Posted on 09/08/2004 1:13:51 PM PDT by awesomechick
And what if, this coming November 2, at the same time as millions of Americans, all the world's peoples went to the ballot box to vote? There would be legitimacy in their participation in the election of the president of the world's greatest power. Simply because their lives, their future, depend on it in one way or another. It would be a symbolic gesture, a universal speech in observation of a fact and a direct and unambiguous way of saying that the fate of the world depends in large part on the American presidency. The Vietnamese and the Chileans at one time, the Iraqis today, know something about that.
According to whether the present president is beaten or reelected, the fate of hundreds of thousands of families in Iraq, in Palestine, in Israel, in the whole Middle East, in the Maghreb and in Africa, in Latin America, and in many other countries as well, will find itself changed. This is the only presidential election that concerns so many people outside of the country where it takes place. Far from being a matter that concerns Americans only, [the election result] comes into play in many domains, the most obvious and spectacular of which is the economy.
Let's not even talk about what's happening daily in Iraq. The Iraqis have begun a civil war that all observers had predicted before America and Great Britain's intervention in that country. The Iraqis as well as the Palestinians would have every legitimate reason to participate in the vote.
This does not mean that John Kerry, were he to be elected, will overturn the situation in Iraq, but I think that in any case, the evil has been done and it will be necessary for civilized countries to get together to repair the enormous damage caused by a power that based itself on lies and illegality to give some semblance of a justification for its policy.
Those who would rejoice in George W. Bush' reelection are Al-Qaeda's people- they've already said as much - because he's the one whose policies dovetail the best with their strategy. Hasn't the intervention in Iraq offered this movement's terrorists an opportunity to develop and to pass for resistance to a colonial occupation in the eyes of the Arab world?
If Bush is a misfortune for at least half of all Americans, he's a disaster for all those outside the United States who suffer the effects of his actions dictated by sketchy fundamentalist thinking.
As for the Palestinians, if they know that they will not receive justice at the end of a magic wand, even one held by Mr. Kerry, they now live the horrors of the Israeli occupation which is blessed and encouraged by Team Bush. Their fate has never been as dire as since Sharon and Bush's advent into power.
We are far from Jimmy Carter's will to peace, or even from Bill Clinton's late, but praiseworthy, attempts. However, the world knows now that without a negotiated solution between Palestinians and Israelis (the Geneva plan is still valid), the whole Middle East, whether large or small, will remain a place of murderous conflicts, blind violence, and a laboratory for all the terrorisms of despair or revenge, both individual and state terrorism.
A Pew Research Center study teaches that "foreign policy, for the first time since the Vietnam War, is ranked along with the economy as a top concern of Americans" (Le Monde, August 20). That's one more reason why the people whose fate depends on this policy should also get to choose the next United States' president. It would be the logical thing, even if itvseems strange and above all unrealizable. However, it could be a guideline vote, a sort of signal to the president elect.
If Bush wins, it won't do any good, since millions of Europeans took to the streets to demonstrate their opposition to the entry of American-British troops in Iraq, millions of voices were raised to warn Team Bush about the dangers of such a war, an illegitimate war in spite of all the horror of Saddam Hussein's system and of those like him in the region, but Bush and his team were contemptuous of this massive popular "vote" and overrode it. So it's useless to speak to a mulish man, a man under the worst of influences, those of ignorance and religion.
If his rival is elected, some hope is allowed, even if we know that a well-established tradition will give priority to American interests. And it would be right in this instance to favor those interests by withdrawing from Iraq, indemnifying this slaughtered people, by promoting a negotiated settlement in the Middle East as soon as possible, by acknowledging the mistakes and the digressions of a power that has abused its strength rather than respecting law and right.
Some Americans will never accept such interference in their political life. Why should a Bhopal Indian, an African from the former Zaire (Congo-Kinshasa), an Arab, or a European have anything to say about such an election? Simply because, when the United States of America decides to bring "democracy" into a dictatorship (as though democracy were a pill soluble in a country's water) they don't consult those who are principally involved; they don't listen to the message of millions of demonstrators,and they ignore the opinion of the United Nations. Because they must imagine that what is good for the United States can only benefit those whose destiny they manipulate. When they decide to intervene in a country, bringing their weapons and their baggage, they don't trouble themselves with learning what the population thinks of it.
The arrogance and the contempt they demonstrate towards others would be taught a good lesson if the world's leaders agreed to organize this symbolic vote this coming November 2. It would be like a will to independence and resistance in the face of an advancing hegemony wrapped up in some religious values, certain prejudices, and a few pretexts.
Imagine theres no moderators, it's easy if you try.
can we keep this one just a little while? It's more fun than watching paint dry (yes, that's really what I'm doing)
I guess you've never read the U.S. Constitution.
You're not awesome, your a TROLL!
Kerry Feb 18, 1970: “I’m an internationalist. “I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.”
There has to be a top dog in the world and America is it. We are the most powerful nation in history and weakling countries do not like this. They want us weakened and John Kerry will do that.
The fact is that there has to be a top dog. If not America, who do you want to be the most powerful country on the planet?
But even I didn't think it would be as early as today.
"...or even from Bill Clinton's late, but praiseworthy, attempts"</i>Sure, like bombing the crap out of our WW II allies, the Serbs, while allowing the back door of Europe to be opened to Islamonazis from Albania - sure was praiseworthy.
Yeah, BUH-BYE!
The first few lines of the declaration of independence would do.
Nothing to zot of fry for, no Viking Kitties, too.
Tell you what, how about the whole world pays taxes to the U.S. too? Yeah, that's the ticket.
piffle
Only if we can tax all the voters first. No representation without taxation.
Another abortion on FreeRepublic! Did it hurt?
but a truly awesome one! That amount of spew must have brought him/her/it to dry-heave levels.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.