Il mondo è nelle sue mani ...(Georgie Bush Thread)

---

Scritto da: theropithecus 12/09/2006 11.52



quindi?

famme capi', perche' l'ha detto Adriano Sofri, leader del movimento estremista di Lotta Continua, allora e' vero....beh caxxo nun fa na piega come se dice a Bolzano...


poi, se ti dichiari di destra, ma non voti forzi Italia, allora sei squadrista....aho ma che te magni la matina "pane e vorpe"?

---

Si' perche' devi capire che Adriano Sofri e' il mio idolo, ho pure il poster in camera, qualsaisi cosa dice ci credo.

Piuttosto ne parliamo in un altro topic cosi' non andiamo OT qui

---

Scritto da: Corcaigh 12/09/2006 10.54
Da qui a dire che la responsabilità di 9/11 è di Clinton, ne passa acqua sotto i ponti.

---

L'idea che la colpa sia di Clinton, almeno in ambienti di destra USA, è nata soprattutto perchè una volta gli USA avevano avuto una segnalazione molto precisa su Bin Laden e sarebbe bastato lanciare qualche missile dalle navi al largo per dirgli addio.
Il tipo però era in un villaggio e il rischio di coinvolgere tantissimi civili quasi certo, ragion per cui Clinton non diede l'ordine di lanciare.
Da qui a dire che la colpa è sua ce ne passa...

Da Repubblica.it di oggi:

Sondaggio shock in 4 Paesi pro-Usa:
Ricerca internazionale di alcuni quotidiani in GB, Israele, Canada e Messico
Per il 69% degli inglesi, gli americani dal 2001 hanno reso il mondo meno sicuro.
Il presidente più pericoloso dell'iraniano Ahmadinejad e del nordcoreano Kim Jong-Il


LONDRA - Il nemico pubblico numero uno? Risponde al nome di George W. Bush. Il presidente degli Stati Uniti sarebbe più pericoloso dei leader degli stati inseriti nel famoso 'asse del male': l'iraniano Mahmoud Ahmadinejad e il nordcoreano Kim Jong-Il. Bush risulta secondo solo ad Osama bin Laden. La lista dei personaggi più dannosi per la pace mondiale, è stata realizzata grazie ad un sondaggio commissionato congiuntamente dai quotidiani "Guardian" in Gran Bretagna, "Haaretz" in Israele, la "Presse" e il "Toronto Star" in Canada e la "Reforma" in Messico.

I risultati del sondaggio confermano, a pochi giorni dal voto di mid term per il rinnovo del Congresso negli Stati Uniti, quello che in realtà si sapeva da tempo, cioè che all'estero non piace e preoccupa la politica estera "da cowboy" di Bush. Il fatto è che ora la rilevazione è stata ristretta solo in paesi alleati chiave di Washington, schierati, come nel caso della Gran Bretagna, in prima linea in Iraq ed Afghanistan. Guerre che solo per il 7 per cento degli intervistati britannici hanno migliorato la sicurezza globale, mentre per il 69 per cento degli intervistati la politica americana dal 2001 ha reso il mondo meno sicuro.

Convinzione condivisa anche dalla opinione pubblica dei paesi confinanti a nord e sud con gli Stati Uniti, dal 62 per cento dei canadesi ed il 57 dei messicani. Ma la cosa più clamorosa è che anche in Israele, che da sempre ha negli Stati Uniti il baluardo principale per la sua sicurezza, sta diminuendo il numero dei sostenitori della politica Bush. Solo il 25 per cento crede che questa aiuti la sicurezza, mentre il 36 pensa che la danneggi ed il 30 per cento considera che nella migliore delle ipotesi Bush non ha fatto alcuna differenza.

E per essere corretta cito la fonte originale di questa notizia.
Da Guardian.co.uk di oggi:

America is now seen as a threat to world peace by its closest neighbours and allies, according to an international survey of public opinion published today that reveals just how far the country's reputation has fallen among former supporters since the invasion of Iraq.

Carried out as US voters prepare to go to the polls next week in an election dominated by the war, the research also shows that British voters see George Bush as a greater danger to world peace than either the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, or the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Both countries were once cited by the US president as part of an "axis of evil", but it is Mr Bush who now alarms voters in countries with traditionally strong links to the US.

The survey has been carried out by the Guardian in Britain and leading newspapers in Israel (Haaretz), Canada (La Presse and Toronto Star) and Mexico (Reforma), using professional local opinion polling in each country.

