"The US has been voted as the most significant threat to world peace in a survey across 68 different countries. Anti-American sentiment was not only recorded in antagonistic countries, but also in many allied NATO partners like Turkey and Greece.
A global survey conducted by the Worldwide Independent Network and Gallup at the end of 2013 revealed strong animosity towards the US’s role as the world’s policeman. Citizens across over 60 nations were asked: “Which country do you think is the greatest threat to peace in the world today?”
The US topped the list, with 24 percent of people believing America to be the biggest danger to peace. Pakistan came second, with 8 percent of the vote and was closely followed by China with 6 percent. Afghanistan, Iran, Israel and North Korea came in joint fourth place with 5 percent of the vote.
The threat from the US was rated most highly in the Middle East and North Africa, those areas most recently affected by American military intervention. Moreover, the survey showed that even Americans regard their country as a potential threat with 13 percent of them voting the US could disrupt global status quo.
Latin America expressed mixed feelings towards its northerly neighbor, with Peru, Brazil and Argentina all flagging the US as the most dangerous country.
After its numerous threats of a strike on Iran, many countries voted Israel was the biggest threat to prosperity. Morocco, Lebanon and Iraq all chose Israel as the number one danger to world peace.
In the survey participants were also asked: “If there were no barriers to living in any country of the world, which country would you like to live in?” Despite being the perceived largest threat to world peace, the US still topped the tables by a narrow margin of 9 percent.
In general 2013 saw a drop in approval ratings for the Obama Administration. A poll conducted by the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research revealed that 50 percent of those asked thought that the political system in the US needed a “complete overhaul.”
In addition, 70 percent of Americans believe the government lacks the ability to make progress on the important problems and issues facing the country in 2014.”
The survey comes two months after the first government shutdown in 17 years in the US which cost the country an estimated $10 billion.
The American government’s credibility was dealt a blow earlier this year when President Obama made a call to strike Syria following a suspected chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government on civilians. The American public and the international community both opposed the action."
it has some interesting things to say generally as well
"Optimism is back in the world- WIN/Gallup International’s annual global End of Year survey shows a brighter outlook for 2014
Zurich, Switzerland - 30th December 2013 - WIN/Gallup International, the leading global association in market research and polling, has today published, in collaboration with The BBC's Today programme, the results of its annual End of Year Survey which explores the outlook, expectations, hopes and fears of people from 65 countries around the world.
TLDR PEOPLE read below
Headlines
Despite a year of economic difficulty, almost 50% of people surveyed are more positive about 2014 than they were for 2013;
US, Canada and Australia are the countries where most people would like to live if they could;
US is considered to be the greatest threat to peace in the world, followed by Pakistan and China;
Over a third of those surveyed believe the world would be a better place if there were more female politicians;
Now in its 37th year WIN/Gallup International End of Year Survey finds that since 1989 people in general have a more positive outlook on economic prosperity for the coming year.
Jean-Marc Leger, President of WIN/Gallup International Association, said: “Despite an unstable economic situation, our happiness index is extremely high all over the world except in Europe. Moreover people think that 2014 will be better than 2013. Optimism is back in the world.”
all you people who discout everything that comes from RT, because its rusky biased instead of US biased like fox/cnbc/msnbc ect... this is not the only paper reporting on the stufy, plenty of others have reported on this study, and show the same results.
I question the validity of these results, where the top "four" (actually seven countries) only adds up to 58% of the total vote... Considering 'fourth place' is 5%, that means the remaining 42% of the vote was split among countries that didn't receive anything more than about 4%... so... who did those people think were the biggest threat to world peace? Canada? Switzerland? Sweden? Mongolia? Tibet?
As far as surveys go, these guys actually do know how to do it.
This is the "WIN/Gallup International, the leading global association in market research and polling" we are talking about here... your "guy on the internet handwaivium" doesnt really discredit this kind of institution
Exactly! I love how the places not to mess with are the best places to live!
