Obama trounces McCain in foreign polls

That’s right, America, we may be tied here at home – you know, where people actually vote? – but in lands far and wide, other countries prefer Obama.

The BBC World Service poll gauged attitudes toward the U.S. presidential race in 22 other countries — and found Obama the preference in every one, in many cases by overwhelming margins.

Hey, I like it here as a visitor. But do I care what they think about the American presidential choices? Nope.


  1. Well, as an American I can rest assure that the rest of the world sees things a lot more clearly than we Americans at home can! (Well, some of us Americans anyways)

  2. I hear Pravda greatly prefers Obama…adding to a string of nations such as Libya. Ya…that ‘s gonna sway me.

  3. As a Russian newspaper, I’d prefer the person’s opponent that is so eager to go to war with Russia.

    Tsk, tsk, Steve, Libya has renounced terrorism…. get up with current events.

    Once again, you Reps keep highlighting the negative minority that you are.

  4. I think not having a conversation with any of the Europeans on American politics while you were there could have been a little narrow-minded.

    A friend of mine went to Germany last year and found that some of those he spoke to over there knew more of American politics than him!

  5. Who’s eager to go to war with Russia? How exactly do you come to that conclusion?

    Khadaffi has kept his head down since we blew into Afghanistan and Iraq…not a second before. Now he’s popping his head back up. Not everything is about terrorism, but rather other geopolitical positioning…get current.

  6. Greg,

    Cindy never said she didn’t discuss politics abroad. She just inferred that their preference didn’t hold much water and their goals/objectives may be counter to hers (and Americas).

    And I’d suggest that your friend that was stymied by the knowledge of American politics by Germans, wouldn’t be a particularly good source for info on the subject.

  7. Randy in Richmond says:

    Actually Cindy we are not tied. In four major polls asking Likely Voters the average is McCain + 3.0. This is a swing of +10.0 for McCain/Palin since, well, Palin.
    But also of deep concern to Democrats is the Generic Congressional Poll. For months the average hovered around + 12-13 for Democrats. It is now at +4.2 for Democrats or a 9 point drop in two weeks.


    It is getting to be time for the Dems to go nuts. I predict a major news outlet (NYT, LAT, Wash Post, etc ) will shortly break a huge story about McCain or Palin, most likely Palin. And I expect Bill Clinton and Al Gore to become very prominent in the campaign. As things get worse for the Dems Obama will agree to limited townhall type debates.

  8. Well if Ms. Palin can respond with “Perhaps so” to the question of possibly going to war with Russia over Georgia being a member of NATO and being invaded, it certain shows no forethought to one’s answer. (What would she care, she would be nice and safe in der bunker). This shoot from the hip attitude is what got us into this Iraq war, we certainly don’t need another one in power that would be so will to do the same. (Did you notice that the words diplomacy, sanctions, etc were not mentioned until after Mr Gibson had reiterated the question to her) If a candidates first thought is war without exploring all other possibilities, what would you call it?

    Libya: Libya had already denounced terrorism well before 9/11 and Afghanistan. (1999)


    In August 2003, Libya fulfilled the remaining UNSCR requirements, including acceptance of responsibility for the actions of its officials and payment of appropriate compensation to the victims’ families. UN sanctions were lifted on September 12, 2003. So Khadaffi already had his down well before we blew into Afghanistan…. get your facts straight.

  9. Randy in Richmond says:

    Khadaffi has not fufilled his obligations. He still owes a payment of millions of dollars.

  10. What other countries think of us is very important. If they all hate us for killing tens of thousands of Arabs, we may be in the same situation as Germany in World War II.

    When I was in Europe I got a Time magazine before the last presidential election. No one could have read that magazine and decided to vote for Bush. All the facts were accurate according to my research.

    We cannot get Time Europe in America. But if our news were as unfiltered as Al-Jazeera English and Time Europe, people in this country would most likely feel differently than those impressed by McCain/Palin.

    Our news shows the 5,000+ American soldiers killed but does not mention the 85,000+ (smallest estimate) Arabs killed, most of whom are innocent bystanders.