It exposes high levels of distrust. In Britain, 69% of those questioned say they believe US policy has made the world less safe since 2001, with only 7% thinking action in Iraq and Afghanistan has increased global security.

The finding is mirrored in America's immediate northern and southern neighbours, Canada and Mexico, with 62% of Canadians and 57% of Mexicans saying the world has become more dangerous because of US policy.

Even in Israel, which has long looked to America to guarantee national security, support for the US has slipped.

Only one in four Israeli voters say that Mr Bush has made the world safer, outweighed by the number who think he has added to the risk of international conflict, 36% to 25%. A further 30% say that at best he has made no difference.

Voters in three of the four countries surveyed also overwhelmingly reject the decision to invade Iraq, with only Israeli voters in favour, 59% to 34% against. Opinion against the war has hardened strongly since a similar survey before the US presidential election in 2004.

In Britain 71% of voters now say the invasion was unjustified, a view shared by 89% of Mexicans and 73% of Canadians. Canada is a Nato member whose troops are in action in Afghanistan. Neither do voters think America has helped advance democracy in developing countries, one of the justifications for deposing Saddam Hussein. Only 11% of Britons and 28% of Israelis think that has happened.

As a result, Mr Bush is ranked with some of his bitterest enemies as a cause of global anxiety. He is outranked by Osama bin Laden in all four countries, but runs the al-Qaida leader close in the eyes of UK voters: 87% think the al-Qaida leader is a great or moderate danger to peace, compared with 75% who think this of Mr Bush.

The US leader and close ally of Tony Blair is seen in Britain as a more dangerous man than the president of Iran (62% think he is a danger), the North Korean leader (69%) and the leader of Hizbullah, Hassan Nasrallah (65%).

Only 10% of British voters think that Mr Bush poses no danger at all. Israeli voters remain much more trusting of him, with 23% thinking he represents a serious danger and 61% thinking he does not.

Contrary to the usual expectation, older voters in Britain are slightly more hostile to the Iraq war than younger ones. Voters under 35 are also more trusting of Mr Bush, with hostility strongest among people aged 35-65.

· ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,010 adults by telephone from October 27-30. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. Polling was by phone in Canada (sample 1,007), Israel (1,078) and Mexico (1,010).

Da Haaretz.com
26/10/2006

41% of faculty members in U.S. universities see the United States and Israel combined as the greatest threats to the world. For humanities faculty, 56% list the U.S. and Israel, compared to just 41% who list China, Russia, and Iran combined.

Here's one survey that will make you laugh - or cry. Depends on how seriously you think academicians should be taken (I, for one, didn't cry when I read this study). It was conducted by Gary Tobin and Aryeh Weinberg of the Institute for Jewish & Community Research, and its aim was to check up on political beliefs and behavior among faculty at colleges and universities. We all know that faculty in most universities is more liberal than conservative and also has a higher percentage of radicals. Sometimes, this leads to ridiculous findings, like this one:

"Almost one third of faculty list America as the 'greatest threat to global stability.' About 29% name the United States, second only to North Korea (70%). The third choice was Iran, 27%. China was named by 19% of faculty, Iraq 13%, Israel 12%, Pakistan 8%, Syria 7%, and Russia 4%. Faculty see the United States as a greater threat to world stability than Russia by a ratio of 7-to-1. Nearly half of humanities faculty, 46%, see the United States as a threat to international stability, as do 34% of social science faculty."

So is it funny or sad? You decide. But before you do, here are some more numbers for you to consider:

Faculty see the United States as a greater threat to world stability than Russia by a ratio of 7-to-1. Nearly half of humanities faculty, 46%, see the United States as a threat to international stability, as do 34% of social science faculty. Faculty attitudes toward America look very similar to the attitudes of Europeans. A recent poll for the Financial Times reported that 36% of Europeans identify the United States as the greatest threat to international stability.

About 12% of faculty see Israel as a great threat to international stability. Looked at another way, 41% of faculty see the United States and Israel combined as the greatest threats, compared to China and Russia combined, with 23%. For humanities faculty, 56% list the United States and Israel, compared to 20% who name China and Russia combined, or 41% who list China, Russia, and Iran combined.

Now, not all faculty members share the same views. Faculty who identify as atheists are most likely to list the United States as a threat, 47%, and those who identify as liberal, 45%. Faculty Democrats are more likely to name America than Republicans by a factor of almost 10-to-1, 38% to 4%. Similarly, about 20% of those who identify as atheists or no religion name Israel, as do 15% of liberals versus 5% of conservatives. About 65% of atheists name the United States and Israel combined and about 59% of liberals. Similarly 39% of those who voted for Kerry named the United States versus 4% who voted for Bush, a factor of 10-to-1. About 14% of those who voted for Kerry named Israel (53% for United States and Israel combined) versus 5% who voted for Bush (10% for United States and Israel combined).

