BS: How the rest of the world voted

Subject: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: Stu
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 09:15 AM

An interesting, if not predictable result from the rest of the planet on who should be so-called 'leader' of the free world . . .

How the rest of the world voted

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 09:20 AM

Welcome to Globalvote2004, the site where non-americans have been able to vote in an election that affects the entire world. Over the past three weeks, we have recorded over 700,000 visitors, with one person voting every second at peak times. This website recorded over 113,552 votes from 191 countries.

The winner is John Kerry (Democrat), with 77.1% of votes.

---

Lovely!! Thanks, stigweard.


A

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: GUEST,Ragnar
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 09:29 AM

I guess that makes America the most powerful in the world.

Should we do what the less than most powerful countrys want us to do?

The first thing on their list is to be the most powerful country in the world so they can tell the other countrys to mind their own business.

It is possible to leave the US and take up residence in a more suitable country. Not so for some countrys like Cuba.

R

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: dianavan
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 10:49 AM

The rest of the world has more objective journalism.

d

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 11:19 AM

The 77.1% is interesting but in a way I prefer the Bush 9% (13.9% went to others) as I think it gives an even better view of how much Bush is disliked in most of the rest of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 11:22 AM

I had it down as 79% metal, 18% plastic, 3% unknown alien compound

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 08:54 PM

The rest of the World regards New World Order America with the same sense of ever-increasing anxiety and horror as they did Nazi Germany in the late 30's. And there is nothing that any of us can do about it, because New World Order America lives in a paranoid mental thought-bubble of its own creation and has enough firepower to blow up whomever they please.

You don't fight someone like that, you hope to survive them. If they invade and occupy, of course, then you fight them as best you can.

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: *daylia*
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 09:20 PM

I told myself not to do this but

I'll go stand myself in the corner now

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: GUEST,Pogo
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 09:33 PM

Zackly LH.

Cept for one fact that does not make it through your "world is doomed" fact filter:

We defeated the Nazis after Europe ignored them, tolerated them and appeased them until they had so much power that only the US could crush them.

Then with our left hand we whipped the Japs at the same time.

How evil was that?

Pogo

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: *daylia*
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 09:50 PM

Uh ... the Allies defeated Hitler, Pogo. Lets get the facts straight.

And the US legacy at Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

How "evil" WAS that indeed!?!

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: dianavan
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 09:52 PM

Thats true, Pogo, but you have to admit those soldiers in World War II had lots of support at home and lots of allies. Nobody can go it alone unless they want to isolate themselves, polarize their own country and risk terrorist threats at home.

d

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 10:12 PM

No, Pogo, you are speaking from the usual ethnocentric American navel-gazing presumption that "we did everything". You (meaning the USA) did not singlehandedly defeat the Nazis and the Japanese.

#1 - The British stopped the Germans cold in 1940 in the Battle of Britain. The first real check to the Nazi trail of victories.

#2 - The Russians stopped the Germans cold at the gates of Moscow in Dec/41 and inflicted upon them their first real defeat on land.

#3 - The Russians broke the back of the German army and air force at Stalingrad in Dec 42/Jan 43. The German forces never recovered from that debacle.

#4 - It was primarily British Commonwealth forces which stopped the Japanese land attack through Burma and saved India. That was an absolutely vital theatre of war in WWII.

The USA had not done any significant fighting in Europe until 1943.
It was the Russians and the British who fought the Germans first to a stalemate and then began to push them back, and it was primarily the Russians who devastated the German army beyond recovery.

I do not call that "appeasement". I call it the greatest conflict in human history, and America ignored it and stayed out of it until brought in by Pearl Harbour. By the time America's vast industrial potential was added to that war the Germans had already shot their bolt in Russia. They basically lost in late '41 by failing to take Moscow. Their fighting expertise was such that they still had a lot of fight left in them, but the writing was on the wall.

It is ludicrous for you to give the USA credit for winning the whole Second World War, and to accuse Europeans of appeasement when the USA was practicing isolationism! And by the way, Bush's grandfather's company armed Hitler. Look it up on Google under "Prescott Bush and Hitler".

