Which countries have a positive influence in the world?

The world is now dictated by China and India. Whether their influence is positive or negative is uncertain. They lead the world in IT and exports.

Quite frankly this is a load of rot. How does Brazil influence any country in the world. OK lets look at the UK. Everyone hates us, but then again everyone looks to us for sanctuary and all those people who choose to migrate here cannot be wrong. Would I like to live in Brazil or South Africa? No way!!

The US deserves criticism. As an American, I encourage this.

But to those who blame us for every problem, for not involving ourselves in unsolvable situations, for following our own self-interests (as EVERY nation does), I politely insist that you hold YOURSELVES, collectively & individually, to the same standards as you hold us.

What have YOU done, today? In the past?

Not so comfortable under the microscope, is it?

Libya had a positive influence up until recently by not allowing oil companies to steal its oil and take the money. Regardless of what Gadaffi has done otherwise, he was right to take this positive action.

"more than 28,000 people in 27 countries"
was everyone out or something? Or by 'more than' do you mean 1 billion?

Seriuosly though: "What makes you view a country positively or negatively?"
honestly? How they behave when they're here. Some nations and peoples have some excellent traditions and qualities that can make one think "....ians/ese/ish are great people, maybe i should go there". Others give the absolute opposite impression.

Brazil i can see/agree with. But Africa/South Africa? not so much

Most people in the world dislike the US more than they did when Obama came in. The incompetence shown by him and Hilary Clinton is staggering.

Great to see that so many countries still regard the UK as a positive influence, It's nice to know that no matter how down we are on ourselves someone still thinks we're doing ok. Cue hundreds of comments from disgruntled natives telling everyone why they're wrong & how this country is, in fact, rubbish, (why can't we just smile & say thanks?). Sad to see Mexico rating the UK's positive influence at only 25%, hopefully this isn't an indication of how much they dislike us as I'm out there in May. Grrr, Top Gear have a lot to answer for :(
Interesting stats on the US too, incredible how many people rate their influence as positive since they got rid of Bush, course the republicans won't have it, they'll claim that it's the Tea Party that are so darn popular ;)
The survey also gives an interesting insight into the US/UK relationship.
The US rates the UK's positive influence at 80% whereas the UK only gives the US 46%, could this be bitterness from the UK over the percieved slight about the "special relationship" not being so special anymore? Interestingly both countries rate themselves about the same, the UK rates itself at 69% & the US sees it's mostly positive influence at 64%.
Unfortunately as Israels stats have also been included the debate will shortly be hijacked & any discussion of the actual survey will become impossible. (sniggers, lights blue touch paper & retreats to a safe distance)

the care and wellfare of ones citizens is the most significant factor in my opinion on the view as to a countrys positive or negitive projection.as for the US, ok the obamma effect may have a bearing on the latest polls but,i would have thought they would have scored higher, if it was not for the emergance of the tea party.

The UK, US, europe have the greatest impact. Developments in science has improved the lives of the majority of people on this planet. GM foods, technology, power generation and ideas of freedom.

Countries with a negative interest are religious countries in my eyes. The following makes my case pretty well-

https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_s_response_to_rick_warren.html

At 1:09pm on 07 Mar 2011, BigFacedBoy wrote:
Libya had a positive influence up until recently by not allowing oil companies to steal its oil and take the money. Regardless of what Gadaffi has done otherwise, he was right to take this positive action.
--------------------------------------------

You're right, he treated Libya's oil as his own private property by appropriating the wealth generated from the selling of it to feather his own nest, by stashing that wealth away it in foreign banks, and by building fancy palatial mansions for himself without sharing the wealth with ordinary Libyans. No wonder they are peed off with him.

6. At 1:18pm on 07 Mar 2011, Edwin Schrodinger wrote:
"Most people in the world dislike the US more than they did when Obama came in. The incompetence shown by him and Hilary Clinton is staggering."
----------
Er, a recent global poll found the complete opposite.

So, in short, you're totally wrong.

Which countries have a positive influence in the world? Compared to what? My favourite country is Antarctica, for obvious reasons.

'Which countries have a positive influence in the world?'

Judging by the ever-increasing flood of would-be migrants from Africa, it would have to be European countries, which, after all, have been responsible for the overwhelming majority of scientific and technological advances, art, literature, music and just about anything else that makes life more pleasant. On the negative side, the same countries have been complicit in keeping nutcases of the likes of Kernel (sic) Ghadaffi in power, provoking said fluxes of migrants looking for a safer, fairer and more equitable life. And who can blame them?

Which countries have a positive influence in the world?


________________________________________________

It depends on your ideological bent.

You could argue Egypt for example, because they achieved their ambition to rid themselves of life-long rulers.



"Has your perception of the US changed in the last few years"?

No it has not. It still remains a great place to vist, the dirty internal politics are exactly the same, except the opposite ideological president is in power compared to the previous one.


Boy am I glad you did not ask that last question about Israel, you'd be opening up a can of worms.

'Which countries have a positive influence in the world?'

Those without stone-age blasphemy laws, endemic corruption, religion-based inequalities and power-hungry autocrats.

At 1:58pm on 07 Mar 2011, DoleBoy wrote:
Which countries have a positive influence in the world? Compared to what? My favourite country is Antarctica, for obvious reasons.
________________________

No influence is good influence?

I think Russia is a very positive influence. Why? Because everytime some politician from the West speaks out against what they percieve as Russia's lack of human rights or PC, Russia says go away and mind your own business!!!!!

Fantastic, because in Russia people can say what they think without the PC brigade turning up and tutting.

They value the very freedom that many in the West have allowed to be taken away from them. I know, I have lived there.

They are a great people. With a Russky you get what you see. Not for them the plastic front that you get in the UK. If they like you, they like you. If they don't you know that too.

Sorry, I nearly forgot, they have alot of what the West needs, oil, gas, mimerals etc. Now that lot could be a very positive influence!!!!

1. At 12:55pm on 07 Mar 2011, STIG wrote:
The world is now dictated by China and India. Whether their influence is positive or negative is uncertain. They lead the world in IT and exports.

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

I think China will collapse under it's own weight before long, protests like those seen in North Africa will happen as the government try to stop people voicing there opinions on human rights and how their country is run.

Personally I think Egypt and Tunisia are having a very positive influence on the World at the moment. They are showing that the people's voice can be heard and a positive change can be made.

Brazil is laced with corruption throughout. If you know the right person you can buy whatever you want, however well protected it may be.
South Africa has some of the highest crime rates in the world, for serious crimes like murder and kidnapping.
I don't know how these are "positive" features, but I'm pleased the UK doesn't suffer from the same levels of corruption or crime.


