You haven’t bothered to actually read this thread, have you? Here, I’ll jog your memory:
In other words, blatant and up-front admission of trying to subvert the US political process.
Nothing to do with not sending troops to Iraq.
Read the thread, thanks. I liked this bit from the OP:
It’s not even that subtle, for goodness sake.
Point is; The US election *is already being manipulated *in so far as domestic opinion against Bush is influenced by the negative ‘Iraq situation’. Europe and the UN could improve the ‘Iraq situation’ for Bush, could even bail him out, but neither are.
Part of the reason for that is . . oh, never mind.
In other words, a discrete and deniable attempt to subvert the US political process. The key words there were 'subvert the US political process’.
All campaign laws aside (as most of the US politicians ignore/bend them anyway)…
The US has been meddling in (s)elections all over the world for decades (centuries?). Indeed … Bush’s very policy is that he has God’s personal mandate to meddle in whatever affairs of the world he deems “America’s Interests”. People outside the US are affected by our leadership more and more… no surprise that they want to have some say.
In other words … whatever makes Bush more likely to lose is OK by me. ;oP
What I’m saying is that Europeans are being just as selfish about the reasons they opposed the Iraq War as the US was in prosecuting that war. The war in Kosovo against Serbia was every bit as much unwarranted interventionist meddling as Iraq is, was every bit as much a “quagmire” or perhaps more so than Iraq, and just as unwise overall. But Europeans supported it because it meant Americans dying to solve a European problem. They want our guns at their command to solve their problems, so they don’t have to do their own dirty work.
I fail to see how multilateralism somehow magically turns a bad war into a good one. If the war is wrong, then multilateral support for that war just means that more countries are in the wrong. The number of countries supporting a war isn’t what makes a war right or wrong, no more than the number of people who follow a religion makes that religion correct or incorrect. The European obsession with multilateralism, the UN, and NATO makes it seem as if that’s the deciding factor.
What America needs is a president who stops sending our soldiers off to the far corners of the world to meddle in the soveriegn affairs of other nations. What Europe wants is an American president who uses our money, our resources, and the lives of our soldiers as an international police force solving other people’s problems at the direction of the Euro-dominated UN.
While we’re on the subject of the “UN Millenium Goals” http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/, here we see at least some expression of European anti-capitalist values in point #7, and support for my contention that Europe doesn’t just want the US to change its behaviour towards the world, but also wants the US to become more like Western Europe internally.
Of the 8 points, the first 5 are all strong points for the US. Specifically on point #2, the Bush administration is spending more federal money on K-12 public education than at any time in the nation’s history. The quality of life points are weak mostly in impoverished African nations. The gender oppression points are weak in Islamic countries, the precise places Bush hopes to bring the light of democracy and reform. (I don’t think it’s our business to get involved in the internal organization of sovereign nations, but Bush does.) President Bush has probably done more for the 6th point than anybody else on the globe, by virtue of the giant chunk of cash he’s shuffled off to fights AIDS in Africa.
But I’ll be damned if I see an American president try to implement “sustainable development”. That’s a buzzword popular in the social & environmental justice crowd, this generation’s army of faithful Marxist/socialist intelligentsia. It means imposing artificial limits on consumption. It buys into the Malthusian proclamations by people like Paul Ehrlich, the idea that resources are fixed, and that people are a drain on resources and only act to consume them, that wealth is static. “Sustainable development” would have our government forcing people to halt growth, to hyper-regulate every facet of our lives. The American ideal is that people are producers, not just consumers. The American ideal recognizes that growth fuels efficiency, which actually makes the cost of resources drop over time. The American ideal recognizes that capitalism is the best and most efficient way to allocate resources and to create more resources.
The 8th point is just another tired call for the Northern hemisphere to throw money at the Southern hemisphere and cancel all their debt. But that point does seem very favorable towards free trade, and Bush is a free trade proponent.
Using information and reasoning to try to convince other people of something is just so. . . unethical?
If you want to influence the politics of a foreign country you should have the guts to do it the right way: invade the country and impose your own chosen government.
Wrong ‘war’, I’m afraid. There was no ‘ground war’ in Kosovo involving western troops, it was a US led air campaign conducted by NATO and designed to prevent genocide.
The catalyst for it was the moral position of Blair and Clinton; neither could bear to sit back and do nothing in the face of this new genocide after what had happened in Bosnia. Kosovo was an example of good overcoming evil, and after which:
"NATO’s planned peacekeeping force in Kosovo calls for 50,000 armed troops with European nations providing the bulk of the NATO peacekeeping force and U.S. troops making up 15 percent of the force, Clinton said. "
- it’s something you can be proud of and for which the Kosovans who survived the attempted genocide are eternally grateful.
