A global survey conducted by the Worldwide Independent Network and Gallup at the end of 2013 revealed strong animosity towards the US’s role as the world’s policeman. Citizens across over 60 nations were asked: “Which country do you think is the greatest threat to peace in the world today?”
The US topped the list, with 24 percent of people believing America to be the biggest danger to peace. Pakistan came second, with 8 percent of the vote and was closely followed by China with 6 percent. Afghanistan, Iran, Israel and North Korea came in joint fourth place with 5 percent of the vote.
The threat from the US was rated most highly in the Middle East and North Africa, those areas most recently affected by American military intervention. Moreover, the survey showed that even Americans regard their country as a potential threat with 13 percent of them voting the US could disrupt global status quo.
No duh.
well we can guess woot lions rotary clubs cover 95% ‘world marked and whom pole… maybe they prole Polak weighted like west.. like while auld ussr go to bitz in 1990s and 110% unemployed and more women in work market then woman in land.. good Pole
And the point here is what again?
Did you really think any country full of arrogant “me-firsts” wasn’t going to step on a few toes around the world in order to to keep the oil flowing or from buying/selling all the crap that everyone laps up like cockroaches?
The salient definition of “me-firsts” being anyone who helps to hire a D/R governance.
I’m wondering how long (if ever) it will take for the electorate to become aware that THEY are the sole problem and that they are also the sole (non-violent) solution.
Hey! I have lived in both America and Pakistan!
The first, obvious, similarity between both countries is their military and their interventionist attitudes.
Pakistan’s inteventionism is regional and America’s is global but, in my observation, it comes from a pretty similar mindset.
But, this is a poll on people perception — not the reality.
In my mind, Saudi Arabia is more of a threat to internional peace than Pakistan. They certainly meddle more widely than Pakistan does and they have much more resources to do so.
Furthermore, like Pakistan, they have a whole bunch of rogue players who are also mucking around in the world.
I think I’d also put Israel high on the list. Their recalistrance to making peace with their own Muslim residents seems to always have us on the brink of one war or another.
‘their own muslem residence.. are ye sure.. which pakistan ye live in .. ehhhe… east…
recalcitrant is not default u/s keyboard.. hhehe it a joke
independent world gallup polls show.. independent world gallup pools show .. whatever, don’t ye know
status quo is woot §
Only took me 59 years to realize how precious our Bill of Rights was—now that it’s dead. “You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone.”
RIP, Fourth Amendment. You were special.
“”Only took me 59 years to realize how precious our Bill of Rights was
Unintentional derp.
slow children at play.
“I thought pot would make me screw a black woman while I was sleeping.”
peaceful armaggeddon, tolly b.
well i guess it is better than being a big number 2….
😛
(sort of?) Off topic to Mr. Ed.
It would be nice if you provided a primer of how to invoke the dvorak available smilies. I used your search tool and didn’t come up with an answer.
More use of smilies would allow for better conveyance of hatred, agreement, love, sarcasm, idiocy etc. ; all those feelings that people who post here are wont to convey.
Also, aren’t you guys like 10 years old in 2014? Are you baking a cake for this or something?
🙂
Oh yea?? Who does #2 work for???
Yet another Progressive issue… Progressives are the ones who at every step wanted such role. Because of their own global interests. Majority of normal people do not want that. Yet, it is Progressives in power now (Left and Right) who keep US military all around. Can you see either Obama, Democratic(Progressive) Senate or Establishment House Republicans asking for majority of overseas troops to be brought back? No.
That is a separate issue from “having a strong military”. Latter brings side-benefits: political influence, economic progress and scientific/technological progress. Chinese are trying to build Carriers NOT for direct military purpose but technological development. No Moon flight without ballistic missiles… Particularly if all at home, it makes economic sense – couple years ago there was a study on savings if we repatriate all or most troops and KEEP them but here: If we completely repatriate – 300+Bil$/year savings; If we leave minimal “liaison” forces (in 100’s per country) and some major facilities (mainly hospitals in Germany) – 250+Bil/year… With side benefit of all hundreds of thousands of military men spending their wages here at home…
So, not policemen of the World. Constitution have NOT intended that – Progressives invented it. But, Constitutional duty IS strong defense of the country which by itself gives passive international influence , which is good.