You've seen too many John Wayne movies, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: Nancy King
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 10:27 PM

I just wish several thousand of those voters had been in Ohio.

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: GUEST,Pogo
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 10:34 PM

Assuming you are from one of those countrys that wannabe the most powerful country in the world and are jealous, who was winning up until the time that America joined the war?

If we had stayed out would the results be the same?
It was a loosing battle until we added our resources and blood because we had the foresight to see that if the Nazis gained more and more power, the US would be invaded.

I suppose it is an overstatement to say we crushed Germany. Yes the Russians were a major factor in defeating Germany. All of the other allied countrys were a major factor. It could not have been done by the US alone. But could it have been done without the US?

If you say we should have stayed out, we were not needed and everything would have been OK with out the US, I will accept your reasoning and say thanks.

It must have been a hell of a company that could arm an entire country.

What did that Chamberlain guy do in that war?

Pogo

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 11:14 PM

Are you joking? The last thing in the World I would ever want, aside from being castrated by a rusty milling machine, is for my country to be the "most powerful country in the world". Such countries are without exception tyrants. They are universally detested. I enjoy being a citizen of a country that is NOT the most powerful country in the World.

I'm not jealous of the USA, I am anxious about what the USA may do next. The USA is armed and dangerous.

The USA would never have been invaded by the Nazis in the '40's. They were utterly incapable of such a transatlantic logistical effort. They weren't even strong enough at sea to invade England across a 20 mile channel, for God's sake! Did you know that Admiral Raeder, the German navy commander, told Hitler when the war started that with the naval forces available to him all his men could promise was to "die gallantly" (and they did...). It was England which ruled the seas in Europe.

You did not fight the Germans out of "foresight", you fought them because the Japanese were silly enough to attack you first, and Hitler was then silly enough to immediately declare war ON the USA a day later!!!!!!! Did you know that? He saved you guys the trouble of making your own minds up about it, and I bet you would have waited another 6 months to do it if he hadn't been such a prat as to do it for you.

What Chamberlain did was try to buy time, because he felt that Britain was not strongly armed enough with modern weapons yet in 1938...and because he was naive enough to believe that Hitler would keep his word and NOT occupy all of Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain declared war on Hitler when Poland was invaded a year later, because he had been lied to and fooled once and that was enough. I don't necessarily call that appeasement, but I do call it poor judgement. They should have called Hitler's bluff in 1938. If they had, the German army would have overthrown Hitler's government with a coup and declared martial law, and the Nazis would have been kaput. Too bad it didn't happen.

The French, by the way, fought bravely against the Germans in 1940, but with WWI tactics. They were completely out-thought by the new German blitzkrieg tactics, mainly enabled by the Luftwaffe and the tank divisions. The French and British outnumbered the Germans significantly on the ground in men, tanks, and artillery. They were virtually equal to the Germans in aircraft. The French tanks were superior one-on-one to the German tanks, and so were the British heavy Matilda tanks, which were almost impregnable to any German tank gun of the time. But...the Germans used new, imaginative air and bitzkrieg tactics which proved absolutely decisive. Those tactics involved first nullifying the enemy airforce by hitting forward airfields, then breaking through a fortified line in one small area with massive air and tank forces and enveloping supply routes to the rear, thus nullifying the enemy forces in that line.

In a similar way, the Isrealis utterly defeated powerful Arab air and ground forces in 1967.

I never said Prescott Bush gave the Germans ALL their arms, though I bet he wished he could have landed such a big contract! He wsa making good money. I said he (among others) armed them. He helped arm them. Look it up.

I am not minimizing the American accomplishments in WWII, which were huge. I am pointing out that others also made huge contributions to victory. It was the USA which stood to profit most in the end, because no one could reach them and bomb them and their own land was left undamaged. This enabled the USA to become the most powerful country in the World after 1945, because they were the only participant not to be materially and financially devastated by that war.