Ok, I still fail to see how this campaign can be considered ‘subverting’. I think ‘influencing’ describes it accurately, if they were trying to rig the elcetion by tampering with the vote-counting machines I would go for subversion. Any chance that the rethorical misuse of this word could stop?
Anyway… I don’t know why but most of the posts here seem to be pretty off topic. Any chance we can stick to the subject? Why is it wrong for a foreign organisation or foreign citizens to try and influence the US presidental election. Now, I am going to be irritated if someone repeats “What if the US gave money to Mr.X in whatever-country?”. It is not about giving donations to any candidate, it is about raising “issue-awareness” (most likely). Why it is wrong is not answered by saying that someone else would be pissed off if it happened to them.
I’d also like to point out that the “What the world needs…” quote wasn’t mine but taken from the site, if that wasn’t clear. Arguing that some other war was or wasn’t supported is also highly irrelevant, the issue is still not about the Iraq war or any other war but non-US citizens trying to influence the US election.
I also just recieved some information that I found interesting. Allegedly Bush recieved donations from Barrick (a gold company) as payback for Bush sr. giving them mining rights worth $10 billion. I haven’t had time to check this out very much but I am sure my fellow StraightDopers will jump at the chance:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/07/09_gold.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd02152003.html
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=207&row=1
If that is correct it would be a pretty direct influence by a foreign (Canadian) company in the election proccess, since that was not for “awareness-issues” but a direct contribution to the Bush campaign.
This is an interesting debate to follow. Not in the least because it makes the US members actually reflect on the US foreign policy.
So you think you should oppose every foreign influence in your country’s policy? You have every right to reason like that.
Next step: Understand now finally why other nations and their citizens oppose the US influencing, mingling, conspiracies, invasion, occupation, creation and support of puppet governments .
Now don’t tell me that you are better then the rest of the world?
On the OP:
I doubt if this initiative has any chance on succes. But the fact alone that it exists shall be a bit of a welcome shock for the US’ers who find out about it.
Creating a bit of empathy with other nations who are very directly influenced -and worse- by the US can do no harm.
As for the posts of London Calling considering the UN and Europe (in general): as always he is right on it.
Salaam. A
<dealing with attempted hijack>
My God, you’re so right! Thank you, Aldebaran, for opening my eyes!!
</dealing>
I’ll be meeting with a bunch of people for lunch and I’ll bring back their replies, unedited. They range in politics and age and levels of education, but I have the feeling what they say will require hiding the kiddie’s ears.
My own take? Letting views be made known, fine. Letting us know how they agree with what the Dem is trying to do, fine. Running an ‘anybody but Bush!’ campaign alone, with that the main focus–now, THAT will backfire like a Mack truck.
See ya later.
Based on the web site to which you’ve linked, it seems “most likely” that the main issue raised will be “George W. Bush=bad”. The site introduction mentions Bush by name seven times, with the following commentary:
Most American presidential elections have only two serious candidates. Spending money to criticize Bush is equivalent to giving money to his opponent.
Personally, I don’t think it is wrong. In fact, if I had my way, it would be legal. I just don’t think it’s likely to be effective. Citizens of foriegn countries don’t share the aspirations and problems of the United States. They don’t live here, don’t pay our taxes, and don’t have to live under our laws. Why would I expect Europeans to know or want what’s best for the United States? I would expect them to want what’s best for Europe, and that might well be a weak United States.
Not at all. But it is in the interest of EU and the whole world to have a US president who actually can think ahead for a few decades and includes in that thinking the rest of this globe.
What is mentioned in the OP must be - once again - a precedent never seen… You must admit that Bush II has achieved things no president before as able to do. Yes yes… The man really makes history.
As historian I should be delighted to live in such exciting times. It’s almost too much to keep record. It gives us a constant headache.
Salaam. A
Errr… yeah. Wasn’t that clear in my post?
I think there’s a rather big difference.
I think it is legal but I agree that it will probably not be very effective. Best case scenario there will be a couple of ads on the TV critisising Bush, but wouldn’t there be whether these guys did it or not? And besides… it’s just ads, I don’t know how effective those sort of commercials are.
But because of the US’ position, the whole world is effected by its decisions.
I think that in the vast majority of cases, what is best for Europe is also best for the US, and vice versa.
Not really.
