Here is a solely independent view from someone who doesn't know how electoral votes work:

Bush attacked a country that didn't need attacking...we can fight terrorism without invading a country. We could probably fight it more effectivly too, the US has so much James Bond gear it can't be too hard to find the bastards. Instead of spending $200 billion on war, spend it on spy planes, and then send in some elite forces to handle the business.

To me, it seams like we're the only one's fighting this war on terror. Terrorism is a GLOBAL problem, where is France, where is Russia? They had severe terrorist attacks...why don't they help us? Where is the rest of the free world helping to protect their future? Is it because of Bush? If so, he's not getting my vote, because that is not leading...

If anyone has answers to my questions, please tell me, purely because my knowledge of politics is so small, I really would like to know the answers.

Hus, there are 30 countries helping. It may seem like there are none because most of the media usually repeats Kerry saying we are doing it alone.

As for France and Russia, France is under investigation right now for possibly accepting bribes from Saddam to try to prevent him from being attacked. This is part of the investigation into the Oil for Food program and the backdoor payoffs involved. Apparently Russia is content to kill the terrorists within their own borders only.
[Message Edited]

As little as I know, I know news stations generally don't report solely one side on such a subject. Bush clearly stated how many countries are "helping" us in the debates, I know the British are there, and Poland and Australia...but why is it that we are the only ones doing anything major? I know the answer to that one, it's because all the terrorist-countries would adamantly deny the 'grand coalition' access to their countries to catch the terrorists. So we are stuck in Iraq, which we now have control over...and what good does that do us? Are we going to invade Iran next? Then what? World War 3? It's just a matter of time before the next MAJOR terrorist attack, and with what I hear in the news about North Korea and Iran and nuclear programs...I fear the worst.

Sorry for the rant...
[Message Edited]

Just reading the details of the international survey I talked about earlier. Interesting to say the least.

Support Bush
Spain: 13%
France: 16%
Canada: 20%
G-B: 22%
Russia: 52%

Say that their opinion about the US has deteriorated in the past 2-3 years:
Strongest responses were:
Japan: 74%
France: 70%
South Korea: 67%

Nevertheless, while they are strongly against Bush, people around the world don't let that influence their opinion about the American people themselves. As an average, among the 10 countries surveyed 68% of the people said that they had a positive opinion about the American people. And hold on to your hat, one of the highest supporters of the American people are... the French, with 72% having a positive opinion of about the Americans people.

Newspapers involved in the survey:
La Presse (Canada), Le Monde (France), The Guardian (Great Britain), El Pais (Spain), Asahi Shimbun (Japan), JoongAng Ilbo (South Korea), The Sydney Morning Herald et The Melbourne Age (Australia), Reforma (Mexico), Haaretz (Israel) et Moscow News (Russia).

I'm glad I'm Canadian.

I'm also glad that not many people outside of Canada actually give a damn about us. Keeps people from bugging us.

Bush is going to cut the Veterans benifits and I think medicare also. As a Vet., I don't like that. Send our troops out to police the world and then cut their benifits. HUM.

Bush has not cut benefits. He has raised funding over 25%.

Nevertheless, while they are strongly against Bush, people around the world don't let that influence their opinion about the American people themselves. As an average, among the 10 countries surveyed 68% of the people said that they had a positive opinion about the American people. And hold on to your hat, one of the highest supporters of the American people are... the French, with 72% having a positive opinion of about the Americans people.

I'm not voting based on what other countries think. Kerry wants to be the "popular" President, that's the wrong reason.

Kerry still trying to scare people with a draft. Pathetic.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041016/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp&cid=694&ncid=716

While I don't think arguing this is in anyone's interest (no one is gonna change their views here AT ALL), but I will say this:

George Bush is not a bad guy, we'll leave all the evil and treachery to Cheney and Rumsfeld. Bush is just not a good president by any means. You say you like him because he means what he says and he says what he means, but so do 250million other Americans, most of whom are better suited to lead this nation. So what makes him more qualified? His money? His "personability"? His accent? His overly simplistic speech? Honesty.