When one empire fades, another takes over. The British Empire faded after 1945 and the American and Russian empires took its place. The USA then took 50 years to spend the Russian empire into bankruptcy, causing the collapse of the Soviet Union. The USA now figures it can do anything it wants in the world, and Britain is riding on the USA's coattails, like a jackal hoping to get a bite or two for itself when the big lion is finished eating.

What you don't get, Pogo, is that imperial powers are not nice guys who go around trying to help other people and give them freedom. They are devouring carnivores with big appetites. They must delude their own public into believing they are doing it for all kinds of wonderful idealistic reasons, otherwise their own public would stop supporting the government.

The British did that for 300 years. Napoleon did it for maybe 15 years. Hitler did it for a few years. Tojo did it for a few years. The Soviet Union did it for more than 50 years. The USA has been doing it ever since they took land belonging to some unfortunate Mexicans and Indians, but they've been doing it on a much bigger scale since 1945, and specially since George Bush the Elder took office.

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: katlaughing
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 12:14 AM

Nancy King, me, too!!

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: ard mhacha
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 05:36 AM

The Daily Mirror newspaper [UK] asks in it`s front page headline, " Can 59 million people be so daft?", of course they can, now we know the worlds top terrorist elected by the brainwashed.

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: GUEST,Pogo
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 10:37 AM

LH:

Some country will always be the most powerful country. Which country would you like that to be?

Your thinking would change dramaticaly if you were to have a terrorist attack similar to 9/11 in the UK.

Until then just stay in good graces and quit accusing the US of being like Nazis. That is an insult.

There is no new or old world order. There is the present state of the world that changes when something happens like an attack or an election. Just get used to the changes.

PS: Chamberlain was a stupid dickhead.

Pogo

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 02:41 PM

What would I like to see? A World where the rule of law applied equally to all nations. A World with a guaranteed minimum wage at the same basic level in all regions. A World free of nuclear weapons and other such horrible weapons.

This is not likely to happen soon, though.

We are quite unlikely to be attacked, because we are not attacking anyone. I'm not in the UK, I'm in Canada. If I were in the UK and it was attacked, which it may well be, I would blame Tony Blair for it at this point, because it was his decision to attack Iraq without need or provocation, and he is practicing grand imperialism.

To accuse the US government of behaving like the Nazis may be seen as an insult, I understand that, but it is not intended as such...because...if it's true, then it's not an insult, but a warning to ordinary Americans that they are being lied to and used by their government. I like ordinary Americans (though we may disagree on politics).

A New World Order was spoken of by Bush the Elder back in the 90's, after the fall of the Soviet Union. The plans for instituting that New World Order were described in a document put together by Neo-conservatives called "Project for a New American Century". Look it up on Google here:

Project for a New American Century

That will tell you pretty much the whole story on present USA foreign policy, which is nothing less than a plan for world domination, a world empire, achieved through the fighing of a number of "small-theatre" wars. Among the key planners of that project were Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. Jeb Bush was also a signatory to the document. G.W. Bush is just the regular guy, the "face" they selected to get elected as front man.

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: DougR
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 03:58 PM

I am moved to pose this question. Why in the world would ANY American care a rat's ass what the rest of the world thinks about the person who is elected president of the United States?

Do any of you American Mudcatters have a voice in who leads any other country in the world? Were any of you invited to vote in the Russian election? Afghanstan? France? Germany? Austrailia? Ireland? Were any of you consulted about who should be the Prime Minister of Great Britian? Will you be invited to vote in the Iraqi election in January? I think not.

And whoever those countries choose is the BUSINESS of those countries, not ours!

The American candidate for president, regardless of party, is not trying to win a popularity contest with the world! He is campaigning to be president of the United States.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: DougR
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 04:14 PM

Daylia: Standing in the corner is rather childish, I think, but you should be very ashamed.