It may not be legal, depending on how they do it. I’m assuming they have lawyers, though. I don’t think they can actually use Bush’s name, as that goes outside of so-called “issue advocacy.”
The whole world is affected by the EU’s positions, too. I don’t actually have a problem with this, so long as they stay within the law. But I do wonder how certain countries would feel if US citizens poured money into a campaign in Europe.
Sometimes. Not always. The question is what is best for Europe and the US?
Why don’t you start a web site and collect money for issue awareness in whichever country you find suitable and we’ll find out.
I don’t know why people keep saying this. It’s not really relevant to the discussion I think, unless of course you’re saying that it is wrong but you can’t back it up with anything other then “I bet you would be upset if it happened to you”. If it’s about you being upset by foreigners trying to influence US policy, why don’t you say so and motivate why?
Me earlier:
See? Now I’m irritated. And I was just going to bed. I’m going to go to bed irritated, because of you. You suck. Bastard…
At the risk of sounding trite… because they don’t have to live here.
The concerns of non-natives will naturally revolve around how the US affects them, and thus around foreign policy. My concerns revolve around how the US affects me, and includes both foreign and domestic policy. The latter, in many respects, is more important or at least more immediate, in terms of its impact on my life. And American domestic policy is something that I’d suggest most foreign people don’t worry about too much. Also that even if they do think about it, their opinions will not necessarily reflect mine, or mainstream America’s.
In other words, it really is a case of what you want not necessarily being what is best for me, or at least not not necessarily being what I think is best for me.
From Stoneburg
Back it up? As I said earlier, Stoneburg, if you wanted a legal, factual discussion, you should have posted this in GQ, not GD. This is the DEBATE threads area.
As most of the posters saying what is iritating you (I’ll get to THAT little tidbit in a sec :)) ARE Americans (including me :)), it would do you well to think about what they are saying. They are TRYING to basically put you in OUR shoes, so you understand WHY it would iritate US for Europe to attempt so blatantly to subvert (:)) our political process for THEIR own ends. You are obviously not getting it, though.
As to the last part of the statement, my god man, that IS what we’ve been saying. Yes, we don’t want ferriners influencing US policy…are you happy now? Why don’t we like that? ROFLMAO!! Do I need to answer that part for you STILL??? We don’t like it, cause THEY DON"T LIVE HERE!! I can’t get plainer than that my man.
From From Stoneburg
Trust me on this one…if you really get this easily irritated, don’t come to this forum…you will die young. 
Not only are the people on this board contentious, argumentative, and stuborn, but the board itself is powered by lazy hamsters that eat your posts constantly. It enough to drive a man to drink sometimes.
Reguards,
XT
That’s why they’re called f-king FOREIGNERS!
You’re saying it’s bad because foreigners are foreigners, and that’s supposed to be “clear”? I think you have to be isolationist or xenophobic for that to make sense, and let’s assume I’m not, mkay?
Actually, that’s the impression I am bringing with me from this thread, that the American respondants are isolationist/xenophobic and hypocritical (it’s ok for US to meddle in other nations policy but not the other way around).
That seems like a lot of time and effort to do something I don’t care about that much really. Plus, I’d have to study their laws and such which might be difficult given my lack of real legal training.
Well, because the campaign doesn’t bother me. Lots of countries place ads here trying to influence policy - Israel and Saudi Arabia are the two I’ve seen most frequently. Kuwait also ran some. As long as they stick to the vague “issue advocacy” political advertisements as I believe they are required to by law, then they have every right to run ads during campaign season.
I just believe that the people proposing this would likely be outraged if it happened in reverse, and that thought fills me with great amusement.
Moreover, it is fairly relevent to the conversation, as it’s very easy to show why many Americans wouldn’t like it by asking a non-American how they would feel if the same thing was done in reverse.
**
The impression that I’m getting from you is that you have difficulty reading. Neither xtisme, jklann nor I said that this was morally wrong, only that it was extremely likely to backfire. In fact, you said the same thing. Perhaps you should move past your apparently biases and preconceived notions and read the responses again.
From Stoneburg
Are you deliberately baiting me or something? You ask in your OP whether this is a good idea or not, and its been explained to you why its not. Its further been explained to you how this isn’t exactly a unique quality of America and Americans, and your response is “Well, its not like that in Sweden”. lol.
Then you bring this out…that we are all just isolationist/xenophobs. Get real man. I’m not even FROM America…I was born in Mexico. I’ve traveled all over the world, and I love other countries. I’ve even been to…gasp…Sweden.
