Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mirevolver
With all due respect. I feel that whether the election be American, British, French, German, Russian or any other country. That election is for the people of that country and people in other countries should stay out.
|
You seem to be saying here that the American electorate is such that they would be 'influenced' by a letter from a stranger? If that's the case, then you have much bigger problems to deal with than who gets to sit in the daddy chair next. I know Americans personally who are intelligent enough to try and give themselves a balanced opinion, and the nationalists in this thread seem vastly outnumbered by the globalists, lending further credence to the argument.
You're either going to get people who look upon it as an unwelcome intrusion on their patriotism and disregard it, probably laughing at the sheer audacity of John Q Smith from Shitt Town, Greater Manchester as they do so. Or you're going to get people who read the letter, consider its contents and decide how well it fits with their own view, and if they care to take it seriously.
Quote:
|
While it is true that we live in a world that has been globalized to the point where the descision of one country will have an effect on another, there are still domestic issues of that country that need to be decided by the citizens of that country. Sovereign rights need to be respected.
|
Why did we go to war in Iraq? Why have 24 British soldiers, hundreds of American soldiers and several thousand Iraqi civilians had to die? Why did the World Trade Organisation rule US tariffs on steel imports to be illegal? Why will the US not ratify Kyoto? Your president does not just act for American interests, his decisions have very real and, as we can see, potentially damaging consequences on the global stage.
I would further argue that were you to feel personally aggrieved by the actions of my Prime Minister, I would give you the benefit of a hearing before I chose how to use my vote. That said, I think it very unlikely that you do, since his influence and power are much less than those of your president.
Quote:
|
When I see the Guardian doing this, I see yet another example of European arrogance where they feel that they are better qualified to select the American President that the American people themselves are. They make this descision based purely on how the American president will effect them and give no regard for the domestic issues of the United States which is what will have the primary effect on the American people who are the ones voting.
|
Here's the thing, I don't care enough about any of it to want to write to you or anyone else. I don't think lobbying for you to vote Kerry is going to change a fucking thing, whether you listen to me or not. But some people aren't as laid-back as me. If they feel aggrieved, they will want to lash out, especially people who are grieving relatives lost in a war the basis of which your own Iraq Survey Group has undermined, or the steelworkers in Yorkshire who lost sleep over the future of their jobs when the already shaky industry took another knock.
Fact is, nationalism has a very reduced role in today's society. We live in a globalised world, where people of all nationalities are able to communicate at the drop of a hat. Nationalism is appropriate in sport, science and invention, and about nothing else.
Of course, Europeans should never be given an American vote, which would actually equate to what you describe as the power to 'influence' your electoral process. But as long as America is taking decisions that affect the citizens of Earth as a totality, your own dearly held ideals of democracy demand that you at least arm yourself of the broadest range of knowledge, information and experience that you can acquire before you take a decision on who runs your country. In my opinion, that involves taking account of everyone involved, American or not.