|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Mar 24, 2003 21:14:03 GMT -5
Many people woke up to the reality that the world urgently needs a serious counterweight to the United States. Will a new organized alliance of Europe, Russia and China be necessary to bring back some balance? It's one thing to act against a dictatorship by peacefuly disarming him through the United Nation but it's another one to unilateraly decide on an act of war against a country and set fire in one of the most explosive region of the globe. If by some miracle this war doesn't degenerate with Israel, Turkey, Iran or others jumping in with their own agenda, once Bush is done overtaking Iraq, what other regime will he feel should be overthrown? Obviously, international opinions no longer will stop Bush from accomplishing aggressions he feels justify to do. He's become the prosecutor, the jury, the judge and the executioner. I am not ready to let one nation dictate it's agenda and impose us, by means of weapon superiority what's good and what's not. I don't know about the rest of you, but I am really, really proud in our government stand to dettach themselves from the actions of our neighboor but I wonder what sanctions awaits us...
Freedom and peace must ALWAYS prevail.
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 24, 2003 21:26:36 GMT -5
The was a good article about Lloyd Axworthy's thoughts on this in the Vancouver Sun today but I can't find it online. He wants Canada to take a more active role in the UN and says that international participation in rebuilding Iraq can help repair the bridges that the US has burnt.
Edit: He talked about a strong united Europe as a balance to the US and said Canada could be a neutral intermediary since Britain can no longer fulfill that role
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 24, 2003 21:59:10 GMT -5
Depends............ The current administration is running full steam ahead on their Wolfowitz Plan (Doctrine?) and if they are successful in implementing positive change in Iraq then there is no stopping them other then an election. Even then, the Democrat's my start to like the effects of this plan and continue it. It depends where you stand on the Plan. If it does bring a positive cycle of events and the domino effect take place like eastern Europe then what is wrong with it? If it doesn’t then we have at best, no change and the world remains the same, at worse, Fortress America. The UN has NO chance of usurping the US. It baffles me why people think that the US is run by a bunch of yahoos. Some like to think that but I have news for them, they know their geopolitics. Don’t look now, but they ARE the military masters. They destroyed Russia and it is now a hollow shell and can do nothing. China is at best a regional power. Europe is carefully nurtured by the US in order to maintain control. Many European countries joined the EEU only to benefit themselves but are now finding out that France and Germany have other ideas. No one should underestimate how distrustful the Eastern Europeans are of the Germans. They may not like America but they fear Germany and loathe France. Can the UN just demand that the US go into a corner. What do you think is more likely? The US destroying the UN or the UN pushing around the US? The US will disband the UN and create a new body with Britain, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Japan, Taiwan and several eastern European countries in a matter of hours. Is anyone naïve enough to think that we will not join? Reality is not a TV program. The US controls ALL the sea lanes in the world. Their conventional military power is 10 times that of Russia and I think that I am very conservative on that. I often wonder, even if the whole world worked up the nerve, can they still match the US? I think I read too much of Jane’s Weapons News.  Are they stoppable? Only if they force the US into a Fortress America mentality. To do that would involve so much risk that it is scary to even think about it. To go further with that thought. With the US in a shell, China will go after Taiwan in an instant. North and South Korea better go to bed and come out married or they are going to explode in no time. Japan will re-arm. If China does not take over Taiwan, then Taiwan will go nuclear instantly. The Ireali's will go overtly nuclear. The sea lanes will become a free for all. I could go on.... Think about it for a moment, what is the lesser evil? You may not like Pax Americana but do you want a power vacuum fought over by China, Russia and the Dictator flavor of the day? Please remember, there can not be a power vacuum, people (countries) will rise to fill it. It's human nature. I have more thoughts on these matters but I like to hear others opinions. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 24, 2003 22:11:27 GMT -5
The UN needs the US to provide muscle and momentum.