From Stoneburg
Actually, the impression I’M getting is you came into this with a lot of preconceived ideas about America, and you are basically LOOKING for stuff to bust on them about. You want to take something that is basic human nature and turn it around in such a way that it becomes another thing you can fault Americans for.
You stubornly stick to the idea that its AMERICA that is like that, in spite of the fact its been pointed out to you that people in other countries (well, except in Sweden) wouldn’t like this either. You throw the fact that Americans meddle in other countries, without providing any cites for that (I suppose we are supposed to take your word for it). And even if they DO, are the people of those countries happy about it? Are they at all effective, these private citizens of America attempting to subvert someone ELSES political process, or does it backfire and blow up in their faces more often than not? Isn’t that the point of your OP?? Thats certainly the point I’VE been trying to pound into your thick skull.
Then you throw out this: “it’s ok for US to meddle in other nations policy but not the other way around” Now, you’ve changed the question and the field with this. This isn’t about your OP…its an America bash. We were talking about a PRIVATE group of foreign citizens trying to influence American politics…and your response is we are all hypocritial because our government has done such things in the past, so there for we should just bend over and take it when its our turn.
However, if you are going to shift around like this, I could point at the MYRIAD times the various European Powers have fucked with other countries political process. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Maybe you’d like to stick to your OP, or do you REALLY want to open this can of worms…I would think carefully about that. America has only been here for 200 odd years, so its chances for this kind of thing have been limited, whereas Europe has had lots more times to fuck around in other countries business.
If you just want an America bashing free for all, go to the pit. If you want a rational discussion…then lighten the fuck up and BE rational. Don’t throw invective at ME over this (as you can probably detect I’m HIGHLY offended at you portraying me as an isolationist and a xenophob. How would you like it if I called you a racist and a facist or something??)…you don’t have a clue who or what I am. If the responses you get don’t fit your neat little pre-conceived world, then either broaden your mind by THINKING about what people are saying or come up with something better arguements wise than “Well, its not like that in Sweden”.
-XT
There we go! 
Now I’ve gotten some answers. Didn’t know it was common for actual governments (I assume with Saudi Arabia nd Kuwait you mean the Gvt) were doing “issue advocacy” in the US.
I don’t think the people proposing this would be outraged if done in reverse. That’s my opinion, yours is that they would, none of us have anything to base it on. I’d give ME the edge since, well, they wouldn’t really have a leg to stand on and it would be stupid of them to be outraged. What would that look like? "Well it’s ok for us to try to influence them but come on… we can’t let them influence us.
No it is not. That is what I am trying to say. Even if it does turn out that whoever is asked wouldn’t like it, it still doesn’t talk about why and that is my point. Even if you could show that everyone in the world agreed with you by doing this, it wouldn’t explain why.
A: Why don’t you like mustard?
B: That guy doesn’t like mustard either!
A: Doesn’t matter, why don’t YOU like mustard?
B: Lots of people don’t like mustard!
A: Yeah but WHY?
B: You probably don’t like mustard either!
Yes.
Through all the answers, the only real explanation was that you (generic you) couldn’t expect non-US citizens (europeans) to a) know what was best for the US, and b) want what was best for the US.
That’s a good argument. Obviously someone not living in a certain country has a lesser probability of being educated on the issues etc, and aren’t possibly as highly motivated to see it prosper. However, the main issue here is foreign policy. If there was a foreign-policy President and a domestic-policy President the issue would be a lot easier I guess… there are several ways to attack the argument , some would be:
- You can’t guarantee that people who are US citizens want or know what is best for the country either
- Non US-citizens that actually care enough about the subject to be active in it are likely to be educated on the issue, meaning that they have as good a chance to know what is “best for the US” as a citizen (assuming some abstract “best for the US”)
- There is no obvious reason why citizens of nations allied to the US would not want what is best for it.
I think more important then the knowing and wanting what is best for country X, when it comes to democratic values, is impact. That is, IMO, why it could be wrong. The big difference between US citizens and, for example, Swedish citizens is that Swedish ones won’t be suffering a very big impact from it comparing to US ones. Basically, the bigger the impact is on you, the bigger your right to decide it is. But deciding means voting… the democratic idea is not neccesarily that everyone should be allowed to vote on every issue, but surely everyone should be allowed (and encouraged) to speak on every issue… as you can see, I’m in two minds about this.
Hehe, yeah, no shit. It’s not like we ever stopped either, just changed the way it is done. I just threw that on there because you guys were so apathetic, seems to have worked.
Also, it is important to remember that this is not a government action. It’s the action of a private organisation.
I’d be suspicious and start suspecting you of going through my mail…