Some possibility, looking at the political dynamic in Germany, but not a certainty. The public sentiment in Germany wrt the reports of the situation the Iraqi population is subjected to is mainly “Something ought to be done” but also “Helping the Americans would be seen as signing off on the invasion” and “Let’s not risk our boys’ lives”.
In a hypothetical situation where a future fully legitimate Iraqi government aked for help, and helping could be seen not as “helping the Bush administration out of the hole it has dug itself” but “helping the US out of the hole the Bush administration has dug” the opposition (the presumptive winners of the 2006 elections, unless they screw up badly) could afford to come out in favour, and a significant part of the red/green coalition’s supporters also would. The situation would be much as in 1999 when the red/green government managed to barely pull off participating in the Kosovo war against Serbia against the will of a large portion of their electorate and parliament members. Or in 2001 when the chancellor got approval for troops to Afghanistan (he had to couple it with a vote of confidence, i.e. ‘approve this or fire me’, to get approval). At present, with a Bush administration, if either government or opposition came out in favour of troops to Iraq they’d be handing the 2006 election to the other side.
Oh, and not really related to the OP but to my previous post and to the question it was in answer to: I believe to help out in Iraq troops from (non-neighboring) Muslim countries would be much better than troops from Germany, France or wherever.
[QUOTE=Cat Fight]
In Canada , Anti-Americanism is on the rise. Don’t get me wrong- it has always existed, to a point. But there was sympathy offered after the last election to citizens living under the rule of a president they hadn’t chosen. Now, the kinds of comments I hear are more along the lines of “Well, now they’ve really done it…” …QUOTE]
I’ve heard the same in Australia today. People who yesterday were able to forgive Americans because they lived reluctantly under such a shitty regime are no longer feeling quite so accomodating.
One bloke on the radio this morning confessed to lying, calling himself a Canadian to evade the shit-slinging that was coming his way with a Merkin accent.
In my younger, poorer, more desperate days I too have been a polling clerk (someone who works in the polling station handing out the ballots etc)
This is how it works here:
Voter has a voting card delivered to his house telling him the location and opening times of the poll.
Voter takes self and card to polling statioon (card is actually optional - but it makes life easier - otherwise you may be asked to prove who you are (you usually aren’t).
Voters name is crossed off electoral roll and ballot paper(s) given.
Voter goes to little booth and places pencil cross by selection(s) of choice.
Voter puts ballot in big tin box.
Voter goes home.
Voter gets on with life.
Total time taken about 5mins.
I have never seen a queue at a British polling station (and we have higher turnouts for our equivelent elections).
I think you will find that the rest of the world is amazed that the nation that can build stealth bombers and get cheese in an aerosol can’t organise an election.
I’ve heard the ‘Bush will invade Canada for the Alberta oil reserves’ theory too, and I think it’s rather insane. See, the US can buy that oil, and there are probably a lot of American companies involved in extracting it (or at least investing in Canadian companies that do). There are some catastrophe theories that has the US invading Canada for the oil After The Oil Runs Out, but these are attention-seeking catastrophe theories that are highly implausable at least. And even the catastrophe-theorists don’t imagine that happening within four years. Unless they self-published their books 10 or 15 years ago, in which case 2005 would be a nice safely-in-the-future number that is also 666 times 3 plus 7! <tinfoilhat=OFF>
It means very little – the policies are mostly the same despite the great imagined divide between the candidates. In most cases, Bush’s policies are better for Canada, but most Canadians don’t like his personality. I personally doubt he will be invading any other countries any time soon. About a fifth of the US Army is already in Iraq and much of the rest is waiting to go or has just got back. The US is certainly capable of a two-front war, but a two-country occupation is a different matter.
Helping Bush means he will do more of the same… and since Americans support Bush so much… let them take care of his mess. A multilateral approach would be better of course… but you have to be multilateral BEFORE you invade… not after.
Once there is a feeling that Iraq is really independent… and not some US puppet… that changes things. It one thing to help out others in a difficult situation in any country… its another to send your kids to die for a stupid invasion.