I almost read it as "they hate us cause they jelly"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote: I question the validity of these results, where the top "four" (actually seven countries) only adds up to 58% of the total vote... Considering 'fourth place' is 5%, that means the remaining 42% of the vote was split among countries that didn't receive anything more than about 4%... so... who did those people think were the biggest threat to world peace? Canada? Switzerland? Sweden? Mongolia? Tibet?
I did post the site where you can fact check for yourself as to what the other results were... i dont know why you expect a survey to list all the other, minority answers, because its just going to be a lot of sub 5% votes for varions nations like israel/iran/sudan/ect... they dont need to list every answer on their front page to be valid, and you are free to actually look at those #'s... they are also right there for your pursuing.
Which, if you check page 7, puts the US in fourth place with 13% of the vote, behind North Korea, Afghanistan, and Iran?
Either I don't know how to read charts, or something isn't quite right with the news article.
you are reading the USA's result, the RT article/ gallup world summery is discussing the worlds result for that same question.
IE http://www.wingia.com/en/services/about_the_end_of_year_survey/country_results/7/37/ lists all the countries results and all the questions, you need to add em all up to get the world answer, not just the USA's
Cool but remember this is published by RT = Russia Today and that the editor in chief is the "Vice-President of Russia’s National Association of TV and Radio Broadcasters (NAT)". It would need a little more checking into of how the survey was conducted, sample selection, etc.
Better to be a threat to world peace by trying to do something good than to voice our "displeasure" with various groups and do nothing.
All I can think of is a parallelism:
It is the threat of actions of the father for placing kids in the corner or physically directing them to the activities they should have done or conducted to their room for hitting their brother or various toys removed and bad language and bullying are carried out and reprimanded that REALLY disturbs and threatens the peace in the house but without it there WOULD BE NO PEACE AT ALL.
What a joke. France has undertaken and threatened more military action around the world in 2013 then we did. This poll was nothing but an outlet for America hate.
djones520 wrote: What a joke. France has undertaken and threatened more military action around the world in 2013 then we did. This poll was nothing but an outlet for America hate.
Good....goood...give in to your hatred and your journey to the dark side will be complete.
to the people complaining its off a RT site... its NOT... this is a GALLUP world wide poll,
RT is just a PAPER reporting on the poll, it is not the poll itself, nor a sponser for it...
gallup isnt some tinfoil hat club organization, nor is it a hate club, its perfectly believable that there is this level of anti Americanism in the world... weather it is deserved or not (not IMO)
keep in mind, that many americans have to wear canadian flags for this reason, and even 10 years ago, the first thing I always had to explain while travelling was "I am canadian, not american" to people.... the poll fits what I have known from travelling for years, namely the world has a very skewed perception of america/americains due to the primary export being hollywood and bombs
chaos0xomega wrote: Has anyone gone through the trouble of adding up all the numbers to determine if the 28% is in fact accurate?
RT actually states it is 24%, not 28%, which is correct +/ - 1%,
every other paper quoting the gallup poll also states 24% that I can find,
my own math shows similar results when added up,
here is another source, I understand that people see "RT" as a biased tabloid, but is is just as "credible" as CNN, fox, msnbc, ect ect... they are all the same, just different bias.
Yep, the country cough...North Korea...cough, threatening to launch nuclear war is totaly in line with a peaceful, loving place anyone would love to have on their border.
Relapse wrote: Yep, the country cough...North Korea...cough, threatening to launch nuclear war is totaly in line with a peaceful, loving place anyone would love to have on their border.
If I am surprised by the poll its that Pakistan is in the number 2 spot and Afghanistan in #4? I would have thought Iran, Israel, North Korea would all warrant a higher place on the list than those 2.
keep in mind, those are the countries who scare the US...
this survey is world wide, so it makes perfect sense that the US centric fears of the "axis of evil" type countries is a local US type thing...
naturally, the results from the USA are HUGLY diffferent from those in other countries, in the USA< you bet NK and the "axis" are much higher then the USA or israel, but most people are not americans.