L.H. Right, L.H. America did little to win WW2. And your hope of one day living in a country that is ruled by a world government, hopefully, will never happen. I don't think it ever will.

dianavan: your statement that the U. S. is going it alone in Iraq is pure crap. From a New York Times story printed in our local paper today: Troops in Iraq: United States 135,000;United Kingdom 8,500;Italy 3,000;South Korea 2,800;Poland 2,400;Ukraine 1,600;Netherlands 1,345;Romania 700;Japan 550;Bulgaria 480;El Salvador 380;Australia 300;Hungary 300;Mongolia 173;Azerbaijan 151;Georgia 150;Portugal 120;Latvia 133;Slovakia 105;Czech Republic 90;Lithuania 90;Albania 71;Estonia 45;Kingdom of Tonga 44:Macedonia 32;Kazakhstan 27;Moldova 12;Norway 10.

I realize facts will not keep you from repeating the "go-it-alone" lie, but facts are facts.

And again, LH: yes, comparing the American government with the NAZI IS an insult, and I for one resent even if no other American on this forum does.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 04:18 PM

Doug...if you can't see why we should care about what the rest of the world thinks, then I understand better why you can't see the damage Bush has done and is likely to make worse.

I will not waste my time typing out explanations to those who have their heads buried in the sand.

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: GUEST,Pogo
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 05:36 PM

Look If you don't like America and Americans so what?
I don't pass judgements on other people or countrys unless they are trying to harm America or Americans.

You can elect Sir Elton for PM for all I give a shit.

If you don't like what America did for the UK, if you think America did not do anything for the UK or if you think we were not needed, Ok. Whatever floats your boat.

Say it, get it over with and sod off.

Pogo Possum

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: Metchosin
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 06:06 PM

Guest Pogo also seems unaware that Ole Grandpappy Bush was also doing banking for the Nazis and got his fingers rapped by the government eventually, for trading with the enemy.

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: GUEST,Pogo
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 06:10 PM

That has been covered my the worlds foremost expert LH but the can't disclose the UK's pre-ww2 role in the middle east.

Pogo

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 06:16 PM

I am NOT from the UK! (grin) I'm from Canada. (It's that enormous area of land that is immediately north of you Americans.) But thanks for the good wishes anyway.

Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo didn't give a rat's ass what the rest of the World thought either. Where are they now?

Doug, if you read the Project for a New American Century document carefully you will see that there is indeed a plan in the works for world government...run by the USA...and I am not the one who is recommending it. People like Dick Cheney are the ones working for that. I'm recommending a World Bill of Rights which gives equal rights to all people everywhere. That is not the same thing as a world government. We already have a shaky body of world law that is supposed to protect all people, in things like the Geneva Conventions, and in notions such as: it is illegal to wantonly invade another country, and it is illegal to commit mass murder, rob banks, etc. That's what we have Interpol for, isn't it? To catch crooks who flee to another country.

We have been taking shaky steps in the direction of establishing common rights and protections for ordinary people on this planet for centuries now, and those steps have not resulted in any nation losing its independence, but they have saved the lives of many ordinary people.

A nation which cares nothing for the opinions of the rest of the World is an outlaw nation, just as a person who cares nothing for the opinions of the rest of a town (regarding his actions) is an outlaw.

Go ahead and be proud of it if you want to. It's your leaders who are aiming to set up a world government, not me, and it's called the New World Order. It will rule by force, not by justice, if it succeeds.

And I quote my own words in a previous post, Doug: "I am not minimizing the American accomplishments in WWII, which were huge."

In no way am I saying that the USA did "little to win World War II". I am saying that they did not do it alone or even close to alone. The Russians and British did no less.

My dream is not of a world government. My dream is of many fully independent nations of people living in brotherhood and peace with one another, all protected by a consistent body of legal rights and freedoms, so that they can live in safety and security in whatever unique fashion they find suitable to them, regardless of religion, race, or any other distinction. This is no threat whatsoever to your values as an American or mine as a Canadian or anybody else's either. It's merely an improvement (a big one) of what we already have in this World today.

You have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, right? Well, so do I and so do the French and so do the Iraqis, but we would like to work out our own local ways of doing it, thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 06:24 PM

The ill equipped and poorly trained Aussie 'Choco Soldiers' stopped the Japanese cold and drove them back in New Guinea - I seem to remember that it was one of their first major land reverses.

The British were attacked by Terrorists letting off bombs for years - they were called the IRA...

