American citizens list of favorite countries

Survey indicates that American citizens' most favorable countries are Canada, UK. Saudi Arabia marked at bottom of list.
A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found that American's citizens' affection of Israel is only sixth, after Canada, the UK, Japan, Germany, and Brazil.
The survey asked citizens on their perception of various nations. Two countries the United States was fighting against during WWII marked a rise in Americans' inclination – Japan came in third with 70% finding it favorable, and Germany came in fourth, with 67%.
Some 61% noted to have liked Israel, and 26% of Americans see the Jewish State unfavorably ( Arab & Muslim Americans ).
In keeping with US tradition, the survey indicates that Republicans hold a more favorable view of Israel than do Democrats. Some 74% of Republicans see Israel in a positive light, compared to 55% of Democrats.
Though considered the most prominent Arab ally of the US, Saudi Arabia was marked at the bottom of the list, garnering 27% favorable views and 57% unfavorable views.
Coming in after Israel was France, as 59% reported to view France favorably.
The complete ranking list named Canada in first place (81% favorable views versus 9% unfavorable); UK second (79% vs. 9%); then Japan (70% vs. 20%); Germany (67% vs. 16%); Brazil (61% vs. 15%); Israel (61% vs. 26%); France (59% vs. 24%); India (46% vs. 33%), Mexico (39% vs. 52%); China (33% vs. 55%); Russia (32% vs. 54%); and Saudi Arabia coming in last
(27% vs. 57%).

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4471786,00.html

Any comments ?

 

The US Secretary of State admitted that the USA starved to death 500,000 thousand children in Iraq, and that it was worth the price.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg of all the people we slaughtered in Iraq. Pretty much the same goes for Afghanistan that we bombed into rubble.
[video=youtube;R0WDCYcUJ4o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0WDCYcUJ4o[/video]
So Comrad Benson's fake patriotism is on par with Colin Powell's.

 

No, she said that the sanctions were worth the price, Saddam starved the children as all he had to do was pick up a phone and order his goons to comply.

Another liberal porn clip busted!

Less than ten thousand people were killed by US forces in the nation that harbored those that attacked the US

 

It is a lie that Iraq harbored those who blew the World Trade Center.
The USA, Saudis and Israelis harbored the attackers one way or another.

And the US blockade on food, medical and santitary supplies caused the deaths of more than 500,000 Iraqis.
The US blames President Saddam Hussein, but he was never allowed to reply.
This alone proves that the USA acting in bad faith towards Iraq.
All the killing, torture, starvation, poisoning etc. is just back up evidence.

 

I agree so why do you say they were harbored by Iraq?

 

I supposed that Comrad Drew said Iraq harbored the 9/11 attackers.
Reckon he meant Afghanistan.
But Afghanistan wasn't harboring the attackers either.
In fact, Afghanistan offered to surrender Bin Laden, if the USA would produce evidence.
Since the USA was lying from begining to end, they couldn't produce any evidence, so they immediately began bombing Afghanistan.

The people accused of flying the 9/11 aircraft were Saudis. And the USA immediately flew all suspect Saudis out of the country as soon as they could.

Yet the geniuses in DC bombed Afghanistan.

 

Looks like you reckoned wrong but that is hardly the first time as your prose is rife with such mistakes and innuendo.

I did. Congratulations, you are right for a change!

No? Then where was Bin Laden?

I see, so by placing conditions on the US to prove to their satisfaction for 911 this is not harboring a known terrorist who was already a confirmed terrorist and wanted by the US complete with an extradition order for the attacks on the Kobar Towers yet they didn't wish to talk with the US yet wanted the US to provide proof on 911 which the US did not have to as he was already confirmed as the perpetrator for the Towers.

I'll give you an 'A' for being a formula terrorist supporter though Ivan88 but, this has been worked over by better than you!

Evidence of what exactly? Him lighting a match to a huge bowling ball type bomb while wearing a top hat and a handlebar mustache? What dependence would the Taliban like to see of Bin Laden that would make them put him on a plane bound for the US and then reap the wrath of the parasite population of dedicated Al Qaeda fanatics who were living there exactly? Please spell this ridiculous scenario out for all of us here on the forums as I can use a good laugh from you for a change.

Suspect Saudis? Please tell us how flying loyal supporters of the house of Saud back to SA in order to prop up what was thought to be a coinciding coup is suspect considering these were the most loyal supporters of the Royal Kingdom?

I'd really like to hear you formula claptrap on this formula argument.

 

Why should the Afghanis take the word of one of the world's greatest liar countries?
What was so evil about supplying the Afghanis proof of the US story?

Civilized people don't kill their neighbors when they ask for evidence.

As for the story about saving the Saudi tyrants:
Why does the USA whine about "dictators" all the time, and falls all over itself serving the Saudi dictators?

And, no one can explain how 9/11 was the fault of Afghanistan when the USA is claiming that Saudis flew the 9/11 planes.

