Polled 28 COUNTRIES...WE USA, ARE MORE DISRUPTIVE INFLUENCE THAN NORTH KOREA

[stefan segal]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6421597.stm

In January, the BBC World Service revealed polling results that suggested most people think the US has a mainly negative influence in the world - and that the numbers had increased significantly in the last couple of years.


This latest GlobeScan survey, mostly of the same people, confirms those findings.

But it also suggests that two countries are viewed even more negatively - first Israel, and then Iran.

North Korea is just behind the US.

[exarmyranger]

Nothing I'll lose sleep over.(world opinon)My opinion of the polled people ,and their governing political power(s)is summed up in a(one)short sentence..."If we (the U.S.A.) can't have your(polled countrys)respect,we'll settle for your fear! :thumbsup: Carry-On :D EX

[stefan segal]

EX...does watching that cave man advert piss you off...in other words...is that guy a relation...or hang out in your tree?

Just wondering:)


Stefan

[Mr. Blue]

We're #1, We're #1...oh wait...ummm...nevermind.

Personally I'd like to see the U.S. take all it's toys and go home. I'd like to see us pull out of the UN. I'd like us to cut all funding abroad and use the money to improve our infrastructure, eduction system, feed the hungry here, get a working health care system, pay down the national debt, and let the world deal with whatever happens.

That's right, I want us to be a big Switzerland minus the cuckoo clocks.

[Linkster]

Mr Blue - the only thing I would add in is some money spent on real defense and real training for the military - and give them some real benefits instead of the cheap ass stuff theyve been getting for decades
I figure that within another 10 years China will have so much of a hold on our economic position and the increases theyve been doing in the last year in their military - we should be totally out of the game by those 10 years end.

added/ - not that it really matters if my prediction is correct about Dec 29th, 2012 :)

[Mr. Blue]

Mr Blue - the only thing I would add in is some money spent on real defense and real training for the military - and give them some real benefits instead of the cheap ass stuff theyve been getting for decades
I figure that within another 10 years China will have so much of a hold on our economic position and the increases theyve been doing in the last year in their military - we should be totally out of the game by those 10 years end.

added/ - not that it really matters if my prediction is correct about Dec 29th, 2012 :)

I was giving China 20 years to do that, but you might be right on 10.

The thing is China and Japan are so heavily invested in our dollar that we're basically their bitch. The rest of the world is ignoring China because America is doing one hell of a job making an entertaining ass of ourselves on the world stage.

Asia in 10 to 20 years is going to look very different. The only good thing is that when they poll 28 countries they'll all agree China sucks, lol.

[Caskey_91]

Well considering we stick our nose in everyones buisness and try to spread democracy where it isn't wanted, no wonder where the most disruptive, that's evident, look @ 9/11 there's your proof right there.

[Mr. Blue]

Well considering we stick our nose in everyones buisness and try to spread democracy where it isn't wanted, no wonder where the most disruptive, that's evident, look @ 9/11 there's your proof right there.

While I agree with this...it's a double edge sword. There's this damned if you do and damned if you don't attitude when it comes to American intervention abroad.

There's no doubt in my mind that if America returned to it's isolationist policies you'd see some countries expanding their borders rather quickly. Personally though...it's not our problem. Our government should only respond to issues that directly effect our citizens and that's it.

[Caskey_91]

While I agree with this...it's a double edge sword. There's this damned if you do and damned if you don't attitude when it comes to American intervention abroad.

There's no doubt in my mind that if America returned to it's isolationist policies you'd see some countries expanding their borders rather quickly. Personally though...it's not our problem. Our government should only respond to issues that directly effect our citizens and that's it.

Well it has been more damned if you do then damned if you don't. I have a feeling that if we had just kept out of the Middle East 9/11 would've never happened, or maybe i'm just naive.

Hell thanks to the spread of capitalism to China and India we probably won't be and economic super power much longer, that and there won't be too many jobs left.

[Mr. Blue]

Well it has been more damned if you do then damned if you don't. I have a feeling that if we had just kept out of the Middle East 9/11 would've never happened, or maybe i'm just naive.

Hell thanks to the spread of capitalism to China and India we probably won't be and economic super power much longer, that and there won't be too many jobs left.

As I see it we've had a failed foreign policy for a long time now...I don't just mean the Bush administration...I'm talking probably as far back as WWI, lol. America keeps letting itself get entangled in foreign wars based on ideological principles...why? How does it benefit us?

It's like we're doing this ideological imperialism that doesn't really benefit us in any tangible way. As I see it you go to war to either protect your borders / land, etc. -or- Conquer. If you're going to war for some other reason you've made a mistake.

