It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: International Poll Reveals: World favors China over USA

page: 11
0
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Quote made by - Muaddib

quote:MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Russian intelligence services warned Washington several times that Saddam Hussein's regime planned terrorist attacks against the United States, President Vladimir Putin has said.

The warnings were provided after September 11, 2001 and before the start of the Iraqi war, Putin said Friday.

-------------------

Sorry but there was no evidence to back up that claim at all. Most likely it was a US requested warning in order to "fix evidence around the policy" of invading Iraq, Putin and Bush have been scratching each others backs for a while. Notice that the Bush Admin said nothing at all about the roll back of democratic rights in Russia recently, so much for spreading Democracy. I think the Bush admin spells it Demo(nHypo)crsy.

There was no plausible evidence that Iraq was a threat and it is a fact of history that whenever a country wishes to invade another sovrign nation, they will manufacture a threat from them. And any one with any knowledge of US international relations would know that the US only ever has problems with the Dictators that don't do what they want them to do. The US has supported plenty of them in it's time (it even got a decent amount into power), even Sadam during his worst crimes.

China is only less disliked than the US because it keeps it's wrong doings inside the country instead of in our faces. Let me make this clear China has an appaling record as far as abuse towards (and limiting freedom of) it's own citizens, but the US invaded a soverign nation with no (real) evidence for oil and power (in the eyes of every other country) and then said "your either with us or against us " to the other countries. In all it's abuses China has never said "support us or your the bad guys", thats just bad public relations.

But make no mistake China is not better than the US, just as bad in a different way would be more accurate.

But I would rather live in a country that pretends I'm free than one that says straight up your a slave. I mean banning the words "freedom" and "democracy" from the internet! Thats some crazy stuff!

[edit on 28-6-2005 by parabolee]




posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Some of these go back a ways.

passerby on pg.9:


I hope that clears it up, I mean no offense to the AMericans but it is up to you to stop it, no one else can. To see a great country being ripped apart, and the best many AMericans can muster is irate apathy, doesn't sit well with many, so with that, understand the poker in the but is ment as good friendly third person perspective.


IT is different for everyone. Ripped apart is also opinion and perception (not agreeing or disagreeing here). Yeah, there is much irate apathy. These things would account for numbers on a poll. These things have affected a poll. So what?

Mythatsabigprobe
on pg. 9:
(regarding trade deficit, budget deficit, and the popularity poll)


I'm sorry for you also, I thought most people would understand that events and circumstances can be 'coupled' together by a simple coincidence of timing.


I'm sorry for you also. Why? Because trade deficit has to do with trade policies? The deficit has to do with the budget? Stop feeling sorry for me and focus on the actual problems. Popularity doesn't affect these issues.

Also, it is possible to voice an opinion without getting nasty isn't it?

Or does this whole topic frustrate you?


And in same post:


Well yes.. There's evidence that's exactly what's happening. Our annual trade deficit was standing at 650 billion in 2004, up from 470 billion in 2002. If it continues growing at this rate it will exceed 1 trillion dollars by the end of next year.

tse.export.gov...

Our national debt is now standing at 7.8 trillion dollars.

www.brillig.com...

Our budget deficit this year is over 400 billion dollars.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

International Tourism figures are UP 12%!! But in real terms, 5 million more tourists visited America in 2000 than in 2004 and with our dollar at record low exchange rates, tourism should be at record high levels...

tinet.ita.doc.gov...

International Student Enrollment is at it's lowest growth in 5 years. 13 of the top 20 nations sending students to the US sent 10-14% fewer students. Again at a time when the low exchange rate makes education and living costs lower and more attractive for foreign students.

opendoors.iienetwork.org...



Budget and trade deficits depend on budget and trade policies. That's another discussion on another board. I can't find any connection to popularity. Is there some sort of direct connection that I'm not seeing?

Oh yeah:

...events and circumstances can be 'coupled' together by a simple coincidence of timing.


Visitors/tourists
So approximately 46,000,000 visited the US at last count. Up from last year and about the same as 1998. I don't care what it "SHOULD" be. Should I?

Students
And as far as foreign student numbers falling which COULD or COULD NOT be affected by popularity, am I moved to increase or decrease my ideas about policies or war or anything so as to change our popularity and get these numbers up? No.

The university thing would be interesting to look into though. I mean, wouldn't more universities in countries other than the US result in a decline here just as much as popularity. What are the costs compared to new opportunites for education in other countries? For example, if we were the most popular country in the universe, would India see an incline or a decline? What "should" it be? What "should" I weigh doctor?