In fact a lot of countries like Russia, Brazil, South Africa that are absolutely loaded with natural resources, are also absolutely ridden with corruption and crime. It seems to go with the deal.

"12. At 1:58pm on 07 Mar 2011, DoleBoy wrote:
Which countries have a positive influence in the world? Compared to what? My favourite country is Antarctica, for obvious reasons."

The obvious reason being that you don't realise that Antarctica isn't a country?

Scotland, Ireland, Wales, people from those countries' have done more than any other country in history, to try to educated, and civilize people around the globe.

Oh definitely China,because where all going to need somewhere to set up investments funds into when we've no economy left to speak of domestically, on which to rely on for our daily bread.



.

· 9. At 1:42pm on 07 Mar 2011, in_the_uk wrote:
The UK, US, europe have the greatest impact. Developments in science has improved the lives of the majority of people on this planet. GM foods, technology, power generation and ideas of freedom.

Countries with a negative interest are religious countries in my eyes. The following makes my case pretty well-
//////////////////////////////

So the UK, USA and Europe are not “religious countries”, interesting.

Have you told the pope, I don’t think he would agree with you?

Adding the level of happyness to statistics:
Kingdom of Bhutan

Brazil's participation in most global issues has had a significant impact on the world. Probably, the most remarkable was Lula's bid to persuade the Iranian president to return to the negotiations over its nuclear programs with the United Nations. Why not to say that Lula's former government try to bring the world together ?.

"Which countries have a positive influence in the world?" - HYS

Those which stick by common-sense and fairness that their people can understand and therefore respect - instead of Extreme PC and Political-Dogma that MOST of the population disagree's with - but are not allowed to question. Laws implemented by the FEW and IMPOSED on the Majority - regardless - like in the UK - via MEDIA pressure...

Post William Hague, certainly not Britain. Whatever their differences with us politically, foreign leaders used to look for a broad scope and wide knowledge of the world, an imposing presence in our representatives - this pompous-voiced inflexible young old man can never be more than a joke. Probably to Cameron and his Boy's Own view of Johnny Foreigner, Hague seems the ideal foreign secretary, living in a heyday of the age of Dornford Yates and with a totally undeserved self confidence (which his fellow northerners would simply describe as 'brash). Let's hope for a people's revolution followed by a general election here in Britain!

Has your perception of the US changed in the last few years?

YES, UPWARD .

23. At 2:56pm on 07 Mar 2011, That is not my Name wrote:

· 9. At 1:42pm on 07 Mar 2011, in_the_uk wrote:
The UK, US, europe have the greatest impact. Developments in science has improved the lives of the majority of people on this planet. GM foods, technology, power generation and ideas of freedom.

Countries with a negative interest are religious countries in my eyes. The following makes my case pretty well-
//////////////////////////////

So the UK, USA and Europe are not “religious countries”, interesting.

Have you told the pope, I don’t think he would agree with you?

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

the pope probably wouldnt agree with me but then he believes in a god (but not any of the others before?). Also the UK, US and Europe have a large secular population which drives them forwards regardless on the attempt of the others to pull back.

The life saving developments from the less religious has improved the lives of all including the religious. There is little if nothing flowing the other way.

"4. At 1:09pm on 07 Mar 2011, BigFacedBoy wrote:
Libya had a positive influence up until recently by not allowing oil companies to steal its oil and take the money. Regardless of what Gadaffi has done otherwise, he was right to take this positive action."

So state sponsored terrorism, a dictatorship and the supression of democracy is OK in your book provided you don't sell oil to large oil companies?

HYS Opener: " Meanwhile, the average ratings of the three most negatively viewed countries - Iran, North Korea and Pakistan - went from bad to worse. The US, which in 2007 was among the countries with the lowest ratings, has climbed quickly up through rankings since then.

What makes you view a country positively or negatively? Are the "middle powers" more credible? Has your perception of the US changed in the last few years?"

I only see how a nation treats its own people and how it assists others to attain a reasonable standard of living without allowing the creation of extremes in wealth through exploitation, as valid measures.

My esimation of the US has gone from bad to very bad since it invaded Afghanistan and Iraq; previously when it downed an Iranian airliner, or bombed Libya, and vetoed virtually all resolutions affecting Israel, I felt bad about it. Each time there is any report condemning Iran Syria N Korea or Pakistan, I just think - What does the US do? Does it imprison people without trial? Is there any torture going on that is ignored? Does it send in special forces into other nations without consent? What would it do in the same situation? Then I remind myself it does either pretty much the same or worse, and it uses it enormous financial/economic/miltary power to dominate other nations throughout the world. It doesn't even let up on places close to home like Haiti and Cuba; wherever it doesn't like the local political ideology, it has moved or moves to introduce sanctions or a change in the political system. It does not allow nations to peacefully self-determine, and it does not assist huge populations seeking to do so (even by passively condemning those that hold down people, and use force against people seeking to rebel and create a new state), unless it has an interest.

So the ones that positively influence me are the little nations like Cuba or Albania (till 2000),that stand up to any bully powers of the world.

The ones that negatively influence me are the ones that have the power to make a change, that have power and money to assist other peoples to exercise their inherent right to self-determination, but instead use their muscles to create a feeder/client state off which to feed and indulge. I feel disappointed with nations like Albania that do eventually cave in to the inexorable pressure put on them, but understand they have little choice in this unbalanced world.

Maybe when China has risen to real world power status, there may be some semblance of a balance, but even then I guess it is now full of individual oligarchs, minting money as fast as they possibly can, and these peolpe with the real power in China couldn't care less about things like self-determination rights of people in other nations. Unreally rich Indians are already like that hence the two extremes of unimaginable wealth and absolute poverty in their own nation, and their own human rights abuses aginst regional nations seeking self-determination within India. If any of these new oligarchs in India, China and the new Russia, or in Brazil or South Africa, care about other nations seeking self-determination,they remain very quiet, whilst the US forces change. The silence implies the change is to mutual advantage. Any noise on their part would encourage people in their own nation to fight for rights. Roll on capitalism - just means the fall will be so very much harder when it comes, which it must eventually whether in 50 years or 500 years. I will be long gone.

The UK comes up short as a place to live (Long Working Hours, Poor wages, very little holiday, high cost of living, declining education standards, declining health standards, high crime, over crowding and poor weather being the leading reasons.