Problem is, the US doesn't appear to think it needs the UN. They've realised that they can do without diplomatic niceties, and that worries me to no end. Not for Iraq in and of itself, but for what might happen later.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 24, 2003 22:22:47 GMT -5
The UN needs the US to provide muscle and momentum. Problem is, the US doesn't appear to think it needs the UN. They've realised that they can do without diplomatic niceties, and that worries me to no end. Not for Iraq in and of itself, but for what might happen later. It doesn't. If the UN and Europe are smart enough, they will work around the present administration and prey like hell that the Democrats take over and even then, it's not assured that they will give up the Wolfowitz Plan if it works. Best hope to stop Pax Americana? The US has to FAIL in Iraq in order to go back to it's corner. On the other hand, if the UN has a hand in trying to make the US fail, the UN will join the League of Nations in the Bahamas for some sun. I love international chess politics. I even have a beautiful world map in my den. That's why I want to be World Emperor.. Go Machiavelli Go |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Mar 24, 2003 22:42:04 GMT -5
I can see fear stepping into the picture. Let's say the US continues on its merry way, slowly making anyone it doesn't like, do what it wants. How long before China, Russia or some other country gets very afraid? Their options are to wait and hope the US comes to its senses, or to strike first. Not far-fetched at all. Will the US stop at Iraq? Bush won't. Life is very simplistic for him, and I doubt his advisors are the strong type who would voice any opposition. I doubt he has surrounded himself with anyone who thinks differently than he does...a characteristic of weak leadership.
Look at the very big picture. Bush's whole position is one big joke. His own people were so undecided, they basically didn't elect anyone. The entire economy has been one big downhill rush since he took over...almost as if the country was waiting for a reason to go into the tank. Leadership is so critical. The two presidents before Lincoln were so inept they helped lead the US into a civil war, and it took a very capable, strong man to lead them out (in a bloody way). Weak leadership is very, very dangerous, and I can't help but see no good leadership qualities in this guy. I wonder if Dubbya still thinks of our PM as Jean Poteen. Would you follow this guy anywhere?
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 25, 2003 0:21:08 GMT -5
It doesn't. If the UN and Europe are smart enough, they will work around the present administration and prey like hell that the Democrats take over and even then, it's not assured that they will give up the Wolfowitz Plan if it works. Best hope to stop Pax Americana? The US has to FAIL in Iraq in order to go back to it's corner. On the other hand, if the UN has a hand in trying to make the US fail, the UN will join the League of Nations in the Bahamas for some sun. All of which leads to the awful situation of almost wanting the Iraqis to give the US a run for their money - which means, in essence, hoping the bad guy does well (for all Bush's problem's, he's no Saddam ), which I find terribly hard to accept. With luck the US beats up Saddam, then decides getting a stable government is too much work, and they'll *really* let the UN try and run the place.... which could turn ugly in so many ways, but not as bad as a US-dictated government. |
|
|
|
Post by spozzy on Mar 25, 2003 0:37:12 GMT -5
Europe is as fragmented as ever. Most European countries--including virtually all of the eastern Europe (save for Russia which still has the nasty habit of illegally selling arms to Saddam)--support the US.
You cannot play neutral in this war. Further, we don't even look neutral. The lacking capacity of our government to understand this war on terrorism is one thing, having its members say they hate Americans and that their leader is a moron is quite another. We may well end up with not a single ally pretty soon. Considering we are economically entirely dependent on the US, we are in for some tough times.