"You don't fight someone like that, you hope to survive them. If they invade and occupy, of course, then you fight them as best you can. "

That's what many people in the rest of the world think - and 'invade' nowadays includes trade - see the 'F*** The Aussies' so call 'Trade Agreement'...

Robin

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: GUEST,Pogo
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 06:32 PM

Is there anybody in Canada that knows the UK's history in the middle east? You seem to be drawing a blank. You may find that it is directly related to the problems we are having now. Hint: Pakistan came from where?

The UN was supposed to keep everything fair and square in the world. Are they doing it? If they can't who will? Canada? It you want the job, have at it.

Pogo

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 06:45 PM

You're dead right about that, Pogo. The British had a long history of mucking around in the Middle East and Asia playing power politics at the expense of the local people, and it IS directly related to the problems we're facing now. Good point.

The U.N., like the League of Nations before it, has failed to be very effective. In fact, it has mainly served as a pawn for the major powers to either manipulate (when they could) or blame (when they couldn't).

"The job", as you put it could only be accomplished if all existing countries had a genuinely equal voice in decision-making and if a 2/3 or 3/4 majority was required to sanction a decision...and THEN only if the people who disagreed with that decision had enough respect for the rest of the World to obey it!

In other words, a basic change in human intentions is needed here. That changes one person at a time, but it really requires inspired leadership at the top to give people hope, and we don't have that at the present time.

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 07:05 PM

For instance, here is an article about the British occupation of Iraq in the 1920's and 30's and Britains use of bombing, gas, and chemical weapons on Iraqis, sanctioned by "Bomber" Harris and Winston Churchill:

a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,939608,00.html">British terror bombing in Iraq in 1920 and afterwards

A brief quote from same: "An uprising of more than 100,000 armed tribesmen against the British occupation swept through Iraq in the summer of 1920. In went the RAF. It flew missions totalling 4,008 hours, dropped 97 tons of bombs and fired 183,861 rounds for the loss of nine men killed, seven wounded and 11 aircraft destroyed behind rebel lines. The rebellion was thwarted, with nearly 9,000 Iraqis killed."

History was simply repeating itself in 2003, only the Americans and British doing it this time. The Iraqis know this. They are not stupid and they have not forgotten.

The reasons were the same then: empire and oil.

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: GUEST,Pogo
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 07:09 PM

At least I am gaining a little recognition here for knowing something.

If the UN and others of the 2/3 or 3/4 majority are profiting from the status quo In Iraq and do not want to consent and if the US and the UK are charged with containing Saddam at their expense and getting shot at in the process and lastly if there is a smoking hole in NYC caused by terrorism that Saddam supports (note that Saddam was not directly involved in 9/11) One would tend to get a little anxious to "Get-R-Done" and take out Saddam while the corrupted countrys are trying to maintain the profitable status quo.

Note that these same countrys were not concerned about what was happening to the people of Iraq as long as they were making a profit.

Before you snap back, read up on the oil for food scandal that is being investigated despite the resistance of the UN.

As a foot note: EVERYBODY, Not just GWB mistakenly thought he had WMD's. Saddam even wanted other countrys to think he had them so he would seem more menacing to his neighbors.

Another foot note: Read up on Salman Pak

Pogo Possum

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 07:13 PM

Damn. Screwed up the link somehow. I will post it again. It's definitely worth reading. Hang on...

British in Iraq in '20's and '30's

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 09:01 PM

surely (pogo) you dont think GWB really believed there were WMDs in Iraq.
They needed a reason to convince the public to go along with the invasion. Thats why when the UN succeeded in getting more inspections on the ground the US changed tactics and said that it wasnt enough
they wanted regime change.

the most convincing reason I believe they went into Iraq is because of their idea of transforming the middle east from despotic dictatorships into jeffersonian democracies. (the only trouble was that it was an infantile fantasy_ - Dick Cheney "we will be greeted as liberators" - that might have worked if they didnt screw up so much.