OFFICIAL LIST = 1 France, 2 Australia 3 Switzerland 4 Germany 5 New Zealnd 6 Luxembourg 7 USA & .... 25th UK


It says it all = the French live life to the full, while Britons are over-worked.


Official List = Cities for Quality of Life (source-Mercer) Europe has 16 cities amongst the world’s top 25 cities for quality of living. Vienna retains the highest ranking both for the region and globally and is again followed by Zurich (2), Geneva (3) and Düsseldorf (6).In the UK, London is the highest-ranking city at 39, followed by newcomer to the list Aberdeen (53), Birmingham (55), Glasgow (57) and Belfast (63).

It`s not fair really as the majority of British are good people. Get treated very badly by the state/ruling classes & just accept it as part of life ?? Bank bonuses? Royal weddings etc

- from Switzerland

Which countries have a positive influence in the world?

Perhaps that question should be rephrased.


The Sun has the most positive influence in the world because it give light and heat, next comes the Moon because it keeps the Earth's axis stable.

After that its anyones guess.

Which countries have a positive influence in the world?
The ones that the western media allows to be seen in a positive light.
I don't disagee with Brazil and South Africa, but there are others that should be listed at the very top. As a Canadian, I feel that our economic performance and our financial regulation should be admired and emulated. I feel proud of our Finance Minister's performance (Mr. Jim Flaherty).
How was the poll conducted? What questions were asked?
Though the poll was extensive 28,000 people in 27 countries, the results suggest a certain superficiality. Brazil recently elected a female leader and of course South Africa hosted the World Soccer tournament. These events make the country better known, though not necessarily countries to emulate.
The average ratings of the three most negatively viewed countries - Iran, North Korea and Pakistan - went from bad to worse, especially and most importantly in the western media.
The most suspicious statement is: "The US, which in 2007 was among the countries with the lowest ratings, has climbed quickly up through rankings since then." Say what!
What makes you view a country positively or negatively?
How they are choosing to deal with the economic crisis and/or how they avoided the economic crisis in the first place. How they deal with their average citizens re democracy and human rights.
Are the "middle powers" more credible?
Yes, some are - like Venezuela under Higo Chavez.
Has your perception of the US changed in the last few years?
Yes, it has slipped lower than low. In fact, wherever there is war and insurrection in this world, my first thought is to seek the American angle.
Positive ratings rose for 13 of the nations. Germany remained the most popular country and the image of the United States improved for the fourth straight year (Explain to me how that could happen with its renditions and 14 TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT?)
When I look at the order of the results:
Germany, Great Britain, Japan, Canada, France, United States, Brazil, China, South Africa, India, South Korea, Russia, Israel, Pakistan, North Korea and Iran, I am simply left dumbfounded.
Poll-Conductor, Program on International Policy Attitudes, Director Steven Kull: "While last year relatively dour views of nations were prevalent - perhaps reflecting the mood of the economic downturn - the mood now seems to be relatively upbeat." Really? Has the economic downturn turned upwards while I wasn't looking?
The margin of error per country ranges from 2.8% points to 4.9% points.
This poll to me (personally), is irrelevent.


Read more: https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2011/03/07/Poll-Brazil-makes-biggest-positive-gain/UPI-67721299508996/

The ones with the greatest sense of freedom and individual identity within the very fabric of their constitutions.

Reply to comment #6

This is rubbish and you know it. The Bush Cheney regime was disliked around the world much more than the Obama administration. Justly so.

#13 Neil Probert wrote:
"Judging by the ever-increasing flood of would-be migrants from Africa, it would have to be European countries, which, after all, have been responsible for the overwhelming majority of scientific and technological advances, art, literature, music and just about anything else that makes life more pleasant."

----------------------------------------------------------------
How can you sit at your personal computer (invented in the United States), go on the internet (invented in the United States), and not include the United States of America in the list of countries that have most benefited the world?

Haven't you used a lightbulb, telephone, or television recently; or flown in an airplane?-- all invented by Americans.

Not only did the U.S.A. rebuild western Europe after World War II, we also stood firm against communist expansion for 45 years, which created a global environment that has seen a proliferation of democracies around the world.

As for the flood of migrants crossing into Europe, we have the same situation along our southern border with Mexico. The United States lets in more legal immigrants than all the other countries of the world put together; yet still there are approximately 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S. Thousands die in the desert every year attempting to cross the border illegally. If people vote with their feet, the United States would surely rate as the number 1 country in the world.

To no. 10, Sweeney - you clearly don't know much about Libya or have simply swallowed the mainstream media's rhetoric about him. Libya has the highest GDP and standard of living and lowest poverty and mortality rates in Africa, thanks mostly to Gadaffi keeping the oil money in Libya. Most of the rebels are tribesmen who have historically been at odds with Gadaffi.

Not saying he hasn't stashed away a small fortune for himself, but he has done far more good for Libya than the oil companies would ever do.

30. At 3:34pm on 07 Mar 2011, AndyC555 wrote:

"So state sponsored terrorism, a dictatorship and the supression of democracy is OK in your book provided you don't sell oil to large oil companies?"

Just take a look on your own doorstep before making bold comments about the suppression of democracy and state sponsored terrorism. Oh, of course, it isn't terrorism when it applies to us because Tony Blair said so. Libya had the lowest poverty and mortality rates in Africa and the Highest GDP on the continent. Don't believe everything you read about Gadaffi. Cruel in some ways he may be, but he has made Libya a strong country instead of an oil company paycheque.

Has your perception of the US changed in the last few years?


I swear on my two EYE-BALLS.

Yes. It has changed not a bit.

Till George W. Bush is dragged out to the ICJ, it will never.

· 29. At 3:30pm on 07 Mar 2011, in_the_uk wrote:
23. At 2:56pm on 07 Mar 2011, That is not my Name wrote:

· 9. At 1:42pm on 07 Mar 2011, in_the_uk wrote:
The UK, US, europe have the greatest impact. Developments in science has improved the lives of the majority of people on this planet. GM foods, technology, power generation and ideas of freedom.

Countries with a negative interest are religious countries in my eyes. The following makes my case pretty well-
//////////////////////////////

So the UK, USA and Europe are not “religious countries”, interesting.

Have you told the pope, I don’t think he would agree with you?

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

the pope probably wouldnt agree with me but then he believes in a god (but not any of the others before?). Also the UK, US and Europe have a large secular population which drives them forwards regardless on the attempt of the others to pull back.

The life saving developments from the less religious has improved the lives of all including the religious. There is little if nothing flowing the other way.


///////////////////////////////

So which are these “religious countries” with “a negative interest” then.