The only freedom the US military is fighting for is the freedom of the war gurus to wage wars for profit anywhere they please, and any time they please.
[video=youtube;F3_EXqJ8f-0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3_EXqJ8f-0[/video]

 

Bin Laden is not Afghan Ivan and also there was extradition orders out for him from the Kobar Towers and, he declared war on the US so, was not a viable visa applicant for a law abiding nation or, had legal protection of same. As well, only three nations on earth recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan so they had no say in the matter.

Taliban were not neighbors, they were an armed militia who had taken over a country and rulled it by primitive means. Well, then again, maybe your neighbors!

Their dictators were not killing millions of their own citizens and attacking other nations.

Golly, don't you get 'inter cave' memos where you are? KSM admitted how he planeed and executed it and it has been corroborated by reams of evidence ranging from airline tickets to hotel receipts and car rentals to money transfers.

War Gurus make almost as much money from peace as they do from low intensity warfare but you knew that didn't you and are only saying this jingoistic claptrap because that is what your cell says to right?

 

The USA put the Taliban in power in the first place.
While the rest of the decieved Afghanis were busy fighting the Russians, the US had a special group stay out of most the fighting, until.....the Russians left and the Afghans took over.
Then that special group, well supplied and rested, eventually became what we call the Taliban.

BTW the War gurus made a report, The New American Century, in which they called for a new Pearl Harbor to justify a vast expansion of military spending to enrich themselves.
No more tonight.

 

Hardly. The US supplied Afghan Warlords with weapons and support but the Taliban did not exist until well after the Russian left emerging only during the Afghan Civil war in which the US had no role.

Wow. Provide a non loon link to support this please.

 

Rwanda? Yugoslavia? Cambodia? Somalia? Please explain this Lefter.

- - - Updated - - -

No. We put the norther alliance in power. They lost a revolution later. Massoud was a defense minister. Learn history before you use it in debate.

 

Quite the shame that asteroid missed and didn't get rid of all of you sociopaths.One nation under Satan.

 

I've debunked this nonsense previously.

 

You did? Please supply proof of this fallacy..

 

Taliban are Muslims. Muslims put them in power same as Stupid Gazans put Hammas to rule them
Muslims love to kill Muslims.
They hate each other, and Palestinians they hate the most.

 

Indeed, only a moron would unquestioningly accept or believe the official US line:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/osama-...-the-9-11-attacks-where-is-the-evidence/15892

 

Means nothing. Two years from now everything will change...except maybe towards Saudi Arabia.

 

KSM was tortured using 'enhanced interrogation techniques'. Evidence obtained by way of torture is highly suspect at best, and notoriously unreliable. Why do you accept it without question?

 

Ivan something is fishy here. The woman is saying that 500,000 children died, and yet Albright did not say the price 'was' worth it but 'is' worth it, which means a future event not a past event. Seems someone put it together.

 

When the U.S. troops entered Iraq, they were shocked to find stockpiles of food and medicine in ware houses. Obviously Saddam was holding them back from the people.

As for the Iraqis, they were blowing up the infrastructure faster than the American troops were able to repair them. The only mistake the U.S. made was at the beginning of the war, when Bremer released the Iraqi armed forces and the young men had nothing to do and became easy prey for instigators, whether they were Shias from Iran or Sunnis coming in from Syria. The U.S. should have kept the army intact.

As for the deaths by American soldiers, the Iraqis were forcing women with children to zoom past the checkpoints leaving the guards with no choice but to kill them, or be blown up themselves. Are the soldiers to blame, or the animals who were forcing them to drive past the check points?

 

It certainly is and, should only be considered as part of the overall intelligence as it needs to be corroborated with other information such as computer records, letters from Bin Laden, chat sessions with some of the hijackers,
verification from other human sources and so on and forth which it all was. One simply does not go in and interrogate with a simple yes or no question, you go in and already have information and need to have some of the blanks filled in and, once this occurs, you need to verify all information to weed out what is bogus from what is possibly true. This was done over a period of years, not on the spur of the moment.

 

I see Ivan-88 successfully trolled another thread away from tourism into the usual three-minutes hate against America.

Time to hit the report button.

 

First of all, you have obviously never been to Afghanistan. If you had, then you would see little evidence of bombardment (considering artillery fire and bombing efforts were focused on mountains and cave systems to avoid casualties). The only strikes near built-up areas were kinetic strikes on confirmed targets. Secondly, village areas [in Afghanistan] consist mainly of mud-built compounds with walls established around them. On the other hand, cities contain buildings/compounds that you would actually recognize (although it is more of a mix of Brazilian favela and cities you see in Kyrgyzstan).

I have nothing against the Afghan people, but to describe Afghanistan with one word would be: dirt. Honestly, there is not enough built-up areas in the country to even appear as though it was "bombed into rubble".

Please do not use these forums to expouse nonsense about wars without first-hand experience in the matter.

Thank you.

