(Click on the pic for more information.)
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.
What's the count today? Three, maybe four? At least three that I've seen. The DUms are really squirming these days.
LOL!
Coke my hairy butt!
If it ain't RC Cola (and a Moon Pie), it ain't worth singing about.
One must be a citizen of a country to vote. If all countries wish to be come states of the United States they may petition for admission to the union. Y'all get to pay taxes, then, too.
Yeah, and we still have 8 weeks to go before the election!!
LOL!
If what is taking place over there can be termed a "civil war"...it was not started by Iraqis. Those that the MSM loves to call 'insurgents' and 'freedom fighters' are largely NOT Iraqis. They are blood thirsty mercenary animals from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Iran, et al.
"Don't you know little fool,
You never can win.
Use your mentality.
Wake up to reality."
(From one of my favorite old songs.)
Tell you what: Why don't you concentrate on having those other failed, socialist, dictatorial countried pull their own @$$es out of the hole they've dug themselves into and stop whining to us?
I think that DU has figured out a way for kerry to win. Stupid. Moronic. Globalist. Yep smells like DU alright.
Awesome Idiot is more like it. yeesh!
you ASK for it... you GOT it... ZOT!!!
Shot:George - Yield:225 Kilotons - First Thermonuclear Test
Yes we do.. just as I shall ignore yours.
Thanks for playing!
Awesome chick, If the whole world could vote, it is very likely that Central and south america wouldn't pay attention and would sit it out.
The European chickens would be afraid to go to the polls.
All the Islamonazi's would vote for Bin Laden and shortly there after your neck would be on a chopping block because defiled females are the first to go.
boom.
How do you make THAT out, Al-Qaeda's 'people' want appeassenik Hanoi John elected - another 'paper tiger' (Osama's own words to decribe Clinton's cowardly withdrawal from Somalia), so he can repeat another 9/11, here an extract from Ann Coulter:
...PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON, DEMOCRAT
In February 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim fanatics, killing five people and injuring hundreds.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
In October 1993, 18 American troops were killed in a savage firefight in Somalia. The body of one American was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu as the Somalian hordes cheered.
Clinton responded by calling off the hunt for Mohammed Farrah Aidid and ordering our troops home. Osama bin Laden later told ABC News: "The youth ... realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat."
In November 1995, five Americans were killed and 30 wounded by a car bomb in Saudi Arabia set by Muslim extremists.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
In June 1996, a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia was bombed by Muslim extremists.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
Months later, Saddam attacked the Kurdish-controlled city of Erbil.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, lobbed some bombs into Iraq hundreds of miles from Saddam's forces.
In November 1997, Iraq refused to allow U.N. weapons inspections to do their jobs and threatened to shoot down a U.S. U-2 spy plane.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
In February 1998, Clinton threatened to bomb Iraq, but called it off when the United Nations said no.
On Aug. 7, 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim extremists.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
On Aug. 20, Monica Lewinsky appeared for the second time to testify before the grand jury.
Clinton responded by bombing Afghanistan and Sudan, severely damaging a camel and an aspirin factory.
On Dec. 16, the House of Representatives prepared to impeach Clinton the next day.
Clinton retaliated by ordering major air strikes against Iraq, described by the New York Times as "by far the largest military action in Iraq since the end of the Gulf War in 1991."
The only time Clinton decided to go to war with anyone in the vicinity of Muslim fanatics was in 1999 – when Clinton attacked Serbians who were fighting Islamic fanatics.
In October 2000, our warship, the USS Cole, was attacked by Muslim extremists.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH, REPUBLICAN
Bush came into office telling his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, he was "tired of swatting flies" – he wanted to eliminate al-Qaida.
On Sept. 11, 2001, when Bush had been in office for barely seven months, 3,000 Americans were murdered in a savage terrorist attack on U.S. soil by Muslim extremists.
Since then, Bush has won two wars against countries that harbored Muslim fanatics, captured Saddam Hussein, immobilized Osama bin Laden, destroyed al-Qaida's base, and begun to create the only functioning democracy in the Middle East other than Israel. Democrats opposed it all – except their phony support for war with Afghanistan, which they immediately complained about and said would be a Vietnam quagmire. And now they claim to be outraged that in the months before 9-11, Bush did not do everything Democrats opposed doing after 9-11.
What a surprise.
That's more or less how I remember it - it sums it up!!
Your screen name is amazingly conceited. Oh, and you're kitty bait.
You think this is stupid? If Kerry gets elected this guy may get his wish. Kerry wants to turn the USA over to the UN.
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.