If The World Could Vote

I disagree with this article 100%. No nation is an island. Every nation has an effect on every other nation. By this philosphy (in this article) everyone in the world should have a say in how much oil OPEC produces and what price they sell it at. Everyone in the world should also have a say in who the President of the EU is. America is not the only ship on this sea.

Yemen has had a great (and negative) impact on America, her psyche, and her policies. You think our leaders didn't pay attention when the USS Cole was bombed? Why does everyone feel so comfortable meddling in OUR affairs while decrying any interaction we have with other (presumably) legitimate governments? I am frankly sick of hearing this arguement. I would rather be dead than allow one single Saudi Iman a say in how I live, what laws I have to obey, and what is socially acceptable in my society. I would rather see Whoopi Goldberg as President for life than to give a single African herder a say in how I live, what taxes I pay, and who recieves the benefit of those taxes. When I can choose YOUR leader, then you can help me choose mine. Not before.

I agree with his comments of nawawimohamad, untill US retains itself in the boundries of USA they cant be liked. Involving whole the world in terrorism, only and only USA is responsible for that. its a real pitty that currently so caleed global leaders, are doing politics on poorest muslim contries like Afghnistan, Pakistan and Iraq (poor now due to them). I dont think anyone with this kind of agenda can be liked any more.

If we Americans are so concerned with our own backyards, we might want to come together with our neighbors to solve the issues that face us all. If we keep an isolationist point of view, the wind will inevitably blow in our direction to our disliking. That goes for all of us.

All your column confirmed is that US presidential elections are not decided based upon a candidate's foreign policy positions. I doubt, however, that any nation...among those relatively few nations that actually hold elections that can be considered legitimate... elects a leader based more on a world-view than a home-view. In this Americans are no different from anyone else. Already the looming recession, and how to deal with it, is more important to the average American than is our approach to the rest of the world. The assumption is that the world will hate us no matter what we do, so why bother worrying about it. Trying to keep one's family solvent during the upcoming recession is a much more immediate concern.

I find your initial premise unsettling. The President of the United States can not sign into law legislation for any country other than the US. If the rest of the world wants to vote for a leader, let them vote for the Secretary General of the UN.

I would like to see evidence for your assertion that Indians have a more favorable view of Bush than Clinton--I don't think you would be able to back up what you've stated with any degree of validity. Indians, like their European counterparts, are sick of America's police the world attitude, which Bush exemplifies and Clinton did not.

I have to respectfully disagree with Dean Kishore Mahbubani who claims that "In one fell swoop, an Obama victory would eliminate at least half the massive anti-Americanism now felt around the world."
The candidate whose election will mean the most to the world is Dr. Ron Paul who is the only candidate who supports a non-interventionist foreign policy. Not only has he consistently advocated pulling back our 737 military bases from 130 countries around the world, he is also the only candidate in either party who would end our counter-productive policy of imposing economic sanctions on countries that we disagree with.

Scott Stewart
Seoul, Korea