29. At 3:30pm on 07 Mar 2011, in_the_uk wrote:
23. At 2:56pm on 07 Mar 2011, That is not my Name wrote:

· 9. At 1:42pm on 07 Mar 2011, in_the_uk wrote:
The UK, US, europe have the greatest impact. Developments in science has improved the lives of the majority of people on this planet. GM foods, technology, power generation and ideas of freedom.

Countries with a negative interest are religious countries in my eyes. The following makes my case pretty well-
//////////////////////////////

So the UK, USA and Europe are not “religious countries”, interesting.

Have you told the pope, I don’t think he would agree with you?

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

the pope probably wouldnt agree with me but then he believes in a god (but not any of the others before?). Also the UK, US and Europe have a large secular population which drives them forwards regardless on the attempt of the others to pull back.

The life saving developments from the less religious has improved the lives of all including the religious. There is little if nothing flowing the other way.

The USA has a large proportion (over 40%) that believe the biblical story of creation. That's despite US science doing more than most to show that these stories are not true.

Positive influence?

It is China.
-------------------------

Negative influence?

Israel.
-------------------------

Which countries have a positive influence in the world?
This question cannot be answered without defining what BBC considers "POSITIVE" now. The answer is also very much depends on who you ask. As a past colonial power, the British definition of "POSITIVE" will be very different from those who lived under British occupation of their countries. My ancestors had aligned themselves with the British, I personally benefited from that association, and the British had a positive influence on my life, but I am very old now. Today the picture is very different. Now United States of Israel are running amok in the world. But is their influence positive. Overwhelming majority of the world population does not think so. Britain is now a little nothing, and its leaders like Tony Blair are trying to look important by hanging on to USI's apron strings, they look silly. Britain will be viewed in more positive light if it had some self respect. Its historical record when judged in the light of morality of earlier times, is not as bad as the behaviour of Mr. Blare.
Returning to the original question, I would say:
1. Record of USI is horrible and totally negative. Their activities around the world are without doubt criminal. They are getting away with it because they have the overwhelming majority of WMD's, and the rest of the world has nothing to fight back with, but this is changing. A noted American professor wrote that all cultures have three stages - initial effort and spectacular improvements, a middle flowering period with flourishing arts and architecture, followed by decline and decay. He wrote that America seems to skipped the middle period.
2. Developments in China and India are impressive, and given their huge population that benefits from their accomplishments, I would say their influence is most positive at this time.
3. Another power block are the Muslims. The are very much divided, and appear like a power block only from the eyes of the West that is not prepared to let up on Crusades - the oldest Coyote and Road Runner Show on Earth. After a thousand years of Crusades, Muslims seem to have multiplied a thousand times, and Europe is now Minaro-phobic. Is the Muslim influence positive? The West certainly does not think so, but Islam worries them a lot, and they are still foolishly spending trillions of dollars on defeating Islam. They view it like Communism which it is not. They will keep on fighting a loosing battle because Western scholarship about Islam is just about ZERO to this day. If we judge by the number of man-years over all human history, Islam's influence is most positive. But given the divisions among Muslims, Islam does not appear too important today. The West should study it and deal with it intelligently, the Crusades have not helped.

This must now mean what sort of influence.

I feel more influenced by what was the Tibetan way of life than any other nation or culture. However, their influence worldwide is not that great, especially after we recognised China's claim.

I'm not interested in other nations, only what they do. Sometimes their influence is good, other times not.

29. At 3:30pm on 07 Mar 2011, in_the_uk wrote:



the pope probably wouldnt agree with me but then he believes in a god (but not any of the others before?). Also the UK, US and Europe have a large secular population which drives them forwards regardless on the attempt of the others to pull back.

The life saving developments from the less religious has improved the lives of all including the religious. There is little if nothing flowing the other way.

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .
///////////////////////////////

Which other “Gods” are you referring to?. Why would a Non Secular population “Pull others Back” and from what?

It seems the best way to win approval is to sit on the sidelines and complain about other nations' policies.

Brazil and South Africa have better press agents than any positive influence on the world.

Ask someone about Brazil and they think sandy beaches and Carnival, they don't think about the deforestation of the Amazon rain forest, or how people who speak out against abuses by the big landowners have a way of ending up dead or how little the government is doing to lift the occupants of the favelas out of poverty.

And South Africa, what has it done for the world lately, or even for just Africa? Used its influence to remove any dictators? Ended any violent conflicts? Reduced the HIV infection rate among its people?

Apparently they have managed one accomplishment: they both hired good public relations staff to promote a favorable image of their country.

What Doug Miller, chairman of international polling firm GlobalScan says about Israel in "The Report?" Gud or Baad?

If Gud, add "why" to the following.

1. Illegal occupation of Palestine.
2. Killing women and children in Palestine.
3. Refusing to come to talk peace with Palestine.
4. Using disproportionate force on civilians of Palestine.
5. Robbing Palestinian lands.
6. Building settlements and apartheid wall inside the PT.


If Baad, what makes it to be so?

You read all the above to know why.

By the by, how do you pronounce the first name of Mr. Miller of GlobalScan?

39. At 4:38pm on 07 Mar 2011, BigFacedBoy wrote:
"Don't believe everything you read about Gadaffi. Cruel in some ways he may be, but he has made Libya a strong country instead of an oil company paycheque."
----------
Based on my reading, he dissolved most state apparatus full stop. Libya is not only not a "strong country" (hence the pasting it got by Chad), it is barely a country at all.

I do wonder what you have been reading.

Brazil and South Africa a power for positive change? Last I read both countries have astronomically high crime rates, endless poverty and deep rooted corruption in government. Who conducted that poll?

2. At 1:02pm on 07 Mar 2011, Confuciousfred wrote:
Quite frankly this is a load of rot. How does Brazil influence any country in the world.
-------------------------

I think Brazilians have been an extremely positive influence....

42. At 4:43pm on 07 Mar 2011, Total Mass Retain wrote:
The USA has a large proportion (over 40%) that believe the biblical story of creation. That's despite US science doing more than most to show that these stories are not true.

There is just as much evidence for it as the 'Big Bang' theory.

How do you judge the quality of a country? What criteria do you use - GDP, education system, healthcare, crime-rate, human rights, joie de vivre?
The Human Development Index places Norway, Australia and New Zealand at the top, whilst Brazil is 73rd and South Africa 110th.
Personally, if I were to choose anywhere in the world to enjoy a life of all-round civilized quality, it would be in a sleepy little village in one of those beautiful river valleys of south-west France.

"53. At 5:25pm on 07 Mar 2011, Edwin Schrodinger wrote:
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain."