Well, I dunno about his policies. I mean, fiscal irresponsibility may in the long run weaken the US economy, and if it tanks, so does Canada’s. And Canada’s ongoing trade disputes with the US over lumber and cattle, plus recent division resulting from Canada’s refusal to join the Iraq war, haven’t been so good for Canada. The US’s policies in the last couple of years haven’t always been good for Canadian citizens themselves, either.
We’ll have to decide whether to go along with this missile defence thing - the governing party’s position is unclear on it, one opposition party says we need to get in bed with the Yanks over it, and two are vehemently opposed. It could be divisive in the current minority parliament.
We’ll likely see more policies that one part of the country strongly dislikes, while another supports. This could unnecessarily amplify existing regional divisions.
We could see more trade problems and holdups at the border, and possibly a tightening of border security.
We could see more Canadians in trouble like Maher Arar had, and if so, a serious division between the two countries may occur. (Not to mention torture and imprisonment for the citizens in question.) That and expect some people to start avoiding travel to or through the US (I already know a number of people with this practice.)
What does it mean for Belgium?
People here may well be even more bewildered at Americans, and negative stereotypes may strengthen. As one of my co-workers this morning quipped: “This may come as a surprise, but here in Europe, we actually care about the world outside.”
We may see more situations where the government has to compromise its positions to appease the US, lest Brussels lose NATO HQ or something. This could inflame far-right Flemish separatists, who may use it as an excuse to decry the “weak and unprincipled” federal government. On the other hand, if Bush screws up in adventures inspired by a “We don’t need no allies” attitude, it may make some of the people think twice about buying into a similar sentiment espoused by the Vlaams Blok. Or not. Both of these scenarios are a bit of a stretch.
What does it mean for Europe?
As mentioned by others, expect more trade disputes.
Expect division within the Union on whether to provide assistance in Iraq, and how to react to Bush’s next “Grave and Imminent Threat”, if another one appears.
Expect some to push for a need for a common defence policy, and no agreement to be reached on what that policy should be.
Well, I’ve always held the position that Bush should have been much more multilateralist before trying to invade Iraq. Most of the liberals I know feel the same, and consider Bush’s failure largely a done deal, not something that had much hope of being fixed now that the war is officially a giant fuckup. The “you broke it, you fix it” policy is a reasonable approach to Bush unilateralism. Maybe Kerry in office would have been symbolic enough to take a different stance, but in the absense of such a signal from the American electorate, I see no reason why other nations should feel obliged to aid an American hegemonist and his supportive electorate in a war of aggression over safeguarding oil supplies. It’s as simple as that.
Perhaps so, if Bush or America was what was at stake here. However it’s not, it’s Iraqis, civilians, women and children, which you propose to sacrifice on the alter of some petty American interparty rivalry and Bush angst. No, a reasonable answer would be: it doesn’t matter one whit who destroyed it, lets see if we can all fix it.
Iraqis aren’t the only thing at stake… and though I agree on the “reasonable answer” you mentioned… these aren’t reasonable americans to be dealing with.
I mean, really, if we could have elected somebody else, I think that would have sent a signal to the world that, hey, this Bush thing was a court-ordered accident. We’re willing to play along, so please, help take one for the team.
With Bush, there is not “team”. There never was. My way or the highway, right? That’s whay you pubbies loved so much about the guy, correct, his stiff resolve in the face of international pressure to be more “soft” on the “terrorists”? Why in the holy fuck should any other nation throw the lives of their children away for our benefit now, or put the lives of their countrymen over those of the Iraqis we have wrongly victimized? It’s now, officially, our responsibility, and if we get more help, it’s a gift we don’t deserve, in a place that could easily wind up as intractable as Vietnam no matter who goes in, now that we’ve radicalized it. Perhaps the world community should have been willing to try and possibly fail with the gesture of an American act of electoral contrition. But now, what’s the justification? Oil? If so, then they become no better than us. Lives? Well, there’s plenty of good to do in Africa these days, and if I had to do some international triage to allocate limited resources, I would have to wonder if substantively beneficial African aid is now a more tenable goal than building a democracy in a country that now hates the West more than ever and is filled with insurgents willing to blow themselves to bits in endless numbers until we leave.
