"US, Iran most negative influence on world: poll "

[Prada]

Intersting to see that in the case of US, Russia and China the results are quite bipartite and equivalent between the two segments.
Also would the result for Iran be similar if the US never invaded Iraq? For that matter would they be different for the US?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/4674656.stm

Iran 'has negative role in world'

Iran is the country most widely viewed as having a negative influence in the world, with the US in second place, a new poll for the BBC suggests.

The survey for the BBC World Service asked how 39,435 people in 33 nations across the globe saw various countries.

Views of China, Russia and France have declined in comparison to a similar survey at the end of 2004.

Japan is most widely seen to have a positive influence. Europe has the most positive scores of all in the poll.

West negative

The survey by the international polling firm GlobeScan and the University of Maryland took place between October 2005 and January 2006.

According to the poll, no country had a majority with a positive view of Iran's role in the world, apart from the Iranians themselves.

On average, just 18% say Iran has a positive influence, while 47% believe the state's role is negative.

Europe and North America have the largest majorities expressing a negative view - with Germany, the US and Italy the most negative about Iran.

Iran is embroiled in a row with the US and European Union over Western fears it is attempting to build nuclear weapons.

Tehran says its nuclear programme is aimed solely at energy production.

Ups and downs

The US has lost ground in some key allied countries, the survey suggests.

In France, 65% had a negative view of the US, up from 54% in the 2004 poll. In Britain the numbers went from 50% to 57%.

Negative views of the US are also up by 20 points in China, eight points in Australia and nine points in Brazil.

Views of China have declined sharply over the last year, according to the poll.

Among the 20 countries polled both years, the number rating China positively has dropped from 13 to eight, while those rating it negatively have risen from three to seven.

But overall, China continues to have more backers than detractors.

Several European countries have developed more negative perceptions of Russia since 2004, the poll suggests.

However, 31 of the 33 states' populations gave Japan a positive rating.

None of the countries had a predominantly negative view of Europe.

The average is 53% positive and 15% negative, excluding the European states asked.

The margin of error in polling ranged from 2.5% to 4%

[Dude-Man]

I'm going to guess that the general response to this will be "who cares what the rest of the world thinks."

[DTBusta]

We should care what the rest of the world things. We aren't living on a different planet next to them, they are on earth, on top of our oil, our country decided to call them an axis of evil, than invade and absolutely obliterate the country right next to them...of course our country has provoked them, and now the administration seems like they are wondering or hoping they provoked them enough to step up to us,and than we will have another Iraq...yay...this is the same administration that joined a lawsuit to stop making and selling totally electric cars by suing the state of california who had a patent and perfectly working electric car. Now i know there almost equal to the same pollutuion as gas cars because of the energy consumption, but my point is well than maybe we wouldn't have needed that war,an maybe now if we do have trouble getting oil, it wouldn't collapse our economy , or atleast we would have vehicles to drive. Again Brazil runs there vehicles on ethanol, I believe 95%, they grow and produce there own fuel. And when they asked government officals why...they didnt say because it was easier ont he enviroment, they said exactly what im sayin, they atleast don't need to be tied up in the middle east and dependant on their oil, and they went further to say they forsee tensions in the future in the middle east and would like to be able to have lives if a crisis happened. Im glad Brazil could see this and we couldn't. But the major news channels sold us up shi*ts creek again."its all about the enviroment" they made it sound, um no its because the same country's government that runs the media is the same government that wants to get into wars in the middle east, yet they are either too stupid to realize the need for non gas vehicles or they dont want you to have them for a reason.But yeah who cares what the rest of the world thinks.

[spywizard]

it's ok man, we have ethenol (sp)

jk that crap is worthless.. but hey, lets spend 2 billion dollars to process something the farmers can grow, but gets less mileage than petroleum form the same vehicle..

Good idea Ted Kenedy....

[DTBusta]

I wasn't saying we should do that. No for our country the electric car would be a good alternative, thats what I was getting at. Brazil did it so there economy wouldn't be knocked off the map if a crisis happened in the middle east...Brazil uses surgar cane to do this..Our country could at this point have enough electric cars that we wouldn't be desimated, ohh if lets say Iran decided to desimate progress over there or if we attack first. Our economy would fall apart, we are dependant on oil. I was saying to begin with that we should have an alternative to oil, and I wasn't saying ethanol. I was saying electric vehicles, which Gm produced and did 80 mph and lasted on a battery enough to go some 80 miles, with charge station sall over and in your garage...Who killed the electric car.... the Bush administration did, and so did the rest of this good for nothing government filled with lying politicians. They didn't want it because the oil companies couldnt find a way to profit off it enough...The oil comapnies even bought the patent to the battery that was used in the car but decided against it after the government stepped in. If we do bomb Iran and oil blows out of control in price or ration, you bet you'd wish for an electric vehicles

hey spywizard...you want Ron Paul for president. Hes for all these things, and hes stricly against Bush on just about every issue.

[Hoggage_54]

Canada has the best image in the world

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/188472

[Prada]

Canada has the best image in the world

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/188472

Do you believe with Mr Harper the innocuous image will remain for long?

