 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Barinthus
|
 |
A Magical Moment...
Jan 2004
time: 21:20
|
|
I can understand the disliking for outsiders to meddle into American politics. However as every day passes, the world is becoming more and more of a global village. As the current vanguard nation, what happens in the States do have ripple effects far beyond her borders. I say that everybody have right to be concerned about what's going on in the States. The approach could be different although.
The question here is - should everybody just stand by idlely and watch Americans making decisions that will have some kind of impact on their daily lives?
What if your situation were different and decisions made by voters in Chile have the potential to affect how you live and whether if your brother or son will get sent to fight some war overseas that you didn't want any part of but have no choice since your government want to maintain some kind of favorable relationship with Chile. I'm sure you'd be very interested in what's going over there and be concerned.
Anyway here's some more information...
quote:
UK anti-Bush letters spark outrage
LONDON, England (Reuters) -- A pro-Kerry letter-writing campaign by Britain's left-leaning Guardian newspaper, targeting undecided U.S. voters, has provoked outrage across the Atlantic.
The paper has encouraged its readers to express their opinions on the November 2 presidential election to voters in the key swing state of Ohio -- to the fury of Clark County, about 45 miles west of Columbus, the state capital.
"Hey England, Scotland and Wales, mind your own business. We don't need weenie-spined Limeys meddling in our presidential election," was one of the e-mail reactions to the campaign.
The Fox national cable television network tore into the newspaper and even John Kerry's own Democrats expressed horror at the campaign.
"We all feel it is not a good idea. I think it was unwise. It is so poorly thought-out," said Sharon Manitta, spokeswoman in Britain for Democrats Abroad.
But the newspaper, whose cartoons regularly portray President George W. Bush as a semi-literate ape, was unrepentant.
"We did consult a number of opinions and made our decision accordingly," assistant features editor Paul MacInnes told Reuters. "It has been an operation to give our readers an opportunity to express their opinions."
With just two weeks to go before the election, Kerry is running neck and neck with Republican incumbent Bush.
Ohio is a key swing state which Bush won by just four percentage points in 2000, and Clark County is at its heart.
The campaign is a bid to sway voters on the county's electoral register who have declared themselves undecided.
As of Monday night, more than 14,000 people had registered to write to a voter in Clark County, which has a population of just 143,000.
Individuals like film director Ken Loach, spy writer John Le Carre, historian Antonia Fraser and opposition Liberal Democratic parliamentarian Menzies Campbell have all written in their own capacity -- not that their names necessarily carry much weight in Clark.
The Guardian, which simply bought a list of registered voters and extracted the undecided, pledged that it would only give out the name of each voter once, to avoid them being swamped by unsolicited mail from complete strangers.
"We know that in many ways this is the world's election, and we understand the passion and concern in many parts of the world over it. But I wonder how people here in the UK would react to Americans telling them how to vote," Democrats Abroad's Manitta said.
"This will certainly garner more votes for George Bush. I have strongly advised other media entities who have come to me and suggested this against doing so," she added.
While some e-mails to the Guardian from Democrats in Ohio were supportive, others suggested the campaign was misguided.
But their mild admonitions paled into insignificance against the more reactionary views received by the paper.
"Real Americans aren't interested in your pansy-ass, tea-sipping opinions. If you want to save the world, begin with you own worthless corner of it," wrote one from Texas.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS...reut/index.html
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
Speaking as a Guardian reader, I saw the campaign and thought it was a bad idea - If someone wrote to me and told me how to vote (whether I was already voting that way or not) I'd be pretty pissed off.
but also..."REMEMBER THE WAR OF 1812?"
I didn't think we started that one?...and didnt we win? or at least tie? (genuine question, not an attempt to piss people off) |
The UK certainly didn't start that war and it is an example of a particularly pointless and inconsequential war.
The UK was boarding US vessels and impressing US citizens aboard those vessels into their navy. The UK was also enforcing an a blockade of trade between the US and the continent but that by itself would never have been sufficient to inflame passions to the point of war. The UK decided that the impressment was more trouble than it was worth so parliment acted to stop it. Before the news could cross the atlantic the US declared war. Lacking a standing army and a strong navy the US concluded that the only way to fight the war would be to send a number of state militias into canada to fight the brits there. The militias did a really piss poor job of it and the british forces stationed in canada actually managed to repel the militias and pursue them over the border into the US.
Later the british navy dropped off some small units of veterans of the Napoleonic war on the undefended US coast where they decisively defeated a hastily assembled group of militias outside washington. They then entered Washington on the heels of the fleeing government and stopped to burn down the public buildings. They got as far as burning down the white house, the capitol and the library of congress before a humongous hurricane whipped in (complete with a few nasty tornados) and did a number on the city and the british forces alike while (somewhat ironically) preventing the spread of the fires. The next day, the demoralised brits started back towards their battered ships and didn't bother with any additional burnings.
The next effort was another invasion directed against baltimore but here the british navy was unable to neutralise the fort built to guard the entrance to the port and the british forces on the shore were unable to fight their way toward the city so they retreated back to the ships.
The US won several naval engagements on the great lakes but control of the lakes failed to reverse the successful occupation by the british of some of the US forts they had captured after repelling the earlier invasion into Canada.
The UK sent diplomats indicating a desire to negotiate an end to the war and soon a decision was made to restore all conditions to the status quo antebellum. So word was sent out that the war was ended and everything would be exactly as it was (with the minor territorial concession that the US would aquire those parts of minnesota which were north and east of the mississippi, nobody knew it contained a huge iron ore deposit at the time).
However slow communications still had a role to play and a planned british invasion of New Orleans took place after the end of the war resulting in Andrew Jackson very decisively defeating a much larger force of british Napoleonic war veterans suffering only a couple dozen casualties. A huge lopsided victory that battle certainly was but since it occured after the terms of the peace had already been agreed upon I refuse to see it as evidence that the US 'won' the war of 1812.
The war of 1812 was a pointless war that ended when both sides realised just how pointles it was and the only thing the US really got out of it was the Mesabi iron range (which they didn't even know existed at the time). The only huge victory the US won was after the war was over.
Anyway I hate to see people make claims about either side kicking the others arse in that pointless muddled and badly fought conflict. Who knows who would have won had the Brits really cared to fight it to the bitter end?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
We started it, and we like to think we won. Considering we didn't end up being reconquered by the most powerful country in the world, that's not an invalid claim. |
With the ouster of Napoleon the British world-wide blockade ended, and along with it, the reason for the war. No territory was gained or lost by either side.
It should be pointed out that during the French Revolutionary / Napoleonic Wars the Brits attempted to seize Egypt, Argentina, Cuba, Mexico, Venezuala and Haiti, and were repulsed each and every time. So how powerful was Great Britain then really/
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-10-2004 01:52
|