Wow, if you think we Progressives are the pro-military, pro-war faction in America, you need to start reading newspapers again.
(Or, maybe you are just spewing crap that even you know is nonsense. )
When they need their asses rescued, the sheeple change their mind.
Does this mean you won’t vote R/D next election?
Not sure because I don’t know what the choices are!
But, if it’s Hillary, I’m voting for her. Will you vote for her too?
Yes. Yes, I will vote for her {mhuaahhha!} — Just remember that there are worse things get stuck onto votes besides hanging chad.
“”When they need their asses rescued, the sheeple change their mind.
Not always. Nobody is going to pull you out of a ditch on the Sabboth.
Awesome. Invite your friends because I’m pretty sure she ‘ll run.
I figured you were still a sheeple.
DM: to quote Inigo Montoya, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
You know, unless you’re the lead dog, the view never changes. And most of us don’t want to stare at another dog’s asshole.
However…, presuming we want continued life, liberty, freedom, and safety at home, what IS the optimal mix of offense, defense, and leadership the U.S. should exhibit to the world?
Please refrain from suggesting that the U.N. could help.
The UN DOES HELP—-when allowed to. It makes sense…. international peace keepers keeping international peace. Ha, ha.
The question though is incredibly ambiguous. Short term vs long term thinking. The violence of war vs the violence of oppressive gubments within their own countries or even cross border.
The Security Counsel of course won’t allow the UN to lead because as this issue reveals, the UN Peace Keepers would be moving in the main against the members of the Security Counsel. Not a Catch-22 …… more a cock-block.
I CHALLENGE DOUCHANAL: Please define Progressive. Please trash your first choice: anything you don’t like. Try again!
Go==============>
The UN is a sick, sad, joke in poor taste spreading Cholera to the downtrodden peoples of western civilization. Just look at their retarded (1961 authored by GHW Bush) stance on Uraguay, Colorodo, and cannabis.
If it is ‘health’, food, or global governance co2 (life) taxing schemes {you really need to look more closely at Pachauri — He crimed all over ‘science’ to convince billions of people that starving your kids and slaughtering your nieghbors because they cook with real butter is a pretty good idea} then stand back because they are almost as efficacious as the League of Nations. To prevent war, cover your mouth when squaring the fuckbags.
“”international peace keepers keeping international peace. Ha, ha.
Well, at least, you got the *ha ha* in there. And I sort of agree with the rest of your longterm v. shorterm analysis of their benevolence or lack there of… On paper, that is.
But, isn’t it much more fundamental to understand that *peace* is an attribute like *love* and can not be enforced — to leave arguing the pros/cons of that endeaver behind and just boldly state on this first principle that the ‘peace’ arm of the united nations is a lie, or at least, folly.
I guess, I still hold on to the idea of sovereignty and of being good soveriegn neighbors instead of having an appointed old crab up the street to bash any persons that dare to look at her quizzically or those that ignore her when she spouts her senile stupidities.
There’s nothing like a cogent argument.
Sarcasm? Why do people bully me on the internet like a denizen of Dallas in Delaware??
Actually, I preferre only a touch of cogent smeared atop a nutty, rocky-road-style tangent; So long as it’s not too fly-blown and I can scrape the road-grime off quickly without anyone asking what I’m doing to that little dogworm.
Well, CO has not responded in the time allocated, so my two cents: the good Captain in my recollection does not do sarcasm. Sarcasm is not “obvious.” I took his comment as a straight forward compliment.
Sarcasm is achieved by CONTEXT. Usually, the context of knowing who the speaker is and what his values are. That main tether is not present on the internet. Instead, you have the internal consistency of the comment and some relationship to popular values.
No, I’d take CO at his plain meaning.
Just call me the PeaceMaker and don’t confuse it with raping anyone. both have their role of course, but are very different. Is “A” achieved if “Not A” is defeated?
Inquiring minds want to know.
If you ask a criminal who is the biggest threat to his peace he will always say the police..
If you ask a cop who is the biggest threat to his piece then he will say “my partner, because he always grabs the wrong gun when we are together in the men’s room.”