|
|
|
|
Post by spozzy on Mar 25, 2003 0:48:01 GMT -5
The UN needs the US to provide muscle and momentum. Problem is, the US doesn't appear to think it needs the UN. They've realised that they can do without diplomatic niceties, and that worries me to no end. Not for Iraq in and of itself, but for what might happen later. PTH, you continue to chirp about this despite having already been given North Korea, a current event no less, to refute your claim. Why is the world pushing the US to deal alone on this issue? Meanwhile, the US insists this needs to be addressed by the UN. Go figure... |
|
|
|
Post by spozzy on Mar 25, 2003 0:51:31 GMT -5
With luck the US beats up Saddam, then decides getting a stable government is too much work, and they'll *really* let the UN try and run the place.... which could turn ugly in so many ways, but not as bad as a US-dictated government. I'm sure the US won't have any problem with this...as long as France, Germany, and Russia have even less control (and for good reason). |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 25, 2003 0:53:28 GMT -5
PTH, you continue to chirp about this despite having already been given North Korea, a current event no less, to refute your claim. Why is the world pushing the US to deal alone on this issue? Meanwhile, the US insists this needs to be addressed by the UN. Go figure... Why ? Well, the US started down the unilateral route with North Korea back in 94 or so, with the deal that they'd shut down the nuclear stuff in exchange for food and oil, then the US backed out of the deal when a leak let it be known that N. Korea already had the bomb - so if N.Korea went back on the war trail it's partially because the US backed out of its agreement, and the rest of the world hasn't been involved to date, and figures the US was able to get into this on its own, so now they have to find a way out on their own, too. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 25, 2003 0:55:53 GMT -5
I'm sure the US won't have any problem with this...as long as France, Germany, and Russia have even less control (and for good reason). So, essentially, Iraq can stay under UN control as long as absolutely no one is in control ? That'll work... |
|
|
|
Post by spozzy on Mar 25, 2003 1:06:06 GMT -5
Will the US stop at Iraq? Bush won't. Life is very simplistic for him, and I doubt his advisors are the strong type who would voice any opposition. I doubt he has surrounded himself with anyone who thinks differently than he does...a characteristic of weak leadership. Oh give me a break. Bush has surrounded himself completely with people signifantly smarter than him. That's a sign of a good leader...there are no 'yes' men. Let's have it... That's his position? Reality check: The WORLD's economy was in chaos long before Bush stepped on deck. It was only a matter of time before the American economy started to sink. How is, say, Chretien, a better leader? |
|
|
|
Post by spozzy on Mar 25, 2003 1:11:58 GMT -5
Why ? Well, the US started down the unilateral route with North Korea back in 94 or so, with the deal that they'd shut down the nuclear stuff in exchange for food and oil, then the US backed out of the deal when a leak let it be known that N. Korea already had the bomb - so if N.Korea went back on the war trail it's partially because the US backed out of its agreement, and the rest of the world hasn't been involved to date, and figures the US was able to get into this on its own, so now they have to find a way out on their own, too. Okay, okay...let me get this straight. North Korea tells the US they broke the deal, so the US is to blame. How do you figure?? |
|
|
|
Post by spozzy on Mar 25, 2003 1:21:34 GMT -5
So, essentially, Iraq can stay under UN control as long as absolutely no one is in control ? That'll work... , only neutral members of the UN should take control. The US will have a very hard time accepting, until it is stable, Iraq to be run at all by France, Germany, and Russia (who've all proven they can't be trusted even with the simple task of respecting sanctions). |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 25, 2003 1:48:07 GMT -5
Okay, okay...let me get this straight. North Korea tells the US they broke the deal, so the US is to blame. How do you figure?? No, the US broke the deal first, when some dorky DoD guy said something about North Korea havign the bomb - which set off an outrage, which made the US cut off the aid they were sending as part of the "stop building nukes" deal - whereby North Korea figured if the US could dump the deal, so could they, and they started building weapons again. The US started this as a 1-1 talk, they can't ask the UN to step in once they've screwed up. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Mar 25, 2003 8:38:26 GMT -5
Depends............ The current administration is running full steam ahead on their Wolfowitz Plan (Doctrine?) and if they are successful in implementing positive change in Iraq then there is no stopping them other then an election. Even then, the Democrat's my start to like the effects of this plan and continue it. It depends where you stand on the Plan. If it does bring a positive cycle of events and the domino effect take place like eastern Europe then what is wrong with it? If it doesn’t then we have at best, no change and the world remains the same, at worse, Fortress America. The UN has NO chance of usurping the US. It baffles me why people think that the US is run by a bunch of yahoos. Some like to think that but I have news for them, they know their geopolitics. Don’t look now, but they ARE the military masters. They destroyed Russia and it is now a hollow shell and can do nothing. China is at best a regional