Bush has been given 4 years. He was given a 2 trillion dollar surplus. He was given an established American "respect record" with other countries. And what has he done? He's DEVESTATED the treasury and economy, causing a 421 billion dollar RECORD defecit for this YEAR. The majority of the world HATES him and has lost respect for the USA. He's sent over one thousand men and women to their deaths, at first because America was at "risk", but when we found out he was "misinformed" he said it was to free the Iraqi people...TALK ABOUT FLIP FLOPPING.

And another thing: You think Kerry's a flip-flopper? It is true that he voted "for the war" but his vote was firstly based off of false inteligence, and secondly was to give the president the AUTHORITY to go to war. He voted to let the president decide...but it was still BUSH who sent those men and women to DIE. So now Kerry's against our reasons...wanna know why? Because Bush LIED. Kerry found out the TRUTH and changed his stance.

Another thing about flip-flopping... Bush promised billions of dollars in education, then poured it into the war (even cutting benefits for college students!). He LIED. Promising one thing to get votes, then doing the COMPLETE OPPOSITE. BUSH is the flip-flopper.

He thinks that war and abortion are as easy as YES or NO. If he knew how to back up a stance, he would get into more detail, but since he's about at intuitive and intelligent as a lamp post, we can't expect much.

SORRY FOR THE RANT, but for conclusion:

Bush has had 4 long years. And he's ruined America. Let's let Kerry clean up Bush's mess. The last four years have proven one thing: Bush is a terrible leader. Period.

THAT BEING SAID: Please don't flame me or attack me, I tried to be civilized while remaining strong in my arguments, I mean to offend no one...ok maybe Bush and his Administration.

I strongly agree with paxx arguments about Bush. I've always been more right of center by most accounts and have consistently voted as a Conservative but knowing Bush records as the Gov. of Texas and his abysmal record here and the tragedy his type of politics has done to the USA I'm disappointed. Kerry I believe will at least restore some type of honest dignity to the United States. My 3 cents worth. >

I don't agree with eveything that Bush has done. Would I like to see the world at large have a more positive opinion of the USA? Would I like to see us not fighting in remote parts of the world, hearing about our young men and women being killed everyday? Would I like to see the jobs come back home that have gone abroad? I guess I could go on and on with all the things that many have accused Bush of being responsible for and I could also go on and on about how the situation he inherited from the Clinton administration, coupled with the attack on the twin towers, global terrorism, global demand for oil and lack of support from old European allies and many, many other issues have put us where we are today. I won't anymore, it's self-serving, it's divisive and it doesn't matter. The men and women of our armed forces and their families overwhelmingly support George Bush, as our leader. These folks have given the greatest sacrific that any man or woman can give. They have given their lives, the lives of their sons and daughters, the lives of their husbands and wives and the lives of their fathers and mothers to America, to Afghanistan, to Iraq, to the world and I will not walk away from these people. I will not slap them in the face and tell them they are wrong. That they died for nothing. That they failed and the world is supposedly worse off after the sacrifices they have made by voting for John Kerry. If the only thing that I can do for my country and my heroes, these brave men and women, is to vote for the leader that they support and trust, then that is what I will do. Other times, other situations, I may not have supported voting for Bush, but I will not let these people down, I will not fail them.

#59 by Sir macrobaye - 10/16/2004 2:05:24 AM While I don't think arguing this is in anyone's interest

I'd have to disagree with you on this...arguing...or as I like to put it...having a heated discussion...is in everyones interest. Everyone has an opinion about this that and another thing. And most times it's based on things you've heard or read. This is how we learn about this and that or another thing. So when we discuss things amongst ourselves, somewhere in there we discover a different truth we may not have known about. In other words we are enlightened.

I will be the first to say I am not always right...but I am until someone proves me wrong or until I am made aware of information I didn't have before. This is why we all need to be more open about what we know and discuss it with everyone else. Other wise you live in a small world.