GWB said he would do everything all over again, which is simply astounding.. even allowing the looting? not bringing enough troops to secure the peace (because Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz felt Shinsekis estimate of the troops required was 'wildly off the mark',
disbanding the Iraqi army?
thereby creating an instant cadre of armed, embittered and idle young men.

and basically after Abu Ghraib the US lost any moral authority it had
in ousting Saddam.

(why should americans care? about what the rest of the world thinks-
well Id say that the next time the US wants to build a coalition, to topple some dictatorship - who's going to take them seriously?

and whether they like it or not, the US is part of a global economy which is constantly evolving - your jobs are heading over to CHina and INdia.

- and if Americans think that the European Union (which is fast becoming a much bigger political coalition with twice the US population) hasnt much political clout - look at what they did earlier this year when the EU threatened huge tarrifs on steel (especially in states that Bush needed) the US quickly backed down.
didnt make much news in the US.

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 10:58 PM

Right on, petr. The USA will presently find it HAS to listen to 2 powerful entities: a united Europe and a modernized China. No one country is strong enough to boss the whole World around or ignore its opinion, not even the USA.

The American dollar sank again today. A year ago it was worth $1.50 Canadian and now it's down to $1.22 Canadian.

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: *daylia*
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 08:01 AM

Pogo, in Canada we are committed - militarily, politically and even philosopically - to supporting the UN and helping it "do it's job".

In all honesty, can the prevailing US administration say the same?

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: GUEST,Pogo
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 09:49 AM

Liars believe that every body else is a liar.

I don't.

Pogo Possum

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: GUEST,Siggy
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 09:52 AM

PARANOIA:

Definition:
An unwarranted tendency to interpret the actions of other people as deliberately threatening or demeaning.

Causes, incidence, and risk factors:
People with a paranoid personality disorder are suspicious of other people, and they are usually unable to acknowledge their own negative feelings towards others. They do not lose touch with reality. The cause of this disorder is unknown, but the incidence appears increased in families with a schizophrenic member.

Prevention:
The cause is unknown; prevention is also unknown.

Symptoms:

    * suspicion
    * concern with hidden motives
    * expects to be exploited by others
    * inability to relax
    * inability to collaborate
    * social isolation
    * poor self image
    * detachment
    * hostility
    * argumentative
    * poor sense of humor
    * unforgiving
    * easily slighted

S Freud

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 06:41 PM

vote map

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: Metchosin
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 07:45 PM

ah gee, how come they didn't put the blue States on too? They put Alberta, Texas North, on for Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: Cluin
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 07:56 PM

Yeh. Take that map with a grain of salt.

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 08:20 PM

no, the map wsn't supposed to be serious, I'm sure.

The results-by-county map, available everywhere, probably on another thread, is very interesting to ponder. A friend in Austin, TX claims he now knows what it must have felt like to lived in Berlin.

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 04:52 AM

Dream on Pogo - the US the only victims of terrorists? In the UK we lived with the terrorists for years, and maybe still do - the Irish financed by the Americans.

Learn from your mistakes, and from mistakes of others. When you leave people no hope and nothing to live for, then they will die looking for the road to hope. Your time will come.

And I for one hugely resent the John Wayne school of history of the Second World war. Sure, the USA helped. Somewhat.

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: dianavan
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 06:08 AM

Thanks for saying that, Richard.

Why is it that the U.S.A. seems to get all the credit for winning World War II? Seems to me they had alot of allies and in those days the enemy was pretty obvious.

d

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: *daylia*
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 08:30 AM

dianavan, I think the only people who give the USA all the credit for defeating Hitler are a very small and relatively insignificant group of misguided, myopic Americans.

At least, I certainly hope that's the case!

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: GUEST,Stalin
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 10:16 AM

America did nothing to win the war against the Nazis.
They were not wanted or needed and they have nothing to be proud of.
The American soldiers that died in WW2 were idiots, there death means nothing.

The Europeans, mainly Russia defeated the Nazis.

All Europeans should spit on Americans because of their arrogance in claiming they had any part in defeating the Nazis.

We only let then occupy Germany to keep the fools busy.

