Right, so now Russia will take the gloves off? It didn't change everything, it didn't really change anything. Russia will pursue the same strategy of brutal war against the chechens that they have for the last decade, and intermittently for over a hundred years. The Chechens will pursue t he same equally brutal strategy right back at them. The only thing it changed is that you took notice of it fleetingly. It's very naive and narcissistic for us to be able to conceive of tragedy only on the scale of 9-11 as if we suffered through some ultra special experience of unprecedented nature in global terms and to have to term everybody else as following us by haveing "their own 9-11". Large parts of the world have yearly or monthly 9-11's in terms of human tragedy to the point where they aren't even news anymore.
I didn't include Osama because Osama isn't really against Bush, he's against America as a whole (although I believe he is more scared of Bush than Kerry). The others really are against Bush right now. Whether you believe it or not those guys really want Kerry in office.
Sad thing is I dont think Osama is afraid of either. Hes an ******* that isnt afraid of death, he could care less who is the next president, but Im pretty sure hes got a grudge against bush now...
It is my understanding that today the Russians drew a line in the sand. Can I see a list of those yearly/monthly 9/11s that the rest of the world has endured which we ignored?
Your understanding is incorrect. They crossed the line in the sand a long time ago and have waged indiscriminate total war against the Chechens off and on for the last ten years, using tactics that would make you and I cringe. Sure. Darfur, Western Sudan, estimated 50,000 killed over the last year by Janjaweed militia. That''s what, 16x as many as September 11? Zimbabwe -10,000 due to deliberate famine caused by mugabe Iran - Earthquake in Bam killed 15,000 or so last year. An Earthquake in Iran in 1990 killed 35,000 people in 1990. 35,000! Chechnya, 1946 500,000 plus chechens deported to Siberia, (essentially, herded onto a train and deposited in a snowy field in the middle of nowhere) 250,000 plus die en route. On the scale of human tragedy, these things surpass Sept 11. But anyway, that's not the point. The point is that you are transposing something from your own experience onto Russia despite (or more accurately, because of) you not knowing the circumstances and historical context , and then drawing an US-centric analogy out of something that does not fit, with the general undertone as if we were some sort of pioneer in the field of being "woken up" by terrorism. Nothing could be further from the truth. We were probably among the last. Russia has undergone brutal terrorist attacks in the past, and responded with as brutal forms of retaliation. Like I said initially, do you expect the Russians to "take the gloves off" now? They took them off years ago.
Isn't that the same place Kerry's beloved UN was going to help with but to this point has done nothing of signifcance?
"permission slip" Guess Bush would be asking for "permission slips" if he was to ever travel to a foreign country for help, right? Guess that means that diplomatic talks with France, German, Spain, doesn't mean "caring what others think." Huh? No, we don't need any help! No way. We're the mighty hubris USA! We do what we want, when we want, how we want. We are gods!" Give me a break! This type of arrogance is going to choke this country.
never fear our prime minister little lying johnnie howard will be rooting for W (or being rooted by), that is assuming (i so hope not) he survives his own re-election
American political coverage overseas are pretty biased. It would be like getting all your political news from Fox. But even if you can assume the same news coverage(like from the internet), how do you account for the differences in lifestyle, personal/political values, and general loyalty to one's country? Why would someone who lives in another country be more fit to determine the choice for our leader than someone living in this country? I'd believe an informed foreigner would choose the American president based on that president's foreign policy towards that person's country. Which basically makes them terrible "voters". Of course, considering this is a random poll, the chance of finding a lot of informed foreigners is pretty slim. I'd guess most of their info comes from tidbits on the news, or simply gossip.
Really they are biased? A lot of Americans get their news about other countries on BBC, CNN etc. so is that not truthful news, or are we just getting the wrong stuff. And I think the whole point of this poll is to show how well mr. bush has been doing with foreign relations. What you expect to ask americans how well we are doing in other countries, why not ask their own citizens. I think you underestimate other countries much, and the "slim" possibility of them being informed. I dont know where you pulled that out of. Is it because of what you are shown on the news about these countries. As far as I know many many many countries have all become more involved in Amercan foreign policies after the start of these 2 wars. damn, kinda seems like we did that in Iraq?
Horrors all. You have cited what seems to be a mixture of natural disaster, civil wars, and terrorism. I think a new era has arrived when the most powerful nation in the world is now victimized on its own soil by these same kind of tactics. Our eminence in the world, does seem to deserve some kind of US-centered perspective on the situation. Isn't that really unavoidable? Was this tragedy in Russia not ground-breaking? It sure got the attentiion of the US media and the Russians are now vowing to "go anywhere" to rout out terrorists.
Media attention validates "ground breaking?" What about all those atrocities that don't get reported by the media? That's the point we're trying to make. Giddyup. A peson that is busy with daily life. Busy with the kids, bills, tasks....only when the media gets your attention do things become "ground breaking" for you? Hello!
I'm basing my "slim" observation mainly on my vacations to other countries. Granted, some of this was before 9/11. But people in general care much more for American cultural stuff than politics. And when I talk to them, I get mainly responses based on superficial evidence. Even if I agree with you that they are all "informed", you still haven't address the other point I brought up. Which is, why would they make the best decision for us when their only interest in our country is foreign relations to their countries? I would think that domestic issues, considering our crappy economy right now, would trump any possible gripes foreigners have for our government. Not that I think Bush did a great job on the economy, but a hypothetical situation could occur. Doesn't this prove my point? If Iraqis, liberated from the "cruel dictator" by the "benevolent democracy" doesn't want us making political decisions for them, why should we care what people of other country think of ours?
Not when the resources for learning about the Chechen conflict and its causes & history are literally at your fingertips, no. The Russians can go anywhere they want to root out Chechen terrorists in their havens - Ingushetia, Dagestan, Ossetia, -- and nobody will stop them, because all those regions are part of Russia. That's not exactly ground breaking.
It's kind of difficult to be the "bastion of democracy" and promote spreading it around the world when your foreign policy consists of unilateralism. The rest of the world sees this hypocrisy, which destroys any credibility we have in convincing others that democracy works.
Goodbye! Far more interesting is the Russians promise to "go anywhere" to rout out the terrorists? Weren't there Al-Qaedans involved?