I myself am always searching for truth...not heresay. So when I hear something about one person or another I ask questions. But unless people are willing to discuss what they know, I can't learn more than I already do.

I personally think these discussion are great.

As far as everything else you said...you were pretty much on the money.

16 by Skinner NightTrain2002 - 10/15/2004 1:49:10 PM Personally I like my leaders to be good with economics and social issues. I don't think geography would even make the list.

Hey NightTrain...how about this for economics...spend 30 million to campaign for a job that pays 400 thousand a year. What's wrong with this picture? Do they teach that in economics class.

#11 by Frogboy - 10/15/2004 1:11:02 PM This may shock you Paxx but it is possible for clear thinking people to look at both men and conclude that Bush is the better man for the job

I consider myself to be a clear thinking person...and this clear thinking person had no trouble concluding that Bush should be brought up on war crimes. He had no reason to invade Iraq...period. Not one terrorist on those planes were even from Iraq. Saudia Arabia and Yemen to name a few, but not Iraq. And yes, Saddam was a bad man...still no reason to invade Iraq. There are far more dangerous people in the world than him. Some are right in our own government.

But...Bush says he wants to rid the world of evil doers (terrorists)! Ok...what about Korea? They don't even hide the fact that they have WMD's. We don't even need a congressional committee or the CIA to tell us. It's pretty foolproof and a guarantee he won't look like fool for attacking Korea. And the people there are trying to survive on cooking rocks and tree bark and are dying of starvation. So he even has the heartstring tug to play on which plays well with the touchy feely group and would surely get him elected again. But that would take a "real" committment, of which Bush is by no means up to task.

Bush...murders the english language and lies through his teeth every time he opens his mouth, and even forgets his own lies. I can see his handlers now...grimacing every time he opens his mouth and then having to try and do damage control.

If Bush had backed out of Iraq as soon as it was liberated of Saddam he might have been able to save face (he'd still be a putz) and salvage this fiasco...but he was to cowardly to admit he was wrong. And all the time he's sending our young men and women to die for his lies...what's he doing?....he's trying to cut their pay!? Say what!? Tell me it isn't so!!! Excuse me...but these people should be having their butts kissed for that kind of sacrifice. It's shameful what this government does to it's service men and women. As far as I'm concerned these people should never have to pay taxes for that sacrifice and should be given a home so they don't end up living on the streets like some have. What's wrong with this picture?

According to the Waxman report...the Bush administration has told 237 (and counting) lies and misleading statements about why we should be in Iraq. Here it is...read it for yourself... http://www.iflipflop.com/admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

Here's a letter from Henry Waxman to the president "before" the war even started. Telling him about all the lies and misinformation, yet we still went to war. So he knew well in advance the intelligence he got wasn't that intelligent. And in some cases even forged. http://www.houstonjusticenotwar.org/articles/waxman.html

Oh...and Frogboy...even though you say your voting for Bush your still alright in my book.
[Message Edited]

Well, personnally, I consider Bush as an ignorant idiot. Not that I think people who would vote for him are so as well. Probably most of them are republicans and would never be caught dead voting democrat.

Paxx, I think you're right on the money. I, for the life of me, cannot understand how anyone can think Bush is anything but an idiot. This campaign, and subsequent election is based on such divisive ideology, that the Bush adiministration's record is meaningless to Republicans means they're gonna vote for their "man" no matter what. I don't get it.

Needless to say, I'm for Kerry/Edwards 100%. I have been accused of being uninformed, a troll, etc. on joeuser, because anyone who supports Kerry cannot understand why people don't just love and gush all over our president. No matter that he squandered the budget surplus. No matter that he's unraveling every environmental regulation that interferes with corporate profits. No matter that he's made it illegal for Medicare to negotiate prices with the drug industry, resulting in windfall profits for them. No matter that he's run up the highest deficit this country has ever seen. No matter that more people are unemployed and/or without health insurance than before he took office. No matter that he got the US into a miserable, unwinnable quagmire of a war, resulting in the death of thousands and thousands of people, based on lies and forgeries. No matter that his No Child Left Behind law is meaningless garbage without the budget to back it up. No matter for any of this. And, the idiot cannot string three words together. They're voting for him anyway, just cause he's their republican candidate. I don't get it.