  11. In August 2003, Libya fulfilled the remaining UNSCR requirements, including acceptance of responsibility for the actions of its officials and PAYMENT OF APPROPRITE COMPENSATION to the victims’ families. UN sanctions were lifted on September 12, 2003. Libya has to date provided each family with $8 million. But it announced earlier this week it was not liable for the final $2- million payments because it had not been removed at the end of 2004 from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism. Sounds like they paid the majority of it and were waiting for the US to lift sanctions

  12. Well said Fran. The media likes to focus on only the American casualties but it is the human casualty count that should be stated.

    American, Arab and Allies are all paying the price.

  13. Randy in Richmond says:


    Rice Meets Gaddafi on Historic Libya Visit

    Friday, September 5, 2008 11:05 PM

    Libya finalized the legal arrangements on Wednesday for setting up a fund into which money will be paid. But one senior U.S. official said it would take “more than days” before payments could be made to both sides.

    U.S. victims covered include those who died in the Pan Am bombing, which killed 270 people, and the 1986 Libyan attack on a Berlin disco that killed three people and wounded 229. It also compensates victims of the 1986 U.S. air raid.

    Rice has come under some domestic criticism for making the trip before the compensation money was paid out. Rights groups are critical because some cases, such as that of ailing political dissident Fathi el-Jahmi, have not been resolved.

  14. Fran, if we hadn’t intervened, America would be damned for letting Sadam Hussein (sound familiar?) continue to selectively define his population. History already insists we waited too long to enter WWII and stop the Holocaust.

    The world stage wants it both ways. America is to come to their defense in a moment of crisis, but to intervene for other countries is ridiculed.

    By the way, if you want to prove your numbers, you could provide a link.

  15. Randy in Richmond says:

    You say 85,000 Arabs have been killed. My question is by whom? And as of today 4,157 US sevicemen/women have been killed in combat in Iraq. Please be specific and share what Time Europe and Al-Jazeera English report unfiltered that would make me feel differently as a McCain/Palin supporter.

  16. http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/

    As of 9/14/08:
    US Military Deaths – Iraq 4,156
    Other Coalition Troops – Iraq 314
    US Military Deaths – Afghanistan 589
    Other Military Deaths – Afghanistan 377
    Contractor Deaths – Iraq 444

    Iraq deaths due to US Invasion: 1,255,026
    Deaths due to invasion

  17. The total you give is an estimate on that site that I can’t verify otherwise.

  18. Numbers proven.

    I don’t hear anyone damming us for the genocide that is/was going on in Darfur, Sudan and Rwanda. Where is the US invasion to liberate these people from a regime out to destroy the population? How much longer are we going to wait? (Oh, that’s right…. no WMD or oil)

    Darfur, Sudan

  19. That study, published in prestigious medical journal The Lancet, estimated that over 600,000 Iraqis had been killed as a result of the invasion as of July 2006. Iraqis have continued to be killed since then.

    The estimate that over a million Iraqis have died received independent confirmation from a prestigious British polling agency in September 2007. Opinion Research Business estimated that 1.2 million Iraqis have been killed violently since the US invasion.

    An estimate? Yes. But a very good one done by not one but two independent agencies. Now unless some here profess to be experts on this subject I would saw that even 85,000 (68% of the estimate) would be pretty close. If you feel this is inaccurate please provide evidence to the contrary.

  20. Telling me the estimate is proven is not the same as showing me the estimate is proven.

    This is where liberals start talking out of both sides of their mouth. Get us out of the middle east, but let’s run into Africa. Do you not see the serious disconnect in your logic?

    Remember, Obama clenched the Democratic nomination by pretending to be against the war. Now he’s changed his tune and is in step with McCain’s plans. It’s been a complete reversal of position on Obama’s part.

  21. Actually, a significant portion of US troop deaths in Iraq are not combat related. IIRC it’s about 1/3 of the total.

    I’ve seen documentation of US troops lost in previous administrations. GW was actually on the short side of the curve. I’ll try to locate it.

    Iraqi death counts vary widely…and I mean WIDELY. Sorry if I don’t put a lot of stock in antiwar.com as a source for stats on Iraqi’s.

  22. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

    87,506 – 95,504

    The count encompasses non-combatants killed by military or paramilitary action and the breakdown in civil security following the invasion.