There are two different arguments/discussions at play here.
1. The amount of concern someone should have for a poll in general.
vs.
2. The amount of concern someone should have for falling popularity as far as affecting their own concerns regarding their current government and policies and the course of their daily lives?

[typo edit]




[edit on 28-6-2005 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Also if you look at that, it shows you as immoral and greedy. Maybe that's why? Also could I have a link to that survay? The source of it?


This vote represents NOT pro-china sentiment but a ANTI-America sentiment!
The author of this thread has convoluted facts and made them show that the world is infact pro-china when it is in fact a poll to determine Anti-America sentiment!
Also for those who cared to go through the links provided initially, Japan has the highest ratings world over. Does this mean that the world is Pro Japan and wants Japan to resume its " Emipre of Japan" banner? I think not!
Any reasonable person who stuidies the poll will understand that this poll is not about Pro-china or pro any other country but infact a estimate of Anti-America sentinment and says that after the Tsunami tragedy the world has seen Americas true nature of giving and had a glimpse into real American values and thus its ratings world over have improved!!
[ BIG difference between Pro- china and Anti- America!, I am sure we all know this !
]
The whole poll reeks of ludacrous and is an attempt to convolute opinions. How come India, with the Second largest population in the world supports America nerarly 70% ? Do you claim that you have a better understanding than all those who polled from India? Or do you consider their vote as insignificant?

So if we get 70% of 1.3 billions and lose the support of a couple of of millions in Europe I think its in the positive, dont you?


[edit on 28-6-2005 by IAF101]



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Hey, IAF101.

You appear intelligent and clear headed. What I've been wanting to ask someone:

Will any of this cause England to stop licensing episodes of "Last of the Summer Wine" to US PBS stations?



[edit to include] Excellent point by the way. I don't think anyone here has thought to point that out.

[edit on 28-6-2005 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2nd Hand Thoughts
Hey, IAF101.

You appear intelligent and clear headed. What I've been wanting to ask someone:

Will any of this cause England to stop licensing episodes of "Last of the Summer Wine" to US PBS stations?



[edit to include] Excellent point by the way. I don't think anyone here has thought to point that out.

[edit on 28-6-2005 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]


I doubt it, is this a joke?



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by parabolee

Originally posted by 2nd Hand Thoughts
Will any of this cause England to stop licensing episodes of "Last of the Summer Wine" to US PBS stations?



I doubt it, is this a joke?


Yeah, I don't care for that show. What about "My Hero"?

I hope not, but I still have Bottom, Young Ones, and Father Ted on dvd. And if Canada gets snooty about it, I've still got season 1 of Kids in the Hall. Can we give them back Tom Green, cause he hasn't done anything interesting lately. Can the US send Steve-O over there for a month or two as punishment?

Geez, I hope region coding doesn't change!



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 02:10 PM
link   
That poll just goes to show you people lost their damn minds.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2nd Hand Thoughts
Yeah, I don't care for that show. What about "My Hero"?

I hope not, but I still have Bottom, Young Ones, and Father Ted on dvd. And if Canada gets snooty about it, I've still got season 1 of Kids in the Hall. Can we give them back Tom Green, cause he hasn't done anything interesting lately. Can the US send Steve-O over there for a month or two as punishment?

Geez, I hope region coding doesn't change!

Is it too much to ask to keep on topic? Or is the topic that frustrating for you?

Polls are the best indication of average opinions. If you can come up with a better judgment tool im all ears. What you propose is a completely reactionary mindset. If business and politicians shared your contempt for polls the businesses would lose alot of money from mismanaged products and politicians would lose votes.

The fact that both businesses and policians commission polls lends credence to their usefullness. Have you any understanding of statistical probability?

Lets just say you had a bowl with 100 marbles in it. 80 of them are red and 20 of them are blue. If you picked 10 marbles at random you would expect more red marbles than blue, yes? Could you get more blue than red? Yes but the chances of it grow smaller and smaller when the samples get bigger and bigger.

If those red marbles were people with anti-American sentiment and there were 16,000 people sampled from a billion people you'd still expect it to give an indication of the true numbers. Its a statisical IMPROBABILITY that you could sample 16,000 people and get more anti-American sentiment than there actually is.

Its much more accurate than looking into a crystal ball or not giving a toss any way, which you seem to advocate.

No man is an island and, as such, neither is any country.