power. Europe is carefully nurtured by the US in order to maintain control. Many European countries joined the EEU only to benefit themselves but are now finding out that France and Germany have other ideas. No one should underestimate how distrustful the Eastern Europeans are of the Germans. They may not like America but they fear Germany and loathe France. Can the UN just demand that the US go into a corner. What do you think is more likely? The US destroying the UN or the UN pushing around the US? The US will disband the UN and create a new body with Britain, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Japan, Taiwan and several eastern European countries in a matter of hours. Is anyone naïve enough to think that we will not join? Reality is not a TV program. The US controls ALL the sea lanes in the world. Their conventional military power is 10 times that of Russia and I think that I am very conservative on that. I often wonder, even if the whole world worked up the nerve, can they still match the US? I think I read too much of Jane’s Weapons News. Are they stoppable? Only if they force the US into a Fortress America mentality. To do that would involve so much risk that it is scary to even think about it. To go further with that thought. With the US in a shell, China will go after Taiwan in an instant. North and South Korea better go to bed and come out married or they are going to explode in no time. Japan will re-arm. If China does not take over Taiwan, then Taiwan will go nuclear instantly. The Ireali's will go overtly nuclear. The sea lanes will become a free for all. I could go on.... Think about it for a moment, what is the lesser evil? You may not like Pax Americana but do you want a power vacuum fought over by China, Russia and the Dictator flavor of the day? Please remember, there can not be a power vacuum, people (countries) will rise to fill it. It's human nature. I have more thoughts on these matters but I like to hear others opinions. It's not a question of Evil and Good, we're not in Star Wars, the Americans have not been touched by God to be rightfull in every decision they take. It's not a question of liking the United States or not, it's not about appreaciation of the degree of competence of the people in the US government. It's got nothing at all to do with any of that. The real debate is about letting one point of view, one country rule the world. That's what it is. We desperately need a balance. It used to be provided by a strong USSR and the threat of an open nuclear conflict with them, now, as we see, there isn't anything to counterweight. Do you think that the US would have invaded IRAQ if an equally strong European/Russia military power would have said: "...you go in, we go in too and openly oppose you, whatever you want to achieve (disarmement) will have to be done through the UN in an organizaed fashion. Now sit M. Bush..." They wouldn't have gone in, they would have negociated, they would have used the UN, like they're suppose to. As you point out, the UN and the allies have let the United States take a international position that is right now very dangerous to all government, society, ideology or religion that doesn't have the US seal of approval. Those who don't see the great danger in this situation might have missed something about WWII or any other act of war where a nation and it's leader believed that it holds the supreme truth and rightfullness that has to be teached to the rest of the world. As PTH pointed out, this situation is just the tip of the iceberg, it's the future that scares me. The UN and NATO received a great challenge that they must urgently rise to IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Mar 25, 2003 8:51:40 GMT -5
Hey I know...let's start a rally to disarm the U.S. and overthrow it's current regime!!!  CO |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 25, 2003 9:35:51 GMT -5
It's not a question of Evil and Good, we're not in Star Wars, the Americans have not been touched by God to be rightfull in every decision they take. It's not a question of liking the United States or not, it's not about appreaciation of the degree of competence of the people in the US government. It's got nothing at all to do with any of that. The real debate is about letting one point of view, one country rule the world. That's what it is. We desperately need a balance. It used to be provided by a strong USSR and the threat of an open nuclear conflict with them, now, as we see, there isn't anything to counterweight. Do you think that the US would have invaded IRAQ if an equally strong European/Russia military power would have said: "...you go in, we go in too and openly oppose you, whatever you want to achieve (disarmement) will have to be done through the UN in an organizaed fashion. Now sit M. Bush..." They wouldn't have gone in, they would have negociated, they would have used the UN, like they're suppose to. As you point out, the UN and the allies have let the United States take a international position that is right now very dangerous to all government, society, ideology or religion that doesn't have the US seal of approval. Those who don't see the great danger in this situation might have missed something about WWII or any other act of war where a nation and it's leader believed that it holds the supreme truth and rightfullness that has to be teached to the rest of the world. As PTH pointed out, this situation is just the tip of the iceberg, it's the future that scares me. The UN and NATO received a great challenge that they must urgently rise to IMO. Good and Evil? Or Realpolitic? Think of the US right now as a rhino in heat. Do you really want to get in front of them and get