    Data is drawn from cross-checked media reports, hospital, morgue, NGO and official figures to produce a credible record of known deaths and incidents.

    I believe Fran has been vindicated.

  23. 68% of 1,255,026 is not 85,000.

    I cannot follow your argument based on your one link. I’ve clicked through 3 different “click here for an explanation” links and still don’t see more than a one-opinion offer of proof.

  24. No disconnect, just pointing out your statement:

    “Fran, if we hadn’t intervened, America would be damned for letting Sadam Hussein (sound familiar?) continue to selectively define his population. History already insists we waited too long to enter WWII and stop the Holocaust.”

    Well history is now saying that we, as a world, are waiting to late. So please tell me why liberating the Iraqi from genocide and oppression is any different from that in Sudan and Rwanda?

  25. Wait – you expanded the argument with a second link that you hadn’t mentioned before. What about the 1,255,026? Can you prove your original argument?

    No comment about Obama’s change in opinion?

  26. Ooops, my bad……… damn decimal points. Make that 6.8% of estimated total

  27. So..you’re telling me (based on your figures) that about 7% of deaths are noncombatants. In war, that’s a pretty small percentage of collateral damage. Given that combatants wear no uniform or other codifying garb to differntiate themselves from noncombatants, hide amongst the civilians, use “holy” places as hideouts…I’d say it’s unheard of.

    And how many citizens was Sadam offing on a regular basis?

  28. I have said it’s time to do something about Africa, and wrote my Congressman about a year ago. Why haven’t we followed through? Limited resources and continued whining by voters like you about Iraq. If you want to explain your change of heart, you know who to call.

  29. So, I guess numbers coming from two prestigious sources are not enough.

    The Lancelet:

    Washington Post
    Study done by US and Iraqi epidemiologists in 2006

    Opinion Research Business

    Face it, one could easily prove only one civilian has died or a million. Unless you are out there counting bodies from day one, then there is no exact total to be had. Hence estimates. Now then one could say we only killed 85k or 1.25M depending on who you use as a source. My point is that it is at LEAST 85k if not higher.

    The same happened with Russian deaths in WWII, grossly underestimated until much after the war. I guess we will find out then, when this war is over who is closer to the final number. Point is, even at 85k it is a great disproportion vs military deaths and a great waste of human lives

    Now if you want to compare to what Saddam did:

  30. The WaPo article says “study claims.” They did not do their own study – they are only repeating the first claim. I had never heard of the first “source” until you put it up.

    I’m on a plane for the next several hours and won’t be able to catch your assertions, Patrick. Frankly, you’ve not wowed me with your ability to prove an argument. I’m sure you’ll keep trying though.

    Just remember – it’s the opportunity to speak freely about any ol’ think you want that is defended as a gift to you from those you are so anxious to slam.


  31. No I said that the 7% (85k) was from the total estimate done by The Lancelet (1.25M)

    85,000/1,250,000 = 6.8%

    And even if we used 7% of the worst case estimate, the number was significantly higher than military casualties.

    Saddam offed anywhere from 1 – 2 M people over the course of 24 years. Now to be fair, lets use the lower “estimate” of 1M

    Saddam: 1,000,000 / 24 years = 41,666 deaths/yr

    US: 87,506 / 5 years = 17,501 deaths per yr

    The higher estimates: Saddam 2M, US 1.25M
    Saddam: 2,000,000 / 24 = 83,333
    US: 1,250,000 / 5 = 250,000

  32. Your most recent link, would indicate an overall saving of Iraqi life since the invasion, even if Sadam’s killng of his own was consistent.

    A little disengenuous to ASSUME Sadam’s penchant for killing his own was consistent throughout his regime. Actually he went the way of most dictators…his tryanny growing as time marches on. Wasn’t he closer to 250K/year in recent years? Of course we aren’t counting all the Iraqis killed in war(s) Sadam started against his neighbors now are we?

    Pardon me if I’m confused here. Are we talking total numbers of Iraqis in the 100K class or the 1+MM class? Dificult to even discuss an order of magnitude without some basis. And does this death count include those killed by suicide bombers, IED’s, internal death squads and the like? Of course, that’s all America’s fault too I presume.