No. Name an american leader that has EVER been popular outside the US.

well, there are a few, I personaly liked clinton. Can't remember that there was such a big fuzz here because he cheated on his wife. I personaly see those things as private, so that didn't make him a bad leader.

I don't know very much about kerry... neither about bush... but kerry isn't bush so well, if I had to choose.

The thing is this. Bush scares the **** out of me.
Bush is a very powerfull man at this moment as president of the US, and he das whatever he wants. With the war in Iraq its very simple.

Russia and France used their VETO to stop the war, no matter what bush continued it because he wasn't manly enough to back down or something...
This is what I call attacking another country without any rights to do so. He should be the one on the top 10 wanted people, he is no better than saddam (yes ofcourse I know he is but he das the same thing, attacking another country)

The reasons for the war?
IRAQ HAD WMD's.

Did they find any?
NO.

explain?

He didn't belong in Iraq but he was, and for the reason he might have got the smalles piece of respect from me, finding WMD's, he failed!

Ow, and if somebody is explaining, please explain how the hell you can DEFEND america by ATTACKING Iraq.

What do you think? That the 3 terrorists that were in Iraq will say, ah he attacked us, big deal. No dammit, he pissed them off and if there are any more attacks comming he made that happen!

The Poll requires at least 2 more options:
O The Devil (I'm an American)
O The Deep Blue Sea (I'm NOT an American)

And, hey, this is not a poke at any country's political machine, because I think these choices belong on the ballots of every country in the world because we all suffer from "politicus jokus in extremis".

P.S. The dough of politics should always be leavened with a dash of hilarity.
[Message Edited]

So, All Americans are devils now? Hmm, and I guess all Canadians are whimps?

Personally, I support the Bush intention to attack terror in the world by going after Saddam Hussein. Saddam was terrorizing that poor country and its people. And, it is known that he supported terrorism by his own actions against Kawait. Maybe, we should have gone after Hitler before he started invading and terrorizing other countries. France sure loved us back then, didn't they?

From what I've seen, the normal citizens of Iraq greatly appreciate the intervention of the U.S. It's the militants who want to seize control and power, just like Saddam, that are the problem. They don't want to bring stability to that country, they just want power and control. So, they terrorize their own people.

So, who did Saddam go after? He went after Isreal. He sought to terrorize Isreal because they support the U.S.(I.E.-more terrorism)

I believe in global nuclear disarmament too. But, the weak U.N. cannot do anything. Hence, Bush took the reins. I believe that in time, Iraq will become stable. It may take a little while longer. It may take a lot more of the militants to further destroy their own contry until they realize that they are the problem, and sit down at the table and really discuss ways to resolve the degradation and destruction they are causing to their own people.

As a world leader, I think Bush is excellent. As an American President I think he is below par.
[Message Edited]