gored? Chaney is got both ears of Dabya and is not letting go. Like I said elsewhere, Powell is nothing better then a bell hop to the White House right now and he is the ONLY voice of reason there. I think it is VERY dangerous for anyone to start to interfere with the US for a short while until the WH calms down a bit. Suggesting Europe AND Russia go and try to stop them is futile at best and deadly at worst. Besides, why should one assume that Eastern Europe will side with Russia and Germany/France? Does Poland look to Russia and Germany as their trusted friends? Seriously? How about Ukraine? Bulgaria? Never, ever underestimate the distrust that Eastern Europe hold for Germany/Russia. We in Canada have not suffered UNDER those countries ambitions. Look at the reality right now. Why are Poles fighting with the US? Why? It seems that no one but me can see a silver lining in the Pax Americana cloud. If it does work on the radical countries, what makes it so bad? Who cares if Dictators start trembling. Do I really care if the Saudi royal family has to stare down a Abrahms barrel? Why not stir up fear in totalitarian regimes? What is so wrong with that? As long as positive change comes out of it, like Eastern Europe, then I am happy. Can somebody PLEASE tell me how badly the collapse of communism is? Can someone please tell me how badly the Poles feel because they are no longer under the suffocating grip of Russia. All this US bashing totally ignores what they have done in Eastern Europe. Then again, one may think that it was better before. The US IS a catalyst of change and NO ONE else in the world is capable of it. Believe it or not, they do have a vision of the world. If, watch that word “if”, if there is a profit to make out of it, even better. But before anyone starts the “US for oil and profits”, keep in mind what they have done without regard to anything but that "vision" thing. Remember Somalia. They tried and lost but who was ready to do more? Look at all the self sacrifice they have done in wars over the century to help keep this "rock in space" tolerable. The Ugly Americans are not all THAT ugly, just a little too much make-up and a little to much dollar oriented. As far as Canada, does anyone really think the US is going to come and overthrow Chretien? Do you think that we are THAT much of a worry to the US? I think not. They can kick us in the head buy just closing the border for 1 week. In 1 week I have laid off everyone in my company and I will tell you for a fact that I know of 5000 people who will be out of a job instantly. One has to be realistic of how much we depend on the US for trade. If you think the great depression was bad, wait until you lose 60% of your trade. Economic starvation, up close and personal. Reality sucks. Yes, I know, it’s not fashionable to be pro American. (In many ways this debate reminds me of the endless debates we use to have in cafes in Athens. Way back when I had a full head of hair and the world was there for the taking. All we need is some strong Turkish coffee.......*sighs*......*laughs* Meanwhile, I’m heading out to work, so I can make more product, so I can sell it to the Ugly American consumer, so my people can earn money, so they can put food on the table and clothes on their back, so the economy can keep spinning, so others can also have spin off jobs, so.....………) |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Mar 25, 2003 10:39:15 GMT -5
You go to extreme HA. I don't think the Americans are bad, ugly, mean and I don't bash them. They are clients, suppliers, partners, friends and brothers.
What I say is this particular situation openly stresses to the face of the world that the Americans can now freely go My Way or No Way.
I don't think Russia and Europe should armed themselves right now and go push the US out of IRAQ, I agree with your rhino analogy, now isn't the time. But I think for the future that a new strong alliance should surface to counterweight the POV of the United States that chose to set themselves apart as they clearly no longer need their traditional allies, they no longer need UN approval.
You're confident that they will forever fight the good fight to overthrow unwanted tyrans? I'm not. As BC pointed out in another post, they haven't been acting against many other regims of terror 10 times worst then Saddam's. Their actions serve THEM and they only make sure they have sufficient propaganda and disinformation going on to convince some people that they really do what they do for the greater good. That being said, right now they haven't been too convincing at that and the international opinion is really not in their favor. Tony Blair, the only other really strong ally of Bush, has sealed his own political faith by blindly supporting the US action, a British government that would have been truly representative of it's people would have gone Canada's way and ask for a negotiated UN motion with a deadline.
Answer this one, what is the UN suppose to do at this point with the United States?
|
|
|
|
Post by GMan77 on Mar 25, 2003 12:07:04 GMT -5
HA you keep saying what hell if the US scares a few dictators... who cares, at worst nothing changes.
Well the reality is THERE ARE losers, in every war, every coup d'etat the CIA has masterminded, there have been thousands of civilians deaths.
Yes the US act as the police.. and everybody hates the police but the fact is if you don't have the police it's anarchy, so the alternative would be worse.
Ok... I get that.
But the world shouldn't settle for "it could be worse" and just accept this.
It'll take A LOT of time to catch up to the States, but Europe should be trying to catch up so to be able to act as a counter weight one day.