Edwin, just a point you might like to give some thought to... and that is that the culture war going on in the US -- and for which you fight for one side -- will end eventually.

I merely suggest that your are making America's decline happen faster. Rather than uniting as Americans, you're stabbing your own president in the back. Sure, you dislike the guy, but what kind of patriot are you? What kind of American are you?

Seemingly the kind of guy who will undermine his own country because he puts party tribalism over his own best interests.

A "good" country is one that rarely makes the news, and doesn't get too involved in other nation's affairs. Norway is an example.

Hiker Tom wrote:

Haven't you used a lightbulb, telephone, or television recently; or flown in an airplane?-- all invented by Americans.

Not only did the U.S.A. rebuild western Europe after World War II, we also stood firm against communist expansion for 45 years, which created a global environment that has seen a proliferation of democracies around the world.

As for the flood of migrants crossing into Europe, we have the same situation along our southern border with Mexico. The United States lets in more legal immigrants than all the other countries of the world put together; yet still there are approximately 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S. Thousands die in the desert every year attempting to cross the border illegally. If people vote with their feet, the United States would surely rate as the number 1 country in the world.'

You have a few problems with facts. The telephone was invented by Alexander Graham Bell. A Scot. The television was invented by John Baird. Another Scot. Tim Berners Lee is credited with the invention of the internet. English. The Wright brothers strapped an engine on an
Otto Lilienthal glider. He was German. WWII - really laughable. The Americans did not want to save anyone and let the Germans destroy the decomcracies of Poland France, Holland etc etc until they had no choice but to enter the war.

The Americans proliferate democracies do they? What, in Vietnam, where the entire population would have voted for Ho Chi Mihn - if the Americans had let them? What, in Nicuragua? El Salavador? Marcos in the Phillipines. Greneda. How about the corrupt regieme they propped up in Egypt for 30 years - and then had he hypocriscy to praise those who overthrew it. And oooh yes, Mexicans want to get into the USA - because their country had been made unsafe by US demanded for cocaine. And if Americans are so nice, why are they viewed with utter contempt across the world?

At 4:31pm on 07 Mar 2011, BigFacedBoy wrote:
To no. 10, Sweeney - you clearly don't know much about Libya or have simply swallowed the mainstream media's rhetoric about him. Libya has the highest GDP and standard of living and lowest poverty and mortality rates in Africa, thanks mostly to Gadaffi keeping the oil money in Libya. Most of the rebels are tribesmen who have historically been at odds with Gadaffi.

Not saying he hasn't stashed away a small fortune for himself, but he has done far more good for Libya than the oil companies would ever do.

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

I take your point about foreign owned oil companies, it would be far better if they had their own indigenous oil companies, refineries and global distribution networks.

However Libya would have a more positive effect in the world if Gadaffi offered people a plebiscite on his rule instead of going to war over it.

He is not psycic, he can't assume that because people haven't protested against him in 40 years or so they are perfectly happy with him, as he has never given them a chance to have their say in a free and fair democratic election.

16. At 2:30pm on 07 Mar 2011, Burgess wrote:
At 1:58pm on 07 Mar 2011, DoleBoy wrote:
Which countries have a positive influence in the world? Compared to what? My favourite country is Antarctica, for obvious reasons.
________________________

No influence is good influence?

____________

That seems to be what the study indicates.

america is a easy target for the lefties round the world,its rise up the ratings I suspect is due to the millions round the world , like the millions of americans who voted for him who think that mr obama can walk on water, which the rest of us are still waiting to see

52. At 5:22pm on 07 Mar 2011, Khuli wrote:
2. At 1:02pm on 07 Mar 2011, Confuciousfred wrote:
Quite frankly this is a load of rot. How does Brazil influence any country in the world.
-------------------------

I think Brazilians have been an extremely positive influence....


################

I wish I could understand why. Whenever I hear/read news of Brazil, I read of yet more deforestation with no second thoughts of local and global consequences, removal of land rights from indigenous peoples as well as long-settled peoples without compensation, and stories of corruption. However news of Brazil in UK is pretty non-existent unless there is an event on in Brazil, like a carnival or a world-cup, so my view is likely to be very biased by what I am fed.
All it seems is that it is a vast state where some lawless oligarchs are in a rush to lay claim to as much of its resources as soonas possible, and couldn't care less about the law if it is an obstacle. Sounds pretty much like what happened in Russia upon perestroika and is happening all the time in most west/central african states. It does not seem to have a foreign policy outside the Americas other than to attract as many industrial investors asap to use its resources asap. It is an exploit the state and its people asap state, (just like Russia, China, India, most African states and Middle East states), with little else other than a football team and a carnival. These states and their masters are not interested in looking after their people or other people with no value placed on art, culture, architecture. If an historic building is in the way, or people have been living on land for generations, they are happy to tear it down or remove them to slums, if it is/they are in the way of a new expressway, or a mine. Thats why they need corrupt politicians. Not positive role models for me.

#37 Hikertom

Nice try but really - history is in history books, not in any way on a Hollywood screen. The USA likes to be first/best in everything - sorry, you are not! Most of us, when we hear/see opinions like yours, shake our heads and say 'you gotta love the Yanks'. (tongue in cheek of course)

"Brazil and South Africa as having a positive" pull the other one!

#37 Hikertom

Joseph Swan was British and he invented the lightbulb 10 years before Edison put a patent on it.

Just trying to help you out Tom!!

Not Britain, the USA or Israel.

Oil producing countries have most influence in the world, whether we like it or not. Be it positive or negative. The U S A think they are the world. Britain likes to think they have an influence in the world. A well known owner of the news media tries to buy the world.

Which countries have a positive influence in the world?

"Meanwhile, the average ratings of the three most negatively viewed countries - Iran, North Korea and Pakistan - went from bad to worse".


Iran, because it seems only the Mullahs know who really won the 2009 presidential election there, because as I understand it they counted the ballots in secret without any of the presidential candidates being present to monitor and verify the count.



North Korea, because nobody really knows anything them about apart from speculation and rumour, plus the testimony of a relatively few people who have escaped from it.


Pakistan because of their problems with the Taliban and Al Queda.


I don't think any country can universally be said to have a positive influence on the world because its all relative, what one person considers a positive influence can be construed as a negative influence by someone else.

I do not know anyone who likes America . The BBC should have asked the people of the UK

#57 Edwin Shodinger wrote:
"You have a few problems with facts. The telephone was invented by Alexander Graham Bell. A Scot. The television was invented by John Baird. Another Scot. Tim Berners Lee is credited with the invention of the internet."