[exarmyranger]

EX...does watching that cave man advert piss you off...in other words...is that guy a relation...or hang out in your tree?

Just wondering:)


Stefan:cool: No blood relative,that I know of...but he does look abit like my eldest daughters first husband...:D

[Caskey_91]

As I see it we've had a failed foreign policy for a long time now...I don't just mean the Bush administration...I'm talking probably as far back as WWI, lol. America keeps letting itself get entangled in foreign wars based on ideological principles...why? How does it benefit us?

It's like we're doing this ideological imperialism that doesn't really benefit us in any tangible way. As I see it you go to war to either protect your borders / land, etc. -or- Conquer. If you're going to war for some other reason you've made a mistake.

no there was one war we have deserved to be in, and that was WWII. The world would probably be a hell of alot different than it is now, and that is more than likely for the worst.

Hell WWII Saved America and Democracy.

As for WI we needed to head into it to stop F***ing Germany from sinking citizen ships.

After the World Wars our military and foreign policy began to go downhill.

[Mr. Blue]

no there was one war we have deserved to be in, and that was WWII. The world would probably be a hell of alot different than it is now, and that is more than likely for the worst.

Hell WWII Saved America and Democracy.

As for WI we needed to head into it to stop F***ing Germany from sinking citizen ships.

After the World Wars our military and foreign policy began to go downhill.

Well, there's a domino effect with foreign policy where one action begets another action. WWI, while it's easy now to just point at those crazy Germans, was far more complex and when you look at the countries involved they all had imperialistic goals as part of their foreign policy.

It's peculiar to me that we damned Germany for WWI and their aggression when at the same time Great Britain, France, etc, all had colonies, all had imperialistic goals, and more or less was no better or worst than the Germans. France, Belgium, etc, were brutal with their colonies, slavery, mass murders, why would we want to help people like this?

As for the boat sinking...if Americans want to travel in a war zone who's fault is that when they do get attacked? It's like civilians now wanting to go on a summer retreat to Iraq...if something happens to them it's through their own stupidity...is that enough to go to war over?

Also at the end of the war is when the Middle East started to get screwed up (too much to type, but it's kind of amusing to see how everything started going to hell with WWI and it's aftermath).

The main problem is that we've followed Wilson's policy of intervening in foreign affairs ever since...WWII wouldn't have happened if we kept our noses out during WWI.

In essence America meddled once in a war we shouldn't have been in and we've been doing it ever since. Protect your border or conquer...that's the only reasons a war should be waged.

[Caskey_91]

Well, there's a domino effect with foreign policy where one action begets another action. WWI, while it's easy now to just point at those crazy Germans, was far more complex and when you look at the countries involved they all had imperialistic goals as part of their foreign policy.

It's peculiar to me that we damned Germany for WWI and their aggression when at the same time Great Britain, France, etc, all had colonies, all had imperialistic goals, and more or less was no better or worst than the Germans. France, Belgium, etc, were brutal with their colonies, slavery, mass murders, why would we want to help people like this?

As for the boat sinking...if Americans want to travel in a war zone who's fault is that when they do get attacked? It's like civilians now wanting to go on a summer retreat to Iraq...if something happens to them it's through their own stupidity...is that enough to go to war over?

Also at the end of the war is when the Middle East started to get screwed up (too much to type, but it's kind of amusing to see how everything started going to hell with WWI and it's aftermath).

The main problem is that we've followed Wilson's policy of intervening in foreign affairs ever since...WWII wouldn't have happened if we kept our noses out during WWI.

In essence America meddled once in a war we shouldn't have been in and we've been doing it ever since. Protect your border or conquer...that's the only reasons a war should be waged.

In a crazy fucked up way. WWII was probably for the better, as odd as it sounds.

Also When Germany was sinking the liners America only cut off there diplomatics with Germany. It was until Germany started to get Mexico thinking about attacking America did they finally go into war.

The Middle East has been screwed up since ever since Jesus was here. Boarder mis management only flared the problem worse. Middle East always and will always be screwy.

Also thing with Belgium and France they weren't attacking other countries, yes it is still wrong, but it wasn't seen wrong in America due to Anti - German Propaganda.

[Mr. Blue]

In a crazy fucked up way. WWII was probably for the better, as odd as it sounds.

The problem is you have to look at when America turned it's policy from isolationism to an interventionist philosophy...that was Woodrow Wilson's legacy. Now some may think that was a good thing, but I personally think it's the cornerstone of our failed foreign policy.

Also When Germany was sinking the liners America only cut off there diplomatics with Germany. It was until Germany started to get Mexico thinking about attacking America did they finally go into war.