As for us, acting as the intermediary between the US and Europe is the right way to go... remaining somewhat "neutral" allows us to mostly avoid US's "horns" while still showing we will not simply be yes-men.
As we go forward we should progressively reduce our dependance on the US economically.
I said progressively... we'll obviously continue to depend on them heavily, but we need to reduce it because they keep re-writing the rules when it doesn't favor them... and keep using the threat of cutting us off to screw us at every turn.
Focusing on increasing trade with Europe but also 2 huge markets like India & China should be a high priority going forward.
We do have to be careful of economic reprisals, but that doesn't mean we have to be their figurative "b*tch" either. Just as when Trudeau became good friends with Castro despite US objections.
The way Klein in Alberta is being US's "b*tch" by supporting the States on the war because they want in on the oil contracts that will be available in Iraq.
Klein himself has admitted he has heard that many contracts Alberta had with the US have been canceled as a form of reprisal for Canada not supporting them.
The whole so-called "coalition" the US has gathered is a group of countries they have paid off or threatened with economic reprisals. Most are so ashamed they are supporting the States they are trying to keep it quiet. Poland tried to hide the fact thay had troops in Iraq, but it came out today.
We should not let ourselves get blackmailed in that way. If we disagree we should disagree regarless... if not let's just adopt the US dollar and become the 51st state while we're at it.
Btw Mexico relies heavily on the US and they did not support them either.... our position is not unique among the US dependant countries.
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 26, 2003 4:24:08 GMT -5
GM77 you present a much more realistic view than many people on this board. Good job. Quite frankly there have been some pretty moronic statements made in this debate as it has been quite heated and people seem to lose sight of the issues. Everyone should make their posts as straightforward as that one.
To quote our 'fearless leader' (Bush) on the balance of power issue:
|
|
|
|
Post by GMan77 on Mar 28, 2003 17:37:15 GMT -5
What do you think of the American media's coverage of the war? Too critical 25% 1134 votes Not critical enough 62% 2789 votes Just right 13% 599 votes Total: 4522 votes That's the poll on CNN.com\wolf... seems like some americans are actually aware they are watching biased coverage... that or everyone voting is from Canada like me 
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 28, 2003 18:35:46 GMT -5
You'd be an idiot to believe that the coverage is not biased. The real question is how biased? I assure you it's not as biased as Iraqi TV (where the Iraqi's are apparently winning the war) or any number of other news outlets.
Like I've said - CNN is looking for $$$ and only $$$. Right now, the money is in making the US looking like they're fighting a good fight (They're not. The Iraqi resistance from the looks of what every embedded reporter has shown us has been marginal at best - just the other day CNN was carrying on about a major firefight between one or two guys with a machine gun in a building, and a squadron of marines backed up by three tanks. That, ladies and gentlepeople, is not a fight. That is a one-sided overkill). But the minute someone at CNN sees something they can jump on - like say, 'why is it taking so long', don't doubt for a moment they will.
Later
|
|
|
|
Post by spozzy on Mar 29, 2003 16:48:47 GMT -5
No, the US broke the deal first, when some dorky DoD guy said something about North Korea havign the bomb - which set off an outrage, which made the US cut off the aid they were sending as part of the "stop building nukes" deal - whereby North Korea figured if the US could dump the deal, so could they, and they started building weapons again. North Korea admitted (finally) to having nuclear bomb(s). THIS was the deal breaker. North Korea wasn't even permitted have an active nuclear weapons program, much less actual nukes. Very very interesting, PTH. Here the UN shouldn't step in because the US "screwed up." But with respect to Iraq, where the US "screwed up" the UN should step in? |
|
|
|
Post by spozzy on Mar 29, 2003 16:50:58 GMT -5
What do you think of the American media's coverage of the war? Too critical 25% 1134 votes Not critical enough 62% 2789 votes Just right 13% 599 votes Total: 4522 votes That's the poll on CNN.com\wolf... seems like some americans are actually aware they are watching biased coverage... that or everyone voting is from Canada like me Seems to me that you really value Internet polls... |
|
Are they stoppable? Only if they force the US into a Fortress America mentality. To do that would involve so much risk that it is scary to even think about it.