Comrade Stalin

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 12:00 PM

Stating an extreme opposite and obviously false position on something to sarcastically attack a true position is the customary rhetorical method of fascists such as both Hitler and "Guest, Stalin".

It's an avoidance of actual dialogue.

Here's how I break it down for defeating the Nazis:

Great Britain: 30% credit
Soviet Union: 40% credit
America: 30% credit

The only reason I give the British as much credit as the USA is this: They fought alone from the time of the fall of France until June of '41, and they held off the Germans at the height of their power and saved the West. Had England not held in 1940, the Germans would have been untouchable in Western Europe, and the USA would have had to settle for co-existing with a German-controlled Europe while the Germans fought a long, bitter war in Russia...which they might or might not have won in the end. My guess is, the Russians and Germans would have fought to a stalemate, had England fallen.

The USA and Germany would then have glowered at each other across the Atlantic for some considerable time afterward, but probably not fought a direct war with one another, because neither one of them could have effectively mounted an invasion of the other across that ocean. Too big a logistical challenge.

Most likely they would have settled for limited military squabbles and interventions here and there in places like Africa and the Middle East. A kind of "cold war", in other words, similar to what developed between the Soviets and the Americans after WWII.

Russia would have suffered terribly, but probably have held out with some loss of the westernmost areas to the Germans.

As for Japan, that's a separate matter. The Americans would undoubtedly have fought Japan anyway in '41, and defeated them by '45, due to vastly outproducing them in armaments.

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 08:51 PM

And another reason why the opinion of the rest of the world about who leads the USA matters, is that I only see a one country (and a couple of its puppets) at the moment and for the last couple of decades or so systematically invading other countries because they don't like the outcome of the local method of choosing leaders.

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 10:29 PM

It might not come amiss to list the comparative numbers of casualities of WWII, Little Hawk. The Soviet Union had tremendous losses, far more and with a much higher percentage than that of the US.

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 03:47 AM

Actually, China has also invaded other countries to change their leadership, fairly recently, but not, I think, so many as the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: *daylia*
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 05:42 AM

Here you go Ebbie - WWII casualties by country, according to Wikipedia.

Allied soldiers killed

Australia: 23,400
Brazil: 493
Canada: 37,500
China: 2,500,000 (CCP and KMT forces)
Czechoslovakia: 46,000
France and Free French Forces: 210,000
Greece: 88,300
India: 36,000
Luxembourg: 4,000
Netherlands: 7,900
New Zealand: 10,000
Norway: 2,000
Poland: 123,000
South Africa: 6,840
Soviet Union: 8,668,000
United Kingdom: 264,000
United States: 292,000
Yugoslavia: 300,000

TOTAL Allied soldiers killed: approximately 12.6 million


German military casualties = 3,500,000 (includes Austrians and Sudeten Germans in German Army as well as other nationalities forced to join the Wehrmacht.
German civilian casualties totalled 2,760,000 (including 200,000-2,000,000 World War II evacuation and expulsion).

So, almost 6 million Germans died for Hitler. I do hope people wise up before that many have to die for Bush and Co's "Project for a New American Century".

One question for someone who knows a little more about Scandinavia than I do ... according to the article, 82,000 Finnish soldiers died when Finland was attacked. Could this be a typo? Finland is so tiny ... how could it have produced so many soldiers???

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: *daylia*
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 06:25 AM

Re Then with our left hand we whipped the Japs at the same time. (Pogo)

In the course of WWII, the Japanese suffered 1,300,000 military casualties plus almost 700,000 civilian casualties. In Hiroshima (pop 255,000) 80,000 were killed instantly when the bombs fell on August 6, 1945. Approx the same number died in Nagasaki.

Here's a few intimate details about how those "Japs" were "whipped".

The atomic bomb was considered a "quick" and even economical way to win the war; however, it was a cruel and unusual form of punishment for the Japanese citizens.