[DTBusta]

Yeah Canada has balls to have literally no balls. But if Bush gets his North American Union and meshes the usa with mexico and canada than it won't be so great after all. If you research it they have wanted this for a long time, perhaps after we go into Iran and Syria?


http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo...eplace_usa.htm

[Prada]

Yeah Canada has balls to have literally no balls. But if Bush gets his North American Union and meshes the usa with mexico and canada than it won't be so great after all. If you research it they have wanted this for a long time, perhaps after we go into Iran and Syria?


http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo...eplace_usa.htm

I couldnt forsee anything more then an economic union, especially with plans to solidfy the MEX-US border physically and minutemen. On the CAN-US border many US polticians have lambasted Canada for terrorists entering the US via Canada, also imposing required passports. So if anything it has been the reciprocal of a union as of late. On the otherhand Im not certain many Canadians want any "union" with the US or at least the Bush led US.

[Kärnfysikern]

I wasn't saying we should do that. No for our country the electric car would be a good alternative, thats what I was getting at. Brazil did it so there economy wouldn't be knocked off the map if a crisis happened in the middle east...Brazil uses surgar cane to do this..Our country could at this point have enough electric cars that we wouldn't be desimated, ohh if lets say Iran decided to desimate progress over there or if we attack first. Our economy would fall apart, we are dependant on oil. I was saying to begin with that we should have an alternative to oil, and I wasn't saying ethanol. I was saying electric vehicles, which Gm produced and did 80 mph and lasted on a battery enough to go some 80 miles, with charge station sall over and in your garage...Who killed the electric car.... the Bush administration did, and so did the rest of this good for nothing government filled with lying politicians. They didn't want it because the oil companies couldnt find a way to profit off it enough...The oil comapnies even bought the patent to the battery that was used in the car but decided against it after the government stepped in. If we do bomb Iran and oil blows out of control in price or ration, you bet you'd wish for an electric vehicles

hey spywizard...you want Ron Paul for president. Hes for all these things, and hes stricly against Bush on just about every issue.

Nobody has killed the electric car. Companies are building electric cars that are efficient and good. Just look at teslamotors. The large car companies are devleoping electric cars right now and some are already building and selling them. Dont trust the "who killed the electric car" movie. I havent seen it but what I have heard about it is junk. What killed the electric car in the 80's was the simple fact that no one was interested.

The problem with replacing petrol and disel with batteries and hydrogen fuel cells is electricity production. The leftists will opose that because the only way to increase elctricity production without hurting the environment is nuclear power. The rights will oppose it because they seem to like oil.

Thats why we are in this shitty situation where ethanol is overhyped and billions are wasted on the ethanol dead end.

[DTBusta]

Gm had the EV1. It was being produced 97-01
http://blogs.edmunds.com/karl/239


I said its not much more enviromentally friendly, but in a fuel crisis, like the one we could be staring down if we bomb Iran, it would be a nice security. This country wasted billions on "Home Land Security" , but nothing to secure us from a crisis in the middle east, we have only caused that crisis in the middle east.

[Kärnfysikern]

Gm had the EV1. It was being produced 97-01
http://blogs.edmunds.com/karl/239


I said its not much more enviromentally friendly, but in a fuel crisis, like the one we could be staring down if we bomb Iran, it would be a nice security. This country wasted billions on "Home Land Security" , but nothing to secure us from a crisis in the middle east, we have only caused that crisis in the middle east.

I dont disagree that it would be good for national security. But it would require a imense expansion of power plants! So for it to happen there would first have to be a big sale of electric cars so there is a economic incentive to increase electricity production. Either way we are looking at 20-30 years for it to make a impact on the transportation sector.

[DTBusta]

I dont disagree that it would be good for national security. But it would require a imense expansion of power plants! So for it to happen there would first have to be a big sale of electric cars so there is a economic incentive to increase electricity production. Either way we are looking at 20-30 years for it to make a impact on the transportation sector.

Its a documentary, they film the court hearings, where this president sent Lawyers to join the oil companies in suing the state of California. There is a little spinning in it, but shown also is a waiting list of thousands. They go into Gms marketing campaign and commercials. Its based mostly on fact, that doesn't void the whole documentary does it?

FNC still has its credit as far as they are still allowed to "report" the news, but they are largely known to be biased and right wing nut jobs. Bill Oreilly stuck a lufa up his ass over the phone to an intern and he still has his credit.He setteled that lawsuit, cause he had enough money to buy her out.Same has happened in cali and with many other things under this leader of ours.

[DTBusta]

I couldnt forsee anything more then an economic union, especially with plans to solidfy the MEX-US border physically and minutemen. On the CAN-US border many US polticians have lambasted Canada for terrorists entering the US via Canada, also imposing required passports. So if anything it has been the reciprocal of a union as of late. On the otherhand Im not certain many Canadians want any "union" with the US or at least the Bush led US.

As far as this goes, I dont know what to say other than of course they would start it out economically...Than they would have to set up extra securities to prevent the "terrorist threats" which they want to do anyway. My guess is this wouldn't happen, but I'd say the same about bombing Iran, we will see..