I believe Rumsfield and his gang (using Bush as a puppet) made the world a more dangerous place now than it was before. Al Qaeda wasn't so present in Iraq before, but it sure it everywhere in Iraq - and everywhere else in the World - right now.  Al Qaeda has more than doubled in size since the invasion of Iraq.  In power right now are not the traditional Republicans that the country knew before, the country leades right now are the Neo-Republicans, extreme-right almost fascists. They believe in World domination.  The Roman Empire beleived that peace could only be possible through the conquest of the whole world, they called it Pax Romana (Roman Peace).  Another leader believed the same thing some 70 years ago. That leader was strong, charismatic and very much liked by his fellow countrymen, altough he was seen as dangerous by the rest of  the world.  Why attak Iraq when it's pretty darn clear that Al Qaeda is mostly funded by Saudy Arabia - an ally in this war against Iraq. "You are either with us or against us" and that's what it comes down to. Has nothing to do with terrorism or Al Quaeda. Iran is next, and North Korea after that. The plan is to have every country terrorized to even want to speak up against the US. 
And that's how peace will be brought outside the US.  What about inside? Acts such as the Patriot Acts 1 and 2 will make sure peace will be kept inside. Nothing will be private anymore. Your emails will be read, your telephone conversations recorded. Where wil this lead?  Will democracy become a burden? When will the Neo-Republicans decide that the American people is ready for the ultimate blow? The abolition of the electoral process.  Order can't be kept efficiently when the governement an change after 4 years?  Maybe it will be gradual. A temporary suspension for "security reasons".
The current administation is dangerous (again, not specifically Bush, I think he's just an idiot puppet) and it's up to the American people to stop it now before it's too late.

I could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong. But it's what I believe and if i was American and had a chance to vote in this election, I would not take the chance.

ChadUGC, you missed my point entirely. I at no point suggested that Americans or anybody is the devil. I am simply suggesting that in politics (no matter what country) the choices for regular voters of any political persuasion are usually between "the devil and the deep blue sea", which is probably why, in so many countries voter participation is low and getting lower. America, leaving aside its politics, is a great country and I salute it. The other point I was hoping to make is that maybe we all need to lighten up and laugh a little.

However, Bush very well may win the next election. He enjoys widespread support in the US.

It should also be noted that Howard won pretty solidly in Australia despite constant criticism.

I have no problem with someone not supporting Bush. I only have a problem for someone thinking there's something wrong with me because I do support Bush and his policies.

From what I saw, it seems it will all come down to a flaky voting system in Florida. Really strange how may yet again come down to questionable results in the state where Bush's brother is governer...

Brad, I don't have a problem with you, I have a problem with the almost-fascists neo-republicans that Bush follows.

I do happen to support US action in Iraq, I just REALLY not like how he went about it.

Bush mannerisms also seem to be of issue with me as well as some of his choices of which I will not get into here.

But as others said here, Kerry scares me to no end. I rather have Bush and know what is wrong with him then have Kerry "the anti-Bush" who says whatever is opposite of Bush instead of saying how he feels.

I liked allot of Kerry's votes and some of them were on the same side as Bush.

Truth be told, I do not believe that Kerry can fix Bush's mistakes or handle the current state of world affairs.

This is the only reason why I will vote for Bush. In all my years of voting, this is the first time I am voting for a Republican president and I am sad that both candidates or completely lousy in every way.






As for the world not voting or wanting Bush... They just want him out, but I don't see Kerry being better.

MY honest opinion is that life will be better in 2008 when we can vote for the first woman president, Hillary Clinton.

(Unless I run for president, of which I told myself I do not want to do)

I wonder why the democrats chose Kerry to represent them. He's ugly as sin and it's a known fact that ugly people aren't usually as popular. For some reason, ugly people come out a untrustworthy.

No, he did not lie........ he was using intelligence that was supported world wide. Kerry said the same thing, so did Edwards, and Kennedy, and many others. Stop buying into the propaganda from the Micheal Moore's (now there's a really liar for you), and think for yourself. Bush said Iraq was a "gathering" danger. Kerry and Edwards both said Iraq was an "Eminent" threat, but now they claim Bush said what they said, but they never said what they said........ they make me dizzy.

Exactly... Kerry was on the Iraq bandwagon of WMD's. Sorry Frogboy, but I think most Americans think Bush went into Iraq because of 9/11 and WMD's not the 15 or so UN resolutions on Iraq's WMD's. That is the difference. Nevertheless, Kerry would have done the same thing or totally lied and flip-flopped about it. At least Bush just maneuvered words around. He didn't lie about it.

Kerry sucks major butt cheeks. Bush just sucks. That is why I'm voting for Bush.