  33. Patrick, it seems one of your principle arguments is:

    Not enough American soldiers died to “justify” the qty. of Iraqi deaths. I’ve never heard of a General seeking 1:1 exchange. 20:1 sounds like someone knows what they’re doing.

  34. This has gotten to the point you’re just throwing numbers around. Estimates beyond an order of magnitude being treated as math???

  35. “Just remember – it’s the opportunity to speak freely about any ol’ think you want that is defended as a gift to you from those you are so anxious to slam.”

    Sorry Cindy…… I am not slamming the military as you assume. I am pointing out the civilian casualties caused by presence of said military. As a past serviceman that has served his country (have you?) through three tours, decorated and honorable discharged, was on the ground in Iraq for the first war and knows a bit more than you on how the military functions and operates I am disgusted by your assertions that I would take my freedom for granted. Maybe it is you that should be thanking me for giving you this gift, KMA.

    Any estimate is always taken from the lowest estimate when it comes to civilians. This is SOP for the military, and especially those in Washington. Ever notice it is just the opposite for number of combatants killed. Just look at how well the Patriot missile did during the war and look at the assessment of it after the fact.

    Now unless you are out in the desert trying to figure out just how many Iraqi are buried in the sand, or which bits go to whom, or making the rounds of medical units doing the actual counts of your comrades, you haven’t the slightest idea on how the numbers are played. Yes I was out there doing the counts, making the rounds, counting the bits and “estimating” how many Iraqi are buried in this mound or that one or that one. Civilian counts are even worse, and have almost always gone up in estimate after the war is over and a clearly defined assessment can be made.

    Prove an argument? Seems that those that make a statement are always the ones that need to keep proving themselves, while others are just as easy to dismiss.

    – Capt. P.J. Campbell

  36. Now Stephen, don’t go twisting my numbers around to try and make a counterpoint, especially your assertion that there needs to be more military casualties.

    Point being, the US military has a current doctrine to minimize civilian casualties. However it is doing a less than perfect job at doing so. Yes the suicide bombers, IED’s, whack jobs, etc are killing their fair share of civilians. That is why numbers were expressed as “Killed due to US invasion”. Insurgents are fighting our forces and civilian are getting killed, just as our forces are fighting back and civilians are getting shot at, strafed, etc.

    Honestly, when this war is finally over, I certainly don’t want to be the one that gives that final assessment. Feel free to volunteer.

  37. And IMHO, if Papa Bush had let us finish the job the first time we just may not be in he pickle we are in now, let alone 9/11 and Afghanistan.

    Ah, if you only knew…….

  38. “Even in an estimate there is a kernel of truth”

    If you want to play with numbers you have to look at all the numbers, from all the sources, judge what may or not be correct, look for hard facts, accurate estimates (Yeah, right) and do some counting yourself. Only to come to the same conclusion that you yourself are giving an estimate. Perhaps a more accurate version, perhaps not.

    Now I don’t profess to be able to get to the sources source or a source three to four times removed like I use to, and my hacking days are long ago gone but I will tell this. Just because it is cited one can not dismiss it. And I am sure you’ll say conversely that it can.

    Tis your right to do so just as it is my right not to.

    Capt. P.J. Campbell

    An aside:
    To the Cindy’s and Steve’s and Fran’s and yes, even the Randy’s out there: DON’T stop what you are doing. It is your right (and duty) to always challenge the establishment, the powers that be, Washington, your boss, your spouse (although even I am careful on that point), and others. Just do it with respect not only for a fellow American but any person of any nationality. The world keeps a keen eye on us and our actions, and inactions from the President down to us commentators. You’d be surprised who is watching and reading….

    Granted, I let said respect escape me at times and for that I apologize to all. These trying times tend to bring out the wort in everyone, especially during election times.

  39. Patrick, with all due respect, it’s rather hard to “twist numbers around” when the numbers stretch an order of magnitude or more.

    Your own data/links referred to American fatalities in comparison to Iraqi fatalities, inferring that the ratio was somehow out of balance.

    And I asked areIraqis killed by their own or foreign fighters lumped into “Killed due to US invasion”? It would appear so.

  40. I can’t agree or disagree re: Gulf War and “finishing the job”. In your opinion, what would have made “finishing the job” then easier then, than “finishing the job” now? General ME sentiment?