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin, your facts are wrong:
(1) Alexander Graham Bell was born in Scotland, but he invented the telephone in the U.S.A. He became an American citizen and wrote: "I am not one of those hyphenated Americans who claim allegiance to two countries".
(2) John Baird invented a kind of television that created an image using a spinning disk. It created very poor, shadowy images, and was discontinued in 1937. The television that you watch today is descended from the work of Philo Farnsworth, who built the first fully functional all electronic television system at his laboratory in San Francisco, California.
(3) The internet was invented by the U.S. military more than 50 years ago to send information from one computer to another.

All your other comments are easily refuted. The Wright brothers didn't just strap a motor on a German glider. They built a wind tunnel and designed their own wings and propeller. The Germans thought an airplane propeller should act like a ship propeller. That's why their design didn't work. The wright Brothers discovered that the propeller blades should act more like wings.

As for your comments about American support of dictators, it's easy to be critical when you don't have to deal with the real world. Sometimes there isn't a choice between dictatorship and democracy. We supported the Shah in Iran, who was a bad guy, but he was overthrown and replaced by guys who are worse. We supported the military dictatorship of South Korea when they were invaded by China and North Korea in 1950. But today South Korea is a prosperous democracy, while North Korea is still a horrible dictatorship. I don't agree with everything the U.S. has done, but the world would be a far worse place without American influence over the past 70 years.

57. At 5:41pm on 07 Mar 2011, Edwin Schrodinger wrote:
"And if Americans are so nice, why are they viewed with utter contempt across the world?"
----------
They are not viewed with "utter contempt across the world".

However, people like you (yes, you personally) are prone to think that Americans are ignorant and poorly informed when they say nonsense like you did at post no.6("Most people in the world dislike the US more than they did when Obama came in.").

The irony is that you are part of the problem you are complaining about.

57. At 5:41pm on 07 Mar 2011, Edwin Schrodinger wrote:
Hiker Tom wrote:

Haven't you used a lightbulb, telephone, or television recently; or flown in an airplane?-- all invented by Americans.

Not only did the U.S.A. rebuild western Europe after World War II, we also stood firm against communist expansion for 45 years, which created a global environment that has seen a proliferation of democracies around the world.

As for the flood of migrants crossing into Europe, we have the same situation along our southern border with Mexico. The United States lets in more legal immigrants than all the other countries of the world put together; yet still there are approximately 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S. Thousands die in the desert every year attempting to cross the border illegally. If people vote with their feet, the United States would surely rate as the number 1 country in the world.'

You have a few problems with facts. The telephone was invented by Alexander Graham Bell. A Scot. The television was invented by John Baird. Another Scot. Tim Berners Lee is credited with the invention of the internet. English

Careful Edwin. Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web that ran on the already existing internet (it started in the 1960s).

As for the lightbulb, you missed out Swan (an Englishman). He teamed up with Edison who co-discovered it and they formed the Swan-Edison company to make them.

To be fair to the American claim on the telephone, Bell did it in the USA so it is reasonable to claim that and Bell made it to the patent office just before his nearest rival so got to patent it. The TV was invented by John Logie Baird in the UK (though the Russians also have a claim to being first to use cathode ray tubes).

69. At 7:36pm on 07 Mar 2011, hikertom wrote:
#57 Edwin Shodinger wrote:
"You have a few problems with facts. The telephone was invented by Alexander Graham Bell. A Scot. The television was invented by John Baird. Another Scot. Tim Berners Lee is credited with the invention of the internet."

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin, your facts are wrong:
(1) Alexander Graham Bell was born in Scotland, but he invented the telephone in the U.S.A. He became an American citizen and wrote: "I am not one of those hyphenated Americans who claim allegiance to two countries".
(2) John Baird invented a kind of television that created an image using a spinning disk. It created very poor, shadowy images, and was discontinued in 1937. The television that you watch today is descended from the work of Philo Farnsworth, who built the first fully functional all electronic television system at his laboratory in San Francisco, California.

On Baird: that's sort of irrelevant: he had the first image transmission and replication. We can argue that the CRT has been discontinued by the LCD and plasma displays and so the TV has only just been invented on that argument. Or that colour TV technology replaced black and white. You could argue that Bell labs didn't invent the transistor as that particular design was quickly replaced by something different.

As for lightbulbs: we're now replacing the Swan/Edison design with flourescent tube design. Does that mean we shouldn't credit Swan and Edison with the first lightbulb? Of course not. I'd be interested to see if you concede that Edison was not the first to invent the incandescent lightbulb.

By the way, who invented the jet engine? Whose designs were the rockets in the US and Russian space programmes?

As a Brazilian it pains me that in reality the influence of my country is so little that people can only remember the Amazon deflorastation (which is in fact slowing down) and corruption (oh, so different of other countries where corrupt polititians are virtually unheard of). So I will mention a few things that I consider good influences coming from Brazil

1) After years of dictatorship we just had our sixth successful presidential election. After electing for the first time a man from the working class (who finished with an approval rating above 80%), we elected a woman for the first time. I believe people in the Middle East should definitely look, not only to Brazil, but to most countries in South America as positive exemples of countries where the change to democracy have certainly brought amazing improvements.

2) Culturally we have our annual carnival, the greatest show on Earth. It is taking place actually as you read this. You can google articles and images to see what it is like.

3) Socially, even though we have a long ways to go, it's clear that Brazil has been one of the most successful countries in terms of integrating people of different races, ethnicities and religions. It is not perfect but it is certainly better than most.

4) Brazil has been in the forefront of renewable fuel sources, with extensive use of Ethanol and Hydro plants.

5) It is one of the few countries in the world where the middle class is actually growing.

6) Brazil has been a country that has tried to influence the progress in the world without the use of cannons and bombs. We are still young in this business, but we have started in the righteous way.

7) we have won the most important sports event in the world more than any other country. Soccer has been a great intrument of social change and class mobility at home.

And I could go on, but these are just a few examples of positive things coming out of Brazil that I hope will counterballance your perception of a country imbedded in crime and corruption.

LOL - the people in China rate themselves as being more positive than the rest if the world sees them on average. This self-serving bias is even worse than in the US and UK.

And ... as much as people in the UK like to think that people in the US take them for granted, US respondents were exceeded in their positive views of the UK by only South Korea.

53. At 5:25pm on 07 Mar 2011, Edwin Schrodinger wrote:
42. At 4:43pm on 07 Mar 2011, Total Mass Retain wrote:
The USA has a large proportion (over 40%) that believe the biblical story of creation. That's despite US science doing more than most to show that these stories are not true.

