Truthfully, Hillary Clinton because Bill had excellent relations with Europe and that would carry over in her administration if she should be elected President. Europeans haven't backed George Bush at all.
2007-11-13 02:43:53
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
4⤋
Take a look at what has happened during Bush's Republican Presidency. France was strongly Anti-American and now they have elected a strong Pro-American President. Australia has become far more vocal as being Pro-American and this increase in American support was a major election issue that the Prime Minister ran on and contributed to his win. Canada was slighly Anti-American and have elected a strong Pro-American Prime Minister. Afganistan and Iraq were providing and training Terrorists to attack America and are now Pro-American governments. In Afganistan and Iraq the minority that was Anti-American were obviously removed by force though the people were strongly Pro-American and now their governments properly address the Pro-American stance of the people. Pakistan is a very diffilcult situation though parts of Pakistan were strongly Anti-American and some of these areas remain so though the number is far fewer than it was. The government proper allowed Anti-American Terrorist activities and has now used their military to eliminate these elements. The government has become Pro-American and been a tremendous aid to the US. All of the Eastern European countries and former communist countries have become even stronger Pro-American during the Republican Bush Presidency. It's clear that a strong Republican President is best for the US as well as the world. To me it matters a great deal which Republican becomes President though that is insignificant on every level when you compare the difference between the disaster a Democrat President would be in comparison to having a Republican President continue to strengthen America on the world stage. I know the liberals keep pushing the lie that we've lost our credibility in the world and Europe hates us. I don't know what could be shown as a greater fact than the actual elections that show the vast majority of the people in these countries have become increasingly Pro-American during Republican President Bush's term. If you want to read the London Times back when President Clinton was in office it's hilarious what a baffoon they thought that guy was. The US main stream media wouldn't report the vast majority of his scandals though they were so obvious and he was so obviously guilty that even the Liberal London Times printed the facts thinking for sure Clinton would be removed from office well before the was impeached. The world thought he was an idiot playboy. A nice guy that was fun to party with though just a stupid bubba and certainly not a world leader. I don't know why people are trying to claim now that we were respected at that time when the opposite was the truth.
FYI: Clinton didn't goto the House and Senate asking for approval for the Bosnian war. Clinton didn't go to the the UN for approval for the Bosnian war. I thought these were things the liberals wanted?
2007-11-13 11:02:10
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
I think Ron Paul would probably be the best choice. The European left would probably hate his domestic policies (Europe is plagued by socialists who are obstructing needed economic reforms), but they'd definitely be glad that he would get American troops out of Europe and shut down the American Empire.
The European right and center would probably like Ron Paul's domestic policies and would probably eventually like his foreign policy anyways, as they'd be glad that the European left could no longer attack them based on their support for America (which is the only thing the left in Europe has left).
If we elect Ron Paul, he would seek peace and trade with all nations and entangling alliances with none. This policy is the best way to ensure good relationships with all foreign powers and peace on Earth.
2007-11-13 11:04:32
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Any Democrat,or independent!The Democrats or indedpendents are more willing to talk and negotiate than just start dropping bombs on the wrong country.Plus this country will fold if a Republican is elected for four more years!
2007-11-13 10:57:43
·
answer #4
·
answered by George Washington 4
·
0⤊
3⤋
Ron Paul, he is strongly in favor of not interfering in other countries affairs, and that is desperately needed now. Lets get back to a country that our constitution was supposed to be.
2007-11-13 10:48:42
·
answer #5
·
answered by Steve C 7
·
3⤊
2⤋
Obviously John McCain, he is more qualified than all Republican Candidates Combined.
Excluding Bill Richardson, John McCain is more qualified than All of the Democratic candidates combined.
Put next to Bill Richardson John McCain would still be more qualified to run this country. Not to mention he would steal many Democratic voters with his common sense approach.
2007-11-13 10:39:54
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
5⤋
Ron Paul.
2007-11-13 10:39:50
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
4⤋
Huckabee. He has experience in foreign relations and is a good listener. He has shown himself to be a person who is able to successfully work with people of other beliefs.
2007-11-13 10:37:36
·
answer #8
·
answered by Daewen 3
·
2⤊
4⤋
The one who can mend the fence trampled on by our current prez, so best for the job would be Hilliary
2007-11-13 10:49:04
·
answer #9
·
answered by joyce s 4
·
2⤊
4⤋
Ron Paul.
"Commerce and friendship with all nations,
BINDING ALLIANCES WITH NONE!!!!!!"
2007-11-13 10:48:58
·
answer #10
·
answered by idontknow 3
·
3⤊
2⤋