  41. Here’s an excerpt of the military deaths during Clinton’s term(s). You’ll notice it’s not all that different than during GW’s.

    The total military dead in the Iraq war between 2003 and this month stands at about 3,133. This is tragic, as are all deaths due to war, and we are facing a cowardly enemy unlike any other in our past that hides behind innocent citizens. Each death is blazoned in the headlines of newspapers and Internet sites. What is never compared is the number of military deaths during the Clinton administration: 1,245 in 1993; 1,109 in 1994; 1,055 in 1995; 1,008 in 1996. That’s 4,417 deaths in peacetime but, of course, who’s counting?

  42. I’ll try to find a more reliable source than where I found this…but here’s how well sanctions were working re: Iraqi deaths.

    Estimates for the number of Iraqi children that were starved by the U.S. led UN sanctions against Iraq during the Clinton Administration range as high as 800,000. According to UNICEF statistics at least 200,000 died between the beginning of Clinton’s term and 1994 alone.

    Iraq Body Count estimates less than 74,000 Iraqi Civilians killed between March 9, 2003 and June 29, 2007.

  43. Common sense says, “Look at their leaders and their governments, and then decide if you trust the judgement of foreigners.” I certainly don’t, and I don’t want anyone else’s system…like Germany’s where I was told they pay 72% income taxes in order to get those “free” socialist bennies that the Dems want to force on us! Remember what Patrick Henry said? Today’s Americans seem to be saying “Give me liberty or give me “free” services.”

  44. Of course other countries prefer Obama. Other countries also prefer socialisim and dictators . Some say they admire traditional American values but they rarely implement those in their own countries.

  45. Steve,

    I’ll have to get back to you later on my views concerning the “finishing the job then”. I was not privy to most of the details and what I know has come through a few buddies that were there (HQ-SC), my CO and a couple second hand sources. My best recommendation would be to try this link:


    Very insightful and can generally sum up what I would tell you anyways but with a few more details. Pay particular attention to the second point… kinda gives you some insight as to where we are and where we are heading. No date on the interview that I can find though. One cavet: Norman was going to do a bit more to Saddam than just grab him, quote: “… I’d go to Bagdad and personally hang the b*st*rd”. Kinda brings a tear to ones’ eye, lol.

    I believe the previous page on the site lays out why our forces stopped – interesting read from those that were there. There is another article from then Defense Sec. Chaney who outlines why we should NOT have taken Bagdad. Again, very insightful as nearly every one of his statements has come true. The link escapes me for the moment.

    Unfortunately, my CO (wife) has placed me on restriction here, until I play nice and be a service rather than a disservice to the discussion here. That’s what happens when you marry a Major, lol.

    Take care (being nice)

    Capt. P.J. Campbell

  46. Patrick,

    I’ll take a look at it. Though I’ve investigated some, I realize I’m a neophite in the art of war.

    I have no doubt that Strormin’ Norman could have rolled into Baghdad with ease…and with considerably less infrastructure damage as occured under GW. In gulf 1 we steamrolled Sadam’s troops far away from population centers.

    The question for me becomes, though the war was relatively easy, how would winning the peace be easy relative to 2003? I can see some distinct difference of then vs. now. I’ll check out that link and see if any of my suppositions enter into the equation.

    IMHO, we were going to end up there or somewhere similar…it was just a matter of time. Also IMHO, Sadam’s own ego, with his defiance of his own obligations, brought this wrath for which we are all now paying.

  47. Steve,

    Never said that it would have been easier after we had toppled Saddam. Only that the coalition at the time could have made mincemeat out of Saddam’s remaining forces (24 battalions or bridages I think).

    (Side note: Actually most of Saddam’s forces were trapped between Bagadad and Kuwait, something like 12 battalions. Only 12 remained between coalition forces and Bagdad and I believe only 6 were Republican Guard – the only real threat. Best estimates would have had our forces at the gates of Bagdad by day 5…. a lot better than in the next war)

    The best scenario that was hoped for was that we would lay siege to Bagdad (there were numerous plans for just such an operation) and hope the the remnants of Saddam’s army would turn him over (The General mentions this). Of course time, the UN, the Arab league and other coalition forces would have eventually been against us. (Not to mention the French… typical.)