There is just as much evidence for it as the 'Big Bang' theory.

If you really think that, no wonder you struggle with climate change science and can't distinguish irrational belief systems from those based on the scientific method.

From a U.S.A. perspective the question is difficult to answer since much of the major American news media are so provincial and biased that it is difficult to obtain an objective and informed perspective regarding Brazil and South Africa. For someone who obtains their information from sources outside of the U.S. it does appear that Brazil is on the rise even though there are large numbers of citizens who are impoverished. Looking at South Africa from the same perspective the societal situation appears to be similar to that in Brazil. South Africa did pull off the World Cup quite well, but the resulting benefits for the poor are questionable.

#72 Jason Mead wrote:
"I'd be interested to see if you concede that Edison was not the first to invent the incandescent lightbulb."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I concede that Swan invented the first lightbulb. You learn something new everyday. However, I still give credit for the invention of television to Philo Farsnworth. Baird's tv design is not a progenitor of the television we watch today. Baird's design could never have produced an acceptable image quality, and Farnsworth started from scratch with an entirely different concept. It's like studying human evolution. Baird's tv was an evolutionary deadend. Farnsworth's tv lead directly to the lcd and plasma tv that we watch today.

Let's turn this question on its head. Which countries in the world have contributed the worst aspects of humanity to our common history?

Ten years ago, on March 8, 2001, the foul Taliban destroyed the Buddhas of Bamiyan - providing a fitting "tribute" to their fanaticism and their foul religion.

The destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan showed how low humanity can sink even in the 21st century..

Other countries whose recent history carries with it the mark of the Devil: Pakistan (for the murders of Christians), Zimbabwe (and other African countries (for the murders of their own people), Iran (for another fanatical regime bent on destruction)...

REMEMBER THE BUDDHAS OF BAMIYAN
DESTROYED BY THE GUNS OF THE TALIBAN
- THE GUNS OF ISLAM BLASTING AT THE BELIEFS OF OTHERS, UNCARING OF THE VIEWS OF OTHERS!

REMEMBER THE BUDDHAS OF BAMIYAN
DESTROYED BY THE GUNS OF THE TALIBAN
ALL IN THE NAME OF ISLAM!

It's not the country that is to blame - it's the ideology.

This question (on positive influence) should have been turned on its head and those who breed evil identified openly.

I am hearted by places like Iran and Uganda who have not bowed to UN and secular indoctrination to accept homosexuality as natural and right.

New Zealand and Australia are among the more benign countries on the planet.

Climate change "science" has been proven to have been falsified and has just as many holes in it as the theory of evolution which has never and can never be directly observed, so it is not technically science, it is an extrapolation and story.

73. At 8:08pm on 07 Mar 2011, Dudinho wrote:
As a Brazilian it pains me that in reality the influence of my country is so little that people can only remember the Amazon deflorastation (which is in fact slowing down) and corruption (oh, so different of other countries where corrupt polititians are virtually unheard of). So I will mention a few things that I consider good influences coming from Brazil

##########

Dudinho, sorry if I was in any way responsible for your feelings. To be truthful, in the UK, very little is heard of countries other than the UK (obviously), and the USA.

We then hear of countries in the Middle East when there are problems there, or other ex-colonies when there are natural disasters ( eg Australia, India, Pakistan).

When a major sporting event is on (eg Football World Cup or Olympics) we hear of thise countries for a very short period,

When the USA is having problems with another country, eg with N Korea, or Iran, we then also hear the same news, as if it should automatically interest the people of the UK.

There is of coourse the odd nature documentary, or tourist program.

With respect to S America, and Africa I guess most of the UK is quite possibly pretty ignorant. (Just my guess/opinion)

The media has an inordinate level of influence over what interests people and how they feel about them, so these sorts of surveys are as conducted by the BBC World Service/Globalscan are really only a reflection of what media is fed to residents in the repective countries that are surveyed. People are only going to be able to base their opinions on what they have been taught by the media.

The media is who mainly influences people's behaviour and thoughts about others, so this survey is really rating its success/failure rather than about natural feelings of people.

If USA is immproving in ratings, and N Korea, Iran, Pakistan is going down, then this means the USA media is doing its job better than N Korea, Iran's and Pakistans media, in the countries surveyed. As Western/Australian media are well financed it is a very predictable result. Nothing new really, just another pretty pointless HYS topic, that tests the BBC's effectiveness on how it avoided to educate the UK on other nations, in relation to how its competitors in other nations fared, whilst educating about the UK

Have a nice day :)

77. At 8:34pm on 07 Mar 2011, hikertom wrote:
#72 Jason Mead wrote:
"I'd be interested to see if you concede that Edison was not the first to invent the incandescent lightbulb."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I concede that Swan invented the first lightbulb. You learn something new everyday. However, I still give credit for the invention of television to Philo Farsnworth. Baird's tv design is not a progenitor of the television we watch today. Baird's design could never have produced an acceptable image quality, and Farnsworth started from scratch with an entirely different concept. It's like studying human evolution. Baird's tv was an evolutionary deadend. Farnsworth's tv lead directly to the lcd and plasma tv that we watch today.

Actually, Baird went on to be the first to build a colour TV. I think you understate his contribution to TV, which was the synthesis of the inventions of several pioneers. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Logie_Baird

The UK could have a positive influence on the world if only it had the guts to subjugate the Islamic extremists within its own borders! Then we wouldn't have such difficulties doing the same in other countries!

Alf Garnett has come out to play.

New Zealand is a lovely place and the people are generally very relaxed - great shame about Christchurch.

At 9:34pm on 07 Mar 2011, spoton wrote:

"Dudinho, sorry if I was in any way responsible for your feelings."

NO, it was not directed at you, but at the very overall lack of knowledge about Brazilian politics and society that you mention.

Most of all I'd like people to realize that South America in general should be seen as the perfect model for Middle East countries that want to ditch their dictatorships and embrace democracy. Even though I doubt they will be able to achieve that in such a peaceful way as South Americans did.

As to the "who invented what" discussion going on, please, google Santos Dumont and see who invented the airplane, instead of that glorified catapult that the Wright brothers put together.