The thing is Germany wasn't exactly having swimming success in WWI. They wouldn't have been able to move the conflict to the States...if Mexico lost it's mind and did try something on the U.S. it would have benefited us...they would have attacked and we would have responded and there'd be no Mexico right now, lol, it'd be part of the U.S. and our border problems would be be a little further south :D

The Middle East has been screwed up since ever since Jesus was here. Boarder mis management only flared the problem worse. Middle East always and will always be screwy.

Agreed. Still, it's part of the problem...The middle east was a mess, is a mess, and will always be a mess. Still the way the land was divided up, etc, certainly didn't help.

Also thing with Belgium and France they weren't attacking other countries, yes it is still wrong, but it wasn't seen wrong in America due to Anti - German Propaganda.

Well technically setting up a colony in a country that already has a populace is attacking that country. I mean Belgium basically did a mass murder in the Congo, millions died, and how are they better than the Germans again? The Anti-German propaganda certainly helped...it painted this peculiar sort of picture like one side was right and the other side was wrong.

However, all the European countries involved in WWI were basically cut from the same cloth, all imperialistic, all trying to expand their territory and power, and basically not worth getting involved with.

[exarmyranger]

The problem is you have to look at when America turned it's policy from isolationism to an interventionist philosophy...that was Woodrow Wilson's legacy. :D







Well technically setting up a colony in a country that already has a populace is attacking that country. I mean Belgium basically did a mass murder in the Congo, millions died, and how are they better than the Germans again? The Anti-German propaganda certainly helped...it painted this peculiar sort of picture like one side was right and the other side was wrong.

However, all the European countries involved in WWI were basically cut from the same cloth, all imperialistic, all trying to expand their territory and power, and basically not worth getting involved with.
The U.S.A.'s involvement in "WW1", went against the will/wishes of a large % of it's citizen's...The people refered to World War 1,as "Wilsons War"...Belgium and it's conquest,(extermination)of the indigienous people(s)in the N.African Congo,was largely ignored by the U.S.,and most European countries,as well. (the reason(s) IMO,apathy toward's any wrong's the African/Negro may have,or was (at the time) suffering...and the fact that at the time the Negro populus living in the Congo,were viewed as Godless,Savage's,berift of all but a few human qualities... :oldman: Sounds alot like us and the Indians,don't it?

[Caskey_91]

The U.S.A.'s involvement in "WW1", went against the will/wishes of a large % of it's citizen's...The people refered to World War 1,as "Wilsons War"...Belgium and it's conquest,(extermination)of the indigienous people(s)in the N.African Congo,was largely ignored by the U.S.,and most European countries,as well. (the reason(s) IMO,apathy toward's any wrong's the African/Negro may have,or was (at the time) suffering...and the fact that at the time the Negro populus living in the Congo,were viewed as Godless,Savage's,berift of all but a few human qualities... :oldman: Sounds alot like us and the Indians,don't it?

Crazy thing was Wilson wanted to avoid war at all costs. WWII would've never of happened if the postwar treaties and such and land giving was handled better.

[Caskey_91]

The problem is you have to look at when America turned it's policy from isolationism to an interventionist philosophy...that was Woodrow Wilson's legacy. Now some may think that was a good thing, but I personally think it's the cornerstone of our failed foreign policy.

- I feel we had to of gone into the war just the end result didn't turn out the way it should've. If Germany was to win like they would've it would've changed the path of history very much.



The thing is Germany wasn't exactly having swimming success in WWI. They wouldn't have been able to move the conflict to the States...if Mexico lost it's mind and did try something on the U.S. it would have benefited us...they would have attacked and we would have responded and there'd be no Mexico right now, lol, it'd be part of the U.S. and our border problems would be be a little further south :D

- There was an actual attempt and alot of information discovered that Germany was very very close to getting Mexico to attack us off guard it was what sent us into the War.

- Also right before America went in Germany was basically winning the war. The Entente was very close to an end.



Agreed. Still, it's part of the problem...The middle east was a mess, is a mess, and will always be a mess. Still the way the land was divided up, etc, certainly didn't help.

- Agreed


Well technically setting up a colony in a country that already has a populace is attacking that country. I mean Belgium basically did a mass murder in the Congo, millions died, and how are they better than the Germans again? The Anti-German propaganda certainly helped...it painted this peculiar sort of picture like one side was right and the other side was wrong.

- That's the goal of propaganda the Germans where doing the same thing and so was Lenin to get Russia to leave the war and go into Communism which was Germany's idea of course.

However, all the European countries involved in WWI were basically cut from the same cloth, all imperialistic, all trying to expand their territory and power, and basically not worth getting involved with.