudi Arabia called Osama Bin Laden), and many others. This ideology has been communicated to the people of America, for good or ill, over decades, virtually since the 2nd World War. Thirdly, The President can only be in Office for 2 terms, and with the voting system there being so very long-winded people often end up voting for what they know rather than the unknown. Apart from that, Bush pretty much 'stole' his first term from Al Gore, winning by effectively 4 votes against 3. The American Electoral College seems to me to be the strangest and one of the most unfair democratic voting systems in the world, as it effectively means that the President can be voted into office on a Minority of the votes because the votes he got were in the right places. Fourthly it's about personality not about ability or intellect. George W just came across better. He smiles a lot, appears more personable and approachable. I say: beware the leader who smiles too much, there's either something else going on behind the smile or nothing going on behind the smile, either way you could be in trouble. Frankly with an electoral system that drags the elections out into 2 years, I'm not surprised that a significant percentage of Americans don't even bother to vote. Time to shut-up. Love, Light & Peace
Linnz
English Blood, Irish Heart
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 04 December 2008 09:28
Posts: 32,
Visits: 189
|
|
Linnz (17/07/2008)[ Firstly he had started a War, and the US Press is overwhelmingly Nationalistic, therefore would not criticise the government while the country was at war - compare with Thatcher in the UK after the Falklands. Secondly, the US is probably the most insular and inward-looking Democracy in the World, it only ever loooks after its own self-interest, and has little or no regard for the interest and well-being of other nations or people - Hi Linnz It's important not to forget that none of this would have happened in the first place without the evil actions of the terrorists and an evil dictator posturing provocatively one too many times to the West. This is only my opinion but I think things changed once 9/11 happened in dealing with threats to national security and Bush and Blair adopted a more stronger preemptive approach. Bush had to make some difficult decisions, whether he believed God told him to do it or not, and maybe some of them were wrong - it may be too soon to really tell. Re your second point is similar to how we were with the British Empire to the rest of the world for about 200 years. How much more damage have we too done to other cultures by enforcing our values and beliefs upon them for such a period of time? I do agree though that the election process is far too long and if the Senate and House of Representatives have the other party in the majority anyway, it makes it very difficult for a President to do much at times, so perhaps that is why it becomes more personality driven.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 22:24
Posts: 38,
Visits: 115
|
|
| Hi Crusader crusader (17/07/2008)
It's important not to forget that none of this would have happened in the first place without the evil actions of the terrorists and an evil dictator posturing provocatively one too many times to the West. Indeed so, but the fact is the US armed the Afghan freedom fighters, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and many others in the first place, it is this consistent interferring in the politics of that region of the world that has de-stabilised it. This is only my opinion but I think things changed once 9/11 happened in dealing with threats to national security and Bush and Blair adopted a more stronger preemptive approach. True, but it should have been a wake-up call the the US to ask the question 'Why do some parts of the world hate America so much?' Bush had to make some difficult decisions, whether he believed God told him to do it or not, and maybe some of them were wrong There is significant evidence to suggest that some of the decisions had already been made, 9/11 became the catalyst and excuse rather than the real reason, which almost certainly is power-politics and oil. Only trouble is Russia is now somewhat disturbingly engaged in the same kind of posturing. it may be too soon to really tell. No, not too soon, the decisions were wrong and taken for the wrong reasons. Re your second point is similar to how we were with the British Empire to the rest of the world for about 200 years. How much more damage have we too done to other cultures by enforcing our values and beliefs upon them for such a period of time? Yes, the British Empire did do an awful lot of damage to certain parts of the world. There were the massacres, and the bolstering of oppressive regimes, but I think the motivation 200 or so years ago was somewhat more naive, there was little understanding of other cultures then. Now, 200 years later there is absolutely no excuse for the naked pre-emptive aggression of the United States.Love, Light & Peace
Linnz
English Blood, Irish Heart
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 04 December 2008 09:28
Posts: 32,
Visits: 189
|
|
| Hi Linnz We may have to agree to disagree! Something entirely different, how do you manage to post your responses in between different parts of a quote? I tried to do it on my last response but couldn't get it to work. crusader
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 22:24
Posts: 38,
Visits: 115
|
|
Hi Crusadercrusader (17/07/2008)
We may have to agree to disagree! Or we could disagree vociferously and try to liven things up a bit, or maybe I'm just being a big kid.   ... how do you manage to post your responses in between different parts of a quote? Very easily  I tried to do it on my last response but couldn't get it to work. All you need to know is that to end a quote you use [/quote] and to begin a quote you use [quote] you can then split up another persons quotes into sections inserting your responses. I often find it useful to cut and paste the quote into notepad or something like that, in case you get locked out and lose what you're writing - so very frustrating, happened to me more than once. See also the IFCode Shortcuts - to the left of the text window when you respond to a message.Anyway, back to the OP. I'd like to see Obama win, if McCain wins we could be in for more of the same. My worry is that the American people may simply want to vote for the least change. On a slightly different note, I would also like to think we had a leader who would stand up to the machinations of American Power-politics, suggestions as to who people might think would do that, Brown or Cameron? Love, Light & Peace
Linnz
English Blood, Irish Heart
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 09:37
Posts: 179,
Visits: 1,165
|
|
Linnz: "On a slightly different note, I would also like to think we had a leader who would stand up to the machinations of American Power-politics, suggestions as to who people might think would do that, Brown or Cameron?"
Neither. The US is too big, has too firm a grip on world economics and thus politics. We can only afford to stand up to them so far before we get bulldozed. So it really matters very little whichever leader we have, from that point of view. An intelligent and persuasive PM could possibly influence a receptive President, but the loudest voices will be coming from that side of the pond.
|
|
|
| | |