86. At 9:44pm on 07 Mar 2011, Phosgene wrote:
Alf Garnett has come out to play.

#############

I thought it was Davros harping on about terminating the killer Saracens

#82 ServeTheWay wrote:
"Climate change "science" has been proven to have been falsified and has just as many holes in it as the theory of evolution which has never and can never be directly observed, so it is not technically science, it is an extrapolation and story."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your ignorance is astounding.
(1) The science behind global warming is stronger than ever. The so-called "Climategate scandal" has been investigated numerous times by independent parties, who found no evidence of falsification of data. Global warming deniers scoured thousands of emails and pulled a few words and phrases out of context to support their paranoid notion that all the climate scientist in the world are part of a vast conspiracy.
(2) Evolution through natural selection meets all the criteria of science. It is based on a vast body of evidence. There are many examples of organisms mutating and evolving, including antibiotic resistant bacteria. Why do you think is is necessary to come up with a new flu shot every year? The virus is evolving. Why do you think whales have hip bones? They have no function in a creature without hind legs. Scientists have found many transitional fossils illustrating how whales evolved from land animals.

@89.

I think we're pretty much on the same page. Davros is Alf Garnett's more evil big brother. They both sit there in their special chair rasping out nasty bile about people different to them and are desperate to get more power than they actually have.

THE EARTH IS BEAUTIFUL

Be curious - if you can't travel then for goodness sake pick up a book about a country and read it. How ridiculous to have/make assumptions about people and places and not know one iota regarding same. Amazing!!

Your brainwashing is astounding.

(1) The science behind global warming is stronger than ever. The so-called "Climategate scandal" has been investigated numerous times by independent parties, who found no evidence of falsification of data. Global warming deniers scoured thousands of emails and pulled a few words and phrases out of context to support their paranoid notion that all the climate scientist in the world are part of a vast conspiracy.

Emails which attempted to misrepresent actual figures to exaggerate a non existent increase in temperature, talk of doing tricks with results, then a twisting to try and defend their manipulation. Claims that The snow caps of mount everest would be gone in a few years, which was proven to have no science behind the claim yet it was published in news articles to scare monger people.

Is climate change real? Yes - the climate changes every day. Is the world heating up? Well that is relative to cooling down, the earth has gone through periods of hot and cold. Is human activity influencing the weather?
This has not been proven as solar flares would override any human influence and could be the cause of any small scale increase in temperatures.

One of the legacies of secular science is the pollution of the environment through industry and technology, however whether these are causing GLOBAL changes to the weather is speculation, as human observation is very short scale and it could be part of a larger natural cycle.





(2) Evolution through natural selection meets all the criteria of science. It is based on a vast body of evidence. There are many examples of organisms mutating and evolving, including antibiotic resistant bacteria. Why do you think is is necessary to come up with a new flu shot every year? The virus is evolving. Why do you think whales have hip bones? They have no function in a creature without hind legs. Scientists have found many transitional fossils illustrating how whales evolved from land animals.

bacteria mutating is not evolution, that is simply variation of already existing features - Evolution from fish to man requires completely alien structures and elements to pop into existent by accident via "mutation" which has never been directly observed.

Whales do not have remnants of legs either, that is calling imputing your biased world view upon the evidence. The very idea a whale used to be land animal and then turn into a whale is ridiculous, its amazing what you will believe if you are told by teachers to believe it. -

Actual evidence of evolution would be direct observation of an organism mutating something alien and functional, like an organism with no legs, starting to sprout legs, or an organism with no ears already encoded into its dna starting to develop functional new organs which never previous were observed.

But as the belief in evolution states this theory would take millions of years so such actual observable evidence is impossible to acquire and if any such miraculous mutation did occur, where a creature which never had such a functional element, suddenly acquired through mutation a new functional limb, organ or element, this would be rather miraculous and beyond the capacity of a random mutation, actually evidence of God creating.

Positive Influences on the World by British Inventors:


Electric Motor – Michael Faraday

Internal combustion engine – Samuel Brown

Jet engine – Sir Frank Whittle ( Hans von Ohain also invented it independently)

Portland Cement – Joseph Aspdin

Crossword Puzzles – Arthur Wynne (after emigrating to the USA)

Metal Lathe – Henry Maudslay

Lawn mower – Edwin Beard Budding

Steam Locomotive (road) – Richard Trevithick

Steam Locomotive ( rail) – George Louis Stephenson

Sewing Machine – Thomas Saint

Shrapnel – Henry Shrapnel

Submarine – William Bourne (design only – didn’t build one)

Toilet paper – British Perforated Paper Company

Torpedo – Robert Whitehead

Vacuum cleaner – Robert Cecil Booth

Viagra – Peter Dunn, Albert Wood, Dr Nicholas Terrett

Steel Production – Sir Henry Bessemer (an American, William Kelly, had developed a similar process independently, but sold his patent to Bessemer anyway upon bankruptcy)


What would the world have done without portland cement and steel, or viagra to maintain its stamina ?

The world has been well served by the British - and a few others on the odd occasion, of course ;)

4. At 1:09pm on 07 Mar 2011, BigFacedBoy wrote:
Libya had a positive influence up until recently by not allowing oil companies to steal its oil and take the money. Regardless of what Gadaffi has done otherwise, he was right to take this positive action.

And Hitler built the autobahns, and Mussolini made the trains run on time.

Why do you think is is necessary to come up with a new flu shot every year?

So science can justify taking millions of public funds - Does a virus change every year? - Do flu shots actually work? - thats up for debate. The best defence against any virus or infection is a strong immune system.

As flu shots inject some of the actual disease and flu into your system I don't think it is a very wise theory.

If virus's keep changing then how can scientist know what virus to create an antibody for? - looks like more medical chemical russian roulette and messing about to me

@96. But you're not a disease specialist are you?

Well done to Egypt for standing against an unelected dictator.

I was in egypt around 2004 and I was uncomfortable with the large posters of the leader, looked very george orwell.

Now egypt has stood up to remove unelected imposed ruling class. This is something the UK should do also.

Time to end the monarchy.

Brown was an unelected prime minister? - Wait, Cameron is also an unelected prime minister.

Cameron was on Holiday when the Libya conflict started, so he couldn't be bothered doing anything about it?

Clegg was acting prime minister but didn't seem to realise it?

The real reason for UK stalling on libya may be due to the OIL interest????????

The UN has proven itself another big waste of space and money. If Gadaffi was slaughtering innocent people protesting the UN should have taken immediate action to intervene and protect the civilians and the UK should have backed them.

It is a shame how slow the UN and international response has been on this.

Again the UN has been stymied by members of the security council who have oil interests not wanting to take decisive action, is it china and russia?

The UN shouldnt be sitting back when hundreds of innocent people are being gunned down.

Talk by the UK and UN about sanctions and no fly zones are pathetic if people are dying now.

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?