Is it this comment, or my own perversionk, that my first reaction to that avatar was that it looked like a dick covering some guys face? Is that a mouth or a bag of balls?
Who could help us on this issue? Ha, ha. Its good to have a few perversions….. and not get caught.
Hmm… Considering the source, there probably is some symbology to it on perhaps different planes of imagery. Balls? Probably not but it is suggestive as hell, now that you mention it.
“”The character’s name is taken from the title of J. D. Salinger’s short story, The Laughing Man. The Laughing Man logo is an animated image of a smiling figure wearing a cap, with circling text quoting a line from Salinger’s novel The Catcher in the Rye
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laughing_Man_%28Ghost_in_the_Shell%29
Thanks Tim–you have provided more info than I dug up in my quick google.
I remember reading Catcher in the Rye. Took away a few good lines, but I don’t remember the ending.
Ha, ha…….I could spend the rest of my life re-reading (something for Tollybong) the books I’ve already read. Of interest on their own, doubly interesting in comparison to my memory of what they meant to me when first read.
Just not enough time to do any proportion of worthy things. Course….. reading ….. is not doing.
Curses!
I find your avatar refreshing, Mark F.
*I thought what I would do is pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes*
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Jf_Sl3BlsVc
Would it be too snarky to point out you already do a pretty good job of that?
Ha, ha. Yes, it would be. Perhaps …. then …. make it a stretch goal??
(Snark/off)
I suppose it should come as no surprise that the country that spends more on its military than all the rest of the countries in the world combined is seen as a threat to peace.
But dear leader won the Nobel Peace Prize.
I bet that sawed off little scruff bangs Putin in the ear.
Tim off the tangent for a rare cogent post says:
1/3/2014 at 10:49 am
The UN is a sick, sad, joke in poor taste spreading Cholera to the downtrodden peoples of western civilization. /// Yes, as avatars (sic) for the Security Counsel, they are just that. My position being more of a “what they could be” rather than what they are. They spread cholera though? Unintended consequence or a good plan to defeat some anti-corporatist rebel group? Well, I do assume there was a cholera outbreak somewhere in the world at some time….. so the UN connection must be accepted ipso dipshit.
Just look at their retarded (1961 authored by GHW Bush) stance on Uraguay, Colorodo, and cannabis. /// HEY!!!===you just missed the 50 year limit on irrelevant BS to be included in any analysis. Again—bad avatar.
If it is ‘health’, food, or global governance co2 (life) taxing schemes {you really need to look more closely at Pachauri — He crimed all over ‘science’ to convince billions of people that starving your kids and slaughtering your nieghbors because they cook with real butter is a pretty good idea} then stand back because they are almost as efficacious as the League of Nations. To prevent war, cover your mouth when squaring the fuckbags. /// Steven Pinker makes the point that in fact we are living in the most “peaceful” time ever on earth. Whether you agree or not, thinking about how one views that issue is most rewarding………………If you don’t get any reward from that activity………………..you may not be thinking! Ha, ha.
“”international peace keepers keeping international peace. Ha, ha.
Well, at least, you got the *ha ha* in there. And I sort of agree with the rest of your longterm v. shorterm analysis of their benevolence or lack there of… On paper, that is. //// Paper over tweets? Thank you.
But, isn’t it much more fundamental to understand that *peace* is an attribute like *love* and can not be enforced —/// of course it can===just like rape.
to leave arguing the pros/cons of that endeaver behind and just boldly state on this first principle that the ‘peace’ arm of the united nations is a lie, or at least, folly.
I guess, I still hold on to the idea of sovereignty and of being good soveriegn neighbors instead of having an appointed old crab up the street to bash any persons that dare to look at her quizzically or those that ignore her when she spouts her senile stupidities. //// You have wandered into the nub of things. Hoomans are hierarchical social creatures. There will always be a sovereign. The only issue is who? Which god, which neighbor, which gugment. Pros and Cons to wherever the line is drawn…… what with things being the same and different at the same time. Embrace the Horror.
Good job Timmy….. slow day?
“”you just missed the 50 year limit on irrelevant BS to be included in any analysis. Again—bad avatar.