Oh by the way, opinions dont make a difference to anything? Tell that to Mr.Greenspan. That guy clears his throat and markets can plummet.

[edit on 28/6/05 by subz]



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Subz,

Did you read anything I said? I've gone as far as admitting the US is the least popular country in the universe. And I said I don't care. It doesn't make me a "republican mouthpiece" or any other mouthpiece.

I don't care about sentiment in the least and not many others here seem to either. It seems like you can't quite get over that.

I'm not saying this is the case, but it sure seems like there's an awful lot of "you should care because a lot of people don't favor you right now." An awful lot of jumping up and down "Hey, look at me! Look at us! Don't you care that we don't like you right now?" Not me. And that doesn't in the least mean that I don't take notice of England as a country of valuable people and esteemed allies.

So, as I explained in earlier posts through my ideas, let's take this as FACT: Every poll about anti-american sentiment is true and factual! I don't care. (You'd know I felt this way if you read and comprehended my last "on topic" post.
)

And since you are still trying to convince everyone to care by harping about the validity of polls....it is ABSOLUTELY statistically probable for a poll to incorrectly judge a a larger group's opinion.

Extreme example: If you conduct a poll regarding morality in a red light district, it's PROBABLY going to be different than one conducted otherwise.
I've been asked to take a lot of polls. I REFUSE. And if I did subject myself, it would probably include or be about something I had strong negative views about. People don't write Letters to the Editor about things that make them happy about in large numbers do they?

Seriously, a question for any US citizen (which of course would be on the honor system and we have no way of telling for sure here):

Who woke up on the morning that you first saw one of these polls and said "OMG, I've been wrong! Today I change!"?

Who thought the last time they voted on anything at any local, state, or federal level and stopped to think about world opinion as a major factor?

When I start hearing the leaders of all these countries I'm supposed to care so much about changing policies like crazy, then it matters. At that point it matters and not a moment before.

And subz, if you lived here I'd fight for your right to vote on it. But your voice doesn't carry very well into our voting booths and that's just the way it is. (I think we'd both be pretty surprised about things we agree on actually.)

But unfortunately all you can do is make a lot of noise (I don't mean this as a put down in any way). Which, quite often, is pretty "off-topic" as well.

And lastly: Canada and England are still region 1 right? I'm gonna go rent some Mr. Bean episodes to get my mind off of this damned thread.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   
For some one who doesnt give a damn what people think of his country you sure have posted an awful lot about it.

If you think the United States doesnt need to pay attention to what the World thinks then why did Cheney bother visiting Europe to mend the Iraq-War rift?


Mr. Cheney's advisers say that raising the vice president's public visibility and opening a public-relations offensive is aimed at mending fences with foreign critics of the Iraq war and countering Democrats' efforts at home to demonize him as a symbol of the Bush administration's close corporate connections and overreliance on dubious intelligence about Iraq's illicit weapons.

"This year's going to be a long slog, and it's imperative that we recount the accomplishments of the administration," said Mary Matalin, a longtime Cheney adviser. "This is something he can do quite well. He's particularly adept at putting events in a historical context."

Cheney Mends Rifts in Europe

Why does it matter to Cheney what the Europeans think of America if it doesnt affect American interests? Do you really think he is doing it because of that darn need to be liked?

How about Bush visiting Canada to mend fences?


U.S. President George W. Bush and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin sought on Tuesday to mend fences after four years of strained relations between the two neighbors aggravated by the U.S.-led war on Iraq.

Bush Mends Fences in Canada

Why does Bush care what the Canadians think of America? Afterall, the view of foreigners has absolutely no bearing on American interests, right?

I dont get it. So much high level attention is devoted to mending rifts and correcting ill-will towards America yet, apparently, you believe what the World thinks of America has no bearing on your counry whatsoever.

[edit on 28/6/05 by subz]



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
For some one who doesnt give a damn what people think of his country you sure have posted an awful lot about it.


Trying to explain my viewpoint in various ways with the hope that you will comprehend what I am saying isn't a gage of how much I care about a poll or a confirmed consensus. It's a gage of how many times you haven't considered what I've said long enough to get it.


If you think the United States doesnt need to pay attention to what the World thinks then why did Cheney bother visiting Europe to mend the Iraq-War rift?


He's a politician and a leader. They tend to visit other countries. He gives the same lip service here as well and we don't even "favor china over ourselves." He's a weasel.


How about Bush visiting Canada to mend fences?


Same as above. Also a weasel. (Keep going there's more coming.)