The weapon that we refer to as "quick" was just the opposite.
On one hand, it meant a quick end to the war for the United States, and on the other hand, a slow and painful death to many innocent Japanese. According to a book called Hiroshima Plus 20 the effects of radiation poisoning are horrific, ranging from purple spots on the skin, hair loss, nausea, vomiting, bleeding from the mouth, gums, and throat, weakened immune systems, to massive internal hemorrhaging, not to mention the disfiguring radiation burns.

The effects of the radiation poisoning continued to show up until about a month after the bombing. In fact the bomb also killed or permanently damaged fetuses in the womb. Death and destruction are always a reality of war; however, a quick death is always more humanitarian.

When this powerful nation called the United States dropped the bomb, we sent out the official "go ahead" for the rest of the world that nuclear weapons were a viable means of warfare. We unofficially announced that it was O.K. to bomb women, children, and elderly citizens...


What a giant leap forward for mankind! And we can thank those trusty Americans for showing us the way. Think I'm gonna write home to Mama about it right now   ;-)

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: GUEST,Pogo
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 08:27 AM

Daylilly:

What would the Japs have done with a nuke if they had one?

Pogo Possum

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: *daylia*
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 08:40 AM

Dunno, Pogo. All I know is what I WOULDN'T have done, if it had been my finger on that button.

I suspect I'd have considered the godawful global precedent I was setting AND the lives / environment of 160,000 people much more important than my immediate economic concerns.

Even if the people standing in my economic way were only the lowly "Japs".

daylia


PS - Just so you know, the only people who call me "Daylilly" are the ones who dream of eating me! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: GUEST,Pogo
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 09:12 AM

Ooooooh! now you are sparkin' up my day.

Pogo Possum

PS:

You know I have actually said to others that the dropping of the bombs on Japan was wrong and I was told that those civvies were supporting and producing stuff for the war.
I do think it was wrong but you have to remember that civilizations grow more intelligent over time. How can we hold ourselves responsible for what our ancestors did? We did not make their decisions for them.
There have been massive injustices carried out by almost every nation in the world like the Abos in Australia, The Indians in the US and Canada, The genocides in Africa, all examples of one faction overpowering another faction.
The only thing we can gain from looking back is to learn from them. Should Brittan be doing penance for all of the Beheading carried out by the government, or France for all of the people guillotined there? That was the way it was back then. The future starts now.

I don't think the US, knowing what we know now about nukes, is going to do anything like what we did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We are more committed to keeping it from being done by us or anybody.

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: *daylia*
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 09:25 AM

I'm glad to see we're not so different after all, Pogo. You're right - no-one is responsible for what their ancestors did or didn't do. But we are still burdened with cleaning up the messes they left behind, unfortunately.

I don't think the US, knowing what we know now about nukes, is going to do anything like what we did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We are more committed to keeping it from being done by us or anybody.

Well ... all the more power to you then, if that's the case. And may this commitment be extended to include ALL forms of warfare and weaponry, someday.

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: GUEST,Pogo
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 09:46 AM

Unfortunately trying to clean up a mess creates another bigger mess. That is what is happening in Iraq

Some day we must push a giant reset button and declare all past messes irrelevant and work toward improving the current quality of life for mankind and quit going back in time.

In the Balkans people are still killing each other over injustices they think happened 1000 years ago. Enough is enough.

For example Israel should pull back to the borders originally defined by the UN, build a big ass wall to protect themselves and let the Palestinians have at it on the their side of the wall.

Pogo Possum

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 10:16 AM

"...America joined the war..."

America never "joined the war" - Japan attacked, and then Germnay declared war. The USA didn't really have much say in the matter.

But the heavy lifting really was done by the USSR ...

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: GUEST,Stalin
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 10:46 AM

Addendum:

The stupid Americans never joined the war, they imagined that they did.

They mistakenly think they were in charge of D day.

Russia did the heavy lifting.

Comrade Stalin

Subject: RE: BS: How the rest of the world voted
From: *daylia*
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 12:12 PM

Unfortunately trying to clean up a mess creates another bigger mess

Hmmm ... maybe it's because you're still using "Mr War".

How about trying a new, different, more powerful and effective, non-toxic - hey, maybe even environmentally friendly brand of "cleaner"!?