Quantcast

Pages

Showing posts with label Oil for Food. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Oil for Food. Show all posts

Thursday, March 8, 2007

France: Third in World Beauty Contest

The BBC conducted a poll of 28,000 people to rank their positive or negative feelings of 12 countries. Would you be surprised that Israel is ranked negatively by 56 percent of those polled? No, I’m not surprised either. Iran ranks second with a negative ranking of 56 percent and the United States - ranking third highest in negativity around the world.

"It appears that people around the world tend to look negatively on countries whose profile is marked by the pursuit of military power,"
…said Steven Kull, director of the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes, which conducted the research along with pollster GlobeScan.” Wouldn’t you know there’s a university connected to this study? Wouldn’t you know you’d find the words “International Policy Attitudes” or something just as inane, connected to this study? Here’s some more from Dr. Kull testifying “Before House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight”
“In 20 of the 26 countries polled, the most common view is that the US is having a mostly negative influence in the world. In four countries, the most common view is that the US is having a mostly positive influence and in two of them, views are evenly divided.” "Views of US influence are consistently negative in Canada, Latin America and the Middle East. They are mostly negative in Europe, with the exception of Poland, which leans positive, and Hungary, which is divided. Africans in this poll and in others have the most consistently positive views of the US. Asian views are more mixed, but lean negative. Filipinos are very positive and Indians are divided, but all others are clearly negative.
France came in third in this beauty contest behind Canada as most positive and Japan, the second most positive image. The fact that France was voted among the top three “positive images” is laughable. That’s worse than Israel being ranked the most negative country. God help any country needing protection from France, because France doesn't "do" personal freedom. Here’s France, firmly in the grip of a subjugating Islamic population, and corrupt to its political core – with the world viewing it in a positive light. The corruption of the U.N. Oil for Food Program positioned Chirac as one of Saddam’s standard bearers, and the world doesn't care. France stymied the enforcement of multiple U.N. resolutions against Iraq, and Chirac sold his country’s image as a protector of human rights, decency and personal freedom. Now, the Middle East sees us in a negative light, also. I wonder how many women were polled in the Middle East. I'm guessing none, and if there were a few women polled, you can bet their men were at their side. No credible poll would help spread this garbage by polling oppressed countries, where the men are invested in "power" and nothing else. The U.S. negativity rating is 51 percent, North Korea's is 48%. The world likes North Korea more than they like the U.S. Ignore that North Korea doesn't feed its people, or allow the people to feed themselves. North Korean's are a hungry people,- their "dear leader," Kim il Jong, a dictator and an oppressor. Let's give his self-esteem a boost and make him better liked than the U.S. Canada doesn't like us, but Poland, Africa and The Philippines do. God Bless them. Here's a question I'd like answered: Exactly what were the questions? A simple: Do you see the U.S. as a positive influence on the world, or a negative influence on the world? Among the pollsters connected to Globalscan and The Program on International Policy Attitudes, I'm betting not one of those tallying the votes lives under oppression. I'm definitely not a humorous writer but I think a bit of levity is needed here, so I turned to French Glory in the News Flash section: "Had the French not hindered the Coalition Forces, France might have remained the world's most easily conquered nation." Sometimes the truth is so hilarious!
Permalink for this entry: http://maggiesnotebook.blogspot.com/2007/03/france-third-in-world-beauty-contest.html Trackback URL for this entry: http://haloscan.com/tb/maggiesnotebook/1448861084058544750
Trackposted to Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, Mark My Words, third world county, basil's blog, DragonLady's World, Overtaken by Events, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, High Desert Wanderer, and Conservative Thoughts, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe. Technorati Tags:

Saturday, January 20, 2007

From Michelle Malkin's Trip to Iraq

Let's not forget the "Oil for Food" debacle, those who corrupted the program, or those who have suffered because they did not get "food" for their "oil." Read this post by Bryan and visit Michelle Malkin for more. If you haven't read my related post "War on Terror" from January 19th, please take a look. Technorati Tags:

Friday, January 19, 2007

The War on Terror: First Principles & Why We Fight

"So what is really going on here?" asks Lawrence Henry's American Spectator article on First Principles: Why We Fight. Many Americans just cannot bear to ponder this issue any longer. The basic facts of 9/11 have fallen into an accusatory abyss: "There were no weapons of mass destruction," or "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11." If we want to ponder the past, here's an issue at the root of this global war: What if Russia and France were not directly complicit, with Saddam Hussein, in what we refer to as the "Oil For Food Scandal." Without their relationship with Saddam, they would have nothing to hide. With their appalling complicity, they had to hide everything. Both countries thought they could keep secret their repugnant behavior (be darned those who desperately needed "the food for the oil,") because the U.S. would surely not go into Iraq without their approval. We did, and when we did, either the clouds cleared or the sky fell, depending on your perspective. We needed the world-body to stand-up. They didn't, although -- for the whole world to see, they resolved to do so and even put it down on paper through United Nations Resolutions. There would have been no war, at least not the war we have today. In addition to the Hussein-Russia-France-connection, we now have these "allies," Russia and France, furthering the aims of China, North Korea and Iran. We have some European leaders not giving a thought to the 9/11 casualties: American Airline's Flights 11 and 77 and United Airline's Flights 175 and 93, and those who died in the horror of The World Trade Center collapses. The "United Nations." What in the world does that mean? It should mean a uniting of Nations, but instead, it is a path to personal power and wealth. Resolutions are meaningless, so let us not work toward them, and then the United States can send the U.N headquarters to France, use the U.N. aid for something worthwhile and get on with business of keeping this country free, forever. Technorati Tags:

©2007-2012copyrightMaggie M. Thornton