U.S. President George W. Bush and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin sought on Tuesday to mend fences after four years of strained relations between the two neighbors aggravated by the U.S.-led war on Iraq.
Bush Mends Fences in Canada

Why does Bush care what the Canadians think of America? Afterall, the view of foreigners has absolutely no bearing on American interests, right?

I dont get it. So much high level attention is devoted to mending rifts and correcting ill-will towards America yet, apparently, you believe what the World thinks of America has no bearing on your counry whatsoever.


You and I and our peers know that Bush or Cheney aren't going to change anyone's mind by fumbling for words. At the least, it's embarrassing. But you are getting the same lip service and spin that we do here. Of course somebody better visit you and start answering questions. You had soldiers fighting there and all the misery that entails and you have people there now. No one in the US takes that lightly. I know I don't. They had to go and they went as ordered by your leaders just as ours were. I don't take that any less importantly as US soldiers, or Polish, or Iraqi, or Bulgarian, or any coalition soldiers.

So, you are being visited because you damned well better be visited. Besides us and the Iraqi people, England has had the most at stake in this mess.

Whew. I'm ready to stop this if you are.


This was the first thread I ever posted at and I don't need to tell you how much time it started to burn up. I was going to make this last post more complicated by pasting in some old stuff of yours but I saw a compliment (granted it was small but it surprised me and you didn't need to do that...something about me not being as worthless as most or something) so who the hell cares. I doubt anyone else is even reading this stuff anymore. Well, they probably are cause this has been some pretty funny crap. And I have almost no points because I just bought a neat color and text color and I don't want to make anyone else any more points until I start seeing some come my way.)

I don't know about you but I'm really thinking I'd rather get over to the alien board or something. Sci-fi's got some roswell show on right now.



[edit on 28-6-2005 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz.
Lets just say you had a bowl with 100 marbles in it. 80 of them are red and 20 of them are blue. If you picked 10 marbles at random you would expect more red marbles than blue, yes? Could you get more blue than red? Yes but the chances of it grow smaller and smaller when the samples get bigger and bigger.

If those red marbles were people with anti-American sentiment and there were 16,000 people sampled from a billion people you'd still expect it to give an indication of the true numbers. Its a statisical IMPROBABILITY that you could sample 16,000 people and get more anti-American sentiment than there actually is.

Their are several fallacies with what you have said in the above paragraphs, firstly Probability is just that PROBABILITY and not CERTAINITY! To examine statistical data, as fact is absurd as it is statistically extrapolated to determine the range for a given sample!
Also in your first paragraph you say that it is possible to get more blue balls in the sample but its chances decrease as the sample increases, so why can't you take the sample of blue as Anti-America supporters? Then according to your example wouldn't it be possible to say that a majority of the sample was Blue! Isn't that possible?
Now coming to the sample size, do you honestly believe that 16000 people speak for the rest of humanity, which numbers about 6.4 billion? Can you conclusively prove that this sample of 16000 share the opinion of 999,998,400 others? If you do believe this then you have credulous insight into interpretation of statistical data.
Let us take this sample 16000 and ask them to pick their favorite car, for example, do you think its impossible that all 16000 have completely different opinions on the type of car they like? Does this mean that from this sample you will deduce that all 16000 types of cars are good? Similarly they can also share the same opinion and will this show that the whole populations opinion? My point being that, this poll conducted in so small a sample is incapable of judging the true nature of an entire population! This sample cannot indicate the opinion of a large city forget an entire nation or the world!

You mention that a sample is taken randomly, while this is not, this sample mostly comprises of urban folk who were picked to answer this poll. How does this make the sample true or indicative? You also claim that it is statistically improbable to say that a 16000 sample which shows Anti-America sentiment than the entire populace, how is this so when you yourself admit that a smaller sample can be misleading in your red/blue ball example?[more blue balls!] Isn't this a contradiction of what you've said earlier? Also the Pew center doesn’t say that they have conducted this poll or varying sample sizes, so how you say that this meager sample is in anyway indicative?
To effectively determine the probability of anything you have to know the total no in each type, like total no of Anti-Americans and total Pro-American? How do you say that it is most probable that the given sample indicates the true nature of a populace when you don't have the total No. of Anti-Americans or Pro-Americans? Isn't this the aim of the poll?
I would like to question the fairness of this poll and how it was able to maintain non-partisanship through out the poll, how genuine the poll is and in what psychological state the people who contributed to the poll were in ?


[edit on 29-6-2005 by IAF101]




top topics



 
0
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join