    You hit the nail on the head with where we would end up; even the General admitted the same to that effect (and Cheney), we would probably still be there administering the region.

    Hindsight is a great thing. IMHO we could have easily surrounded Bagdad. Getting Saddam would have been the next big question. In all likelyhood we would have faced an enemy with even greater resolve to oppose us and could have probably waited us out while world opinion turned against us. Then again, if we had gotten lucky and caught him quick chances are world opinion (and the Arab League) would have been on our side. I’ll admit I am no expert of geo-political ramifications, but that was the thought of more than one advisor to the General. We just gave Saddam a few more years to get cocky and get prepared.

  48. Steve,

    Going back to your original questions:

    Yes, estimated civilians killed is from the start of the war (Or as the site puts it: Since US Invasion) Even I’ll admit that is an inaccurate way to report things….. needs to be broken down as you suggested. Can’t blame us for some b*st*rd killing their own people, IMHO.

    Second question about twisted numbers. Perhaps I misrepresented myself at this point. What I was getting at was civilian deaths as compare to combatant deaths were always sigificantly lower* (*At least for the Allies in WWII… the same can not be said for all Axis forces and allies USSR and China). That said, the Iraqi civilian number of dead, even by the lowest estimate, is pretty high when compared to say, the UK in WWII (10k/yr over 6 years) And they were getting the crap bombed out of them by the Germans for 3 years. I did not want to imply that there should be more US combatants killed only that for a country that prides itself on protecting civilians, we are not doing a great job. Are the suicide nut jobs and others to blame? Damn right! I would stake my reputation on it that taken alone, Iraqi civilians killed directly by US forces are close to the 2-4k/yr mark when averaged over the last 5 years (10-20k total), with the majority happening in that first year. But add in the nut jobs……

    I hope that clarifies things….

    Capt. P.J. Campbell

  49. And terror orgs to mature and get bolder. Plus in Gulf 1 we had more common ME sentiment as we were protecting Kuwait..and from there a roll into Saudi Arabia. I presume another positive, was as you mentioned, we had a much broader coalition, and superior manpower.

    I’ve at minimum seen references to Cheney’s position that going into Baghdad would be bad news, requiring an occupation for many years. “Cooler heads” prevailed at the time. Probably never know if that was a good thing.

    I was reading some interesting stuff re: the 6 day war. Seems all the Arab countries that got their @ss handed to them by Israel, felt there was no way Israel could’ve done it (assume air superiority within like 24 hours) without assistance from the Brits and US.

    Well..actually their leadership knew we didn’t, or at least had zero evidence. But to save face and not admit they got whooped by Israel alone, the started the “rumor” that we assisted. That rumor has since been FACT in all their history books. So for 40 or so years, a handfull of Arab youth has been taught we colluded with Israel, inwhich Israel secured the “disputed” territories and more. Them wanting to wipe Israel off the map is nothing new (that was the goal, but Israel pre-empted it’s effect), but US/Britain are blamed for it not happening then.

    Well..I thought it was intersting anyways. Much of the “hatred” against us has been indoctrinated under the guise of history. I had never studied it at all, but I sure became more familiar with the setting.

  50. Spelling BEE says:

    Grant would you Please learn to spell ? You misspelled three words, and misquoted Patrick Henery. What’s wrong with foreigners? Where did your family come from? You sound a little like a bigot?

  51. Steve- The US supported Hussein financially and with military technologies for him to invade Iran in 1980.. Pres. Reagan and Bush 1. During that time of financial support he turned his weapons on his own people also. We continued to support him until he invaded Kuwait -he wasn’t winning Iran for us anyway- so might as well stop him. It was not until after 9-11 that the Prs Bush 2 decided it was time to get rid of him and look for those WMD- but all they found were the bodies of his own people that he had killed.http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/husseinindex.htm

  52. BV,

    I’ve seen few if any US weapons in Iraq. Everything’s from Russia.

    But yes, I’m aware of US support for Sadam in the early goings. Who would you have supported given the climate at the time? Or should we not support anyoe and leave that job to the other superpowers while we watch?

    IMHO, some of the worst foreign policy was Carter doing just that (re: Shah of Iran). In many ways it set the stage.