Well, I took my lead from the best of them:
“”the INCB said that such a law would be in “complete contravention” of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961, which bans the sale of cannabis for non-medical use.
http://bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-23535990
Of course, that article is misleading as to what that treaty said/did — it was really an attack against natural fiber textiles because what it did was lump hemp in with cannabis and declare the whole lot narcotics — there was never any language or intent in that treaty that would even hint at medicinal use {as, obviously, there is none or a benevolent organization would not be so cruel}. Here, I note that North Korea, which is not a part of that faux organization, is not so cruel as to put restrictions on cannabis and its use by their populace.
“”the INCB expressed “regret” and “surprise” that Uruguay’s leaders would go against the international treaty they are a part of – and that they would not take up the organization’s calls for a “dialogue” before passing the law.
a snippet of aforementioned ‘senile stupidities’
“”States have a moral and legal responsibility to protect drug abusers from further self-destruction. States should not give up and allow advocates of legalization to take control of their national drug policies. Governments should not be intimidated by a vocal minority that wants to legalize illicit drug use. Governments must respect the view of the majority of lawful citizens; and those citizens are against illicit drug use.
I guess, I’ll be protected from *further self-destruction* when the good guys’ swat-team comes around for a friendly checkup, killing me and all those I love.
http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/13/un-agency-pissed-off-that-uruguay-legali
a drug raid goes viral (ReasonTV)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=e7hPsUyHiI8
Well Tim—you are quite correct. So polite about it too, I almost dismissed it as tangential thinking…but you are right on the mark. Thank you for educating me.
I recall some years ago when Mexico was going to legalize or decriminalize MJ and perhaps some other drugs too and the news was that USA pressured Mexico not to do it. Don’t recall this UN (Bad UN==what a toady to the Security Counsel they are!!!) treaty enforcement provision being mentioned at the time.
So, now==Colorado and Washington State are in violation of this UN Treaty obligation? Send in the BLUE Helmets to reestablish World Hegemony given the failure of the local gubment to do so?
Pros and Cons to all we do.
Ha, ha.
“”Steven Pinker makes the point that in fact we are living in the most “peaceful” time ever on earth.
Then Steven Pinker may be heard as fulfilling end-times biblical prophecy:
8 ‘How can you say, “We are wise,
for we have the law of the Lord,”
when actually the lying pen of the scribes
has handled it falsely?
9The wise will be put to shame;
they will be dismayed and trapped.
Since they have rejected the word of the Lord,
what kind of wisdom do they have?
10Therefore I will give their wives to other men
and their fields to new owners.
From the least to the greatest,
all are greedy for gain;
prophets and priests alike,
all practice deceit.
11They dress the wound of my people
as though it were not serious.
“Peace, peace,” they say,
when there is no peace. — Jeremiah 8 vs. 8-11
“”of course it can===just like rape.
Smurf-hatting for peace is like raping for chastity. I guess, it’s like soccer; you can’t do anything about it so sit back, enjoy, and tell the goalie he’s a fag-toking tinkerbell with broken smartglasses.
Now Defiler of Seals, that is one post I’d have to read more than twice to fully plumb its meaning.
Or….. trying to connect Jeremiah (he was a bullfrog you know) to smartglasses is just too many tangents to cross. I’ll leave this to Timmmmmay as tangent crossing is his forte, or maybe just the bad view of the world he gets thru his own broken glasses.
Is “Lord save us from all Tyrants” just too ironic?
or what??
What???
……….but I dither.
no er in endeavor
no o in Sabbath
peacekeepers is one word
Tollybong, I do enjoy your ((whats that word for the marginal notes an editor makes?))
no er in endeavor /// Never an error in trying
no o in Sabbath /// Ever sat in the congregation?
peacekeepers is one word /// I won’t even google when to hyphenate vs separate vs combing two base words when conjoining to symbolically capture/create a specific idea. Regardless of what “rule” is used to cover up the fact: its all totally arbitrary. Thats why grammar and the thinking that comes from it is so hard. Still, the UN should make every effort to do so.
If you want a Big Brother, you get all that comes with it.
— Erich Fromm (1900-1980) Escape from Freedom
I for one always believe unattributable survey data.