 

While I accept there has not been a "bombardment" on Afghanistan, what I find disturbing is the supine and detached nature of your post. There are two many individual incidences of innocent civilians being killed by allied forces in remote areas to suggest that the deaths resulting from the said strikes were anything other than deliberate and targeted:

http://ourbombs.com/striketracker/nonflash/1032

In his classic work, Obedience to Authority, psychologist Stanley Milgram observed:

"There is always some element of bad form in objecting to the destructive course of events, or indeed, in making it a topic of conversation. Thus, in Nazi Germany, even among those most closely identified with the 'final solution', it was considered an act of discourtesy to talk about the killings." (Milgram, Obedience to Authority, Pinter & Martin, 1974, p.204)

The same "bad form" is very much discouraged in our own society. One would hardly guess from media reporting that Britain and America are responsible for killing anyone in Iraq and Afghanistan, where violence is typically blamed on "insurgents" and "sectarian conflict". International "coalition" forces are depicted as peacekeepers using minimum violence as a last resort.

In reporting the November 2005 Haditha massacre, in which 24 Iraqi civilians were butchered by US troops, Newsweek suggested that the scale of the tragedy "should not be exaggerated". Why?

"America still fields what is arguably the most disciplined, humane military force in history, a model of restraint compared with ancient armies that wallowed in the spoils of war or even more-modern armies that heedlessly killed civilians and prisoners." (Evan Thomas and Scott Johnson, 'Probing Bloodbath,' Newsweek, June 12, 2006; http://www.newsweek.com/id/52312/page/1)

The truth was revealed in a single moment of unthinking honesty by a senior US Army commander involved in planning the November 2004 Falluja offensive and convinced of its necessity. He visited the city afterward and declared:

"My God, what are the folks who live here going to say when they see this?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/04/ weekinreview/04burns.html?fta=y&pagewanted=all)

The answer was provided by physician Mahammad J. Haded, director of an Iraqi refugee centre, who was in Falluja during the US onslaught:

"The city is today totally ruined. Falluja is our Dresden in Iraq... The population is full of rage." (http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-awad100305.htm)

In July 2005, the Independent commented on US actions in Iraq:

"The American army's use of its massive fire-power is so unrestrained that all US military operations are in reality the collective punishment of whole districts, towns and cities." (Patrick Cockburn, 'We must avoid the terrorist trap,' The Independent, July 11, 2005)

In April 2004, the Daily Telegraph reported the disgust of senior British army commanders in Iraq with the "heavy-handed and disproportionate" military tactics used by US forces, who view Iraqis "as untermenschen. They are not concerned about the Iraqi loss of life... their attitude toward the Iraqis is tragic, it is awful." (Sean Rayment, 'US tactics condemned by British officers', Defence Correspondent, Daily Telegraph, April 11, 2004).

In July, 2008 Afghan investigators in Nangarhar, Afghanistan, told the AFP news agency that they had been shown the "bloodied clothes of women and children" killed in a July 6 US air strike. The attack was reported to have killed 47 civilian members of a wedding party, including 39 women and children, with nine wounded. The head of the team, Burhanullah Shinwari, deputy speaker of Afghanistan's senate, said: "They were all civilians and had no links with Taliban or Al-Qaeda." (http://afp.google.com/article/ ALeqM5joXBRRzFwxSG_I-Ucf34VMr379hQ)

Around ten people were reported missing, believed buried under rubble. It was eventually estimated that 52 people were killed - the same number that died in the London suicide attacks of July 7, 2005. Another member of the team, Mohammad Asif Shinwari, said there were only three men among the dead and the rest were women and children. Marc Herold of the University of New Hampshire reports that eight of the victims were between 14 and 18 years of age. (http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mwherold/ Anotherweddingpartymassacre_July62008.html). The US military initially claimed only "militants" involved in mortar attacks had been killed.

A separate investigation into a July 4 strike of that year in the northeastern province of Nuristan found that 17 civilians had been killed there. The coalition claimed they had killed several militants who were fleeing after attacking a base. But an Afghan official again confirmed that the victims were "all civilians." (http://afp.google.com/article/ ALeqM5joXBRRzFwxSG_I-Ucf34VMr379hQ) Afghan authorities said the dead included two doctors and two midwives who had been attempting to leave the area to escape military operations.

Air Force Times reports that allied warplanes were, as of 2008, dropping 1,853 bombs - more than they released during all of 2006 and more than half of 2007's total. But this only hints at the true extent of the slaughter. The figures did not include cannon rounds shot by fighters or AC-130 gunships, Hellfire and other small rockets launched by warplanes and drones, and assaults by helicopters. Air Force Times comments:

"In close-quarter firefights where friendly soldiers could be wounded if bombs are used, cannon fire and missiles are often the preferred alternative." (Bruce Rolfsen, 'Afghanistan hit by record number of bombs,' Air Force Times, July 18, 2008;
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news /2008/07/airforce_bomb_oef_071708/).