It would appear “fixing”, right now, involves forcing a “democracy” on the Iraqi people led by a panel of individuals hand picked by BushCo., who, if you notice, are getting picked off occasionally by assassins. Not only is it not safe to vote; our interim puppet govt. isn’t safe to lead in either. We’re killing Iraqi civilians at a rate that apparrently exceeds that of the Iran-Iraq war. So, is this what “freeing” the Iraqi people is all about? What, we install another Ngo Dinh Diem “elected” by the tiny fraction of Iraqis who dare to participate, and wait for him to get picked off too? If you were France, would you want to try to reason with BushCo., that maybe leaving full determination of their destiny up to Iraq, even if that involves the installation of a less-than-pro-West govt. is the best result for the preservation of Iraqi lives? You think Iraqi lives are important to BushCo. at all, in the grander scheme? You think France and Germany could convince BushCo. that’s what we’re fighting about now, not this terrorism lie?
No, the USA is the richest, most pwerful country ever. What can any other country offer but a figleaf? Whatever resources are needed in Iraq the USA can find itself. Want more troops? Send your own or draft some kids. Need money - tap your own taxpayer’s wallet.
Why should anyone else help out if in doing so all they are doing is providing a veneer of legitimacy to an illegal act?
The USA electorate have set their imprinteur on Bush’s actions now. Iraq is now their responsibility.
You all also may be forced to consider that if you take the pressure off of us in Iraq, with Bush in power, that may green-light the full-scale invasion of other nations, like Iran and/or North Korea. If we lack the resources to fight additional wars, we won’t do it. I’m all for putting international pressure on irresponsible regimes, and, when all diplomatic options are exhausted, using limited and targeted force to take out, say, elements of a rogue state’s nuclear infrastructure; but this preemtive invasion and regime-change approach is absolute madness. You know what Bush is capable of. Don’t give him excuses to keep it up. Please, please, please, make your leaders hear reason. DON’T let Bush fight the putative War on Terror as he has fought it, at least not with our assistance. Please DO help us in the policing effort by collecting the best intelligence, sharing it when appropriate, and arresting international terrorists, because I’m sure they’re trying very hard to attack us again. It’s worth it to fight terror together; just remember Iraq was never about terrorism, at least, not until we destroyed it.
A Bush victory means the majority of the US electorate support his actions over the last 4 years. Thats the way the rest of the world will see it (IMO). They wont be interested in the church vote / gay marrage bits, the tax cuts for whomever. Jonny foreingner will just see that Americans support Bushes actions.
However, many in the US dont care what the rest of the world thinks.
shrugs
“if ya let them do it to ya,
you’ve only got yourself to blame”
wolfstu: I sort of agree that the Canadian economy would suffer if the US economy doesn’t improve, but I’m not sure what influence Bush has on the economy as a whole. (I don’t think it’s right to blame Bush for the economic downturn in the US, because economic cycles are beyond political control in a free market, but I do think he can be blamed for not doing as much as he could to help the people affected by the economic downturn and outsourcing.) His deficits could certainly be a problem. Fiscal conservatives are just not supposed to have deficits, and many would argue it is better to r—e t–es (or raise war bonds, for what it’s worth) than to run a deficit.
Kerry seems to share Bush’s policies on softwood lumber and cattle (the two major US-Canadian trade issues) and had a few other trade policies that could’ve been bad for sectors of the Canadian economy. The border-crossing issue could be a problem, but it’s not terribly bad as it is for most people. It’s still possible to get your background pre-cleared to make it easier to cross. Crossing the border would be a problem for Canadians from Middle Eastern countries, and I would certainly not like to see anything like the Arar case happening again. If a similar case does arise, the person involved should be sent to Canada along with any relevant information, to be tried fairly if there is sufficient evidence. We have laws against terrorism too, and even something like the Patriot Act without as much scary stuff.
Likewise, I hope that the concern over the Patriot Act having jurisdiction over non-Americans can be resolved. If the American government wants access to a Canadian citizen’s records, they should have to obtain permission from a Canadian court. Again, we have laws to cover this sort of thing, and I don’t think Americans would like the idea of Canadian laws applying to them, unless they smoke marijuana or want to marry someone of the same sex.