Why it is not reassuring to have these differences of views? Because Only 16% of faculty identify as Republican and 17% as conservative or very conservative versus 46% who identify as Democrat and 48% as liberal or very liberal. This represents just under a 3-to-1 disparity in favor of Democrats and liberals. The social science and humanities faculty show little political diversity at all. Fully 54% of the social science and humanities faculty identify as Democratic and 60% as liberal, and only 11% as Republican and 12% as conservative, a 5-to- 1 ratio.

In the 2004 presidential elections, 25% of faculty voted voted for George W. Bush, while 72% voted for Senator John Kerry and 3% for other candidates, including Ralph Nader. Of social science faculty who voted, they were more than four times as likely to have chosen Kerry (81%) over Bush (18%) while humanities faculty were more than five times as likely (81% for Kerry, 15% for Bush).

And the saddest thing: When asked "How often, if at all, do you perceive that faculty at your institutions are reluctant to express their views because they might be contrary to the dominant or 'popular' position?" 25% said very/fairly often, and another 38% said occasionally, a total of 63%, in an institution where the answer should be zero, or as close to zero as possible.

No tears for Rumsfeld, and a touch of glee from the left

Ewen MacAskill, diplomatic editor
Thursday November 9, 2006

Guardian

George Bush's electoral woes and the subsequent resignation of Donald Rumsfeld was widely greeted yesterday with gloating, tinged with concern at the impact of a weakened presidency on issues ranging from trade to Iran.
While many countries declined to comment formally, leftwing governments and opposition parties, particularly in Europe, welcomed Mr Bush's setback. The sense of relief was echoed by religious leaders, analysts, and voices from the street in the Middle East and Asia.

Romano Prodi, the Italian prime minister, was optimistic. "The resignation means a speeding up of the change in US politics. We will see in the coming weeks what will be the new direction."

There was less optimism in Iraq. Nadim al-Jabiri, an academic and member of the United Iraqi Alliance, said of Mr Rumsfeld: "I don't think his resignation will have an effect on the ground, as our problems are too great."

Fattah al-Sheikh, an MP from the alliance led by Moqtada al-Sadr saw the resignation as a sign of defeat. "The US administration has decided to change its agenda for Iraq. Rumsfeld has become the scapegoat for the change to take effect. I expect [US ambassador Zalmay] Khalilzad to follow him in a matter of days."

A spokesman for the French foreign ministry, the most prominent critic of the Bush administration in Europe, particularly over Iraq, said: "No comment. It is a domestic matter for the US." But Laurent Fabius, a former prime minister and candidate to head the Socialists in next year's presidential election, said: "A lot of Americans have realised that Mr Bush has lied to them."

More than 200 Socialist members of the European parliament issued a statement calling the results "the beginning of the end of a six-year nightmare for the world".

The ruling Spanish Socialist party welcomed the result, saying the party hoped it would "help to change the course of US foreign policy".

Concern for a weakened Bush administration was reflected by Denmark's prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who hoped the president and Congress would find "common ground" on Iraq and Afghanistan. He added: "The world needs a vigorous USA."

Arabs relished Mr Bush's setback, but had little hope that it would mean a significant change in US policy in the Middle East. "There will be a feeling that justice has been done partly, although not completely," Mustafa al-Sayyid, a political scientist at Cairo University, told Reuters.

In Israel, some analysts expressed concern that political deadlock in Washington might distract attention from problems in the region, primarily Iran. A Palestinian government official said that it did not matter to Palestinians whether Republicans or Democrats were in power.

Iranian state television said in a commentary that the Republicans suffered losses because of "Bush's wrong strategy in the Middle East" as well as "financial corruption in the United States".

In Pakistan, an opposition parliamentarian, Hafiz Hussain Ahmed, hoped for more. Mr Bush "deserves a Saddam-like death sentence", he said.

The Chinese government is concerned that the Democrats, who champion protection of US jobs, will create obstacles to free trade.

Hugo Chávez, the Venezuelan president and arch-critic of Mr Bush, said: "It's a reprisal vote against the war, against the corruption. This fills us with optimism."

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2006

Pelosi

Clinton

Mc Caskill