I was actually thinking that but with Indians voting Pakistan. I just wouldn't think that anyone else in the world is really that concerned about Pakistan that they'd rank so highly.
The USA opinion is that 20% think iran is worst, followed by afghanistan at 16%, then north korea at 13%, then surprisingly the USA at 13%, then Iraq at 6%, syria and china at 5%.. canada actually makes the americans list at 1%! pakistan is also only at 1%
the INdia opinion is the one that thinks pakistan is the worst threat, at 25%, followed by the states at 19%, followed by india itself at 12%... again, canada ties at 1% same as north korea, syria, iran...
USA 17%
afghanistan 15%
north korea 15%
iran 9%
china 6%
iraq6%
syria 4%
pakistan4%
austrialia 4%
israel 3%
russia1%
canada doesnt even make up 1%
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh god... i just read canada's...
of all the people to think canada is a threat, canadians are the ones to think so more then anyone else at 2% of canadians think canada is the biggest threat...
canadas biggest percieved threat is the USA tied for first with IRAN at 17%
Randomness aside I think I'll side being afraid of my own country not because of its military capabilities but the lunacy of this administration and borderline fascist state that the federal government has become of late.
Heavy Metal wrote: Randomness aside I think I'll side being afraid of my own country not because of its military capabilities but the lunacy of this administration and borderline fascist state that the federal government has become of late.
I think you should look up what "fascism" means before using that term to describe the United States government.
Heavy Metal wrote: Randomness aside I think I'll side being afraid of my own country not because of its military capabilities but the lunacy of this administration and borderline fascist state that the federal government has become of late.
I think you should look up what "fascism" means before using that term to describe the United States government.
I agree, it's a pretty Nazi way to describe a government which may not be all that bad. You're Goering to hurt their feelings if you keep it up. Hitler.
djones520 wrote: What a joke. France has undertaken and threatened more military action around the world in 2013 then we did. This poll was nothing but an outlet for America hate.
Should the USA care if it is widely hated or distrusted in the world?
We are the biggest threat, from a utilitarian standpoint. We have at the very least, the capability of crippling any other nation at will, if not straight up annihilating them in an orgy of nuclear fire. We have a decent chance of fighting the entire rest of the world and winning. That's pretty threatening.
Now, if any of these cheese eating surrender monkeys think we would actually do anything like that, they are silly in the head.
I can understand the perception of the US being problematic in a recent poll considering so much of the news over the last few years were about the US killing with drones and spying on everyone, enemy or ally.
That and haters gonna hate cause we have all the coolest toys.
easysauce wrote: to the people complaining its off a RT site... its NOT... this is a GALLUP world wide poll,
Well no, its a WIN/GIA poll, an organization that is completely unaffiliated with Gallup Inc (though they were founded by the same person). In fact, Gallup Inc. sued Gallup International Association over its use of the Gallup name.
Looking at the provided methodology, i would argue that the survey should not be viewed as a single poll, but a collection of many polls. This is probably why aggregate data was not presented by WIN/GIA.
I'm I more afraid of some of the other top 7 countries than America? Yes, I'd say I am.
However, I would say America is the top threat to world peace, because those other countries can do very little in the scheme of thing to the rest of the world, while American can
Don't kill our people, or take them hostage, and we'll leave you alone.
Don't kill your own people because we have a problem with bullies...
My concern if I were to take the poll or answer a questionnaire about a people group who is a threat to ALL nations is the muslim groups who do not tolerate anyone but themselves. Since specific names of a certain people group was thrown out there, my people, I think it's fair to do the same, and name a "real" threat. This group has murdered people in most all of the world.
I have seen some of the dark places of the world, where people live in fear of the ones with guns. So we gave them protection with our guns, and liberated them. Taught them how to protect themselves, and their children. Whether or not governments let them alone after we were done is another matter, what mattered was the people were no longer threatened by the bullies with guns who had killed them before we got there.
My brothers in arms were the countries who believe in relative freedoms of their own people. We were right, the bad guys were taken down, nothing can change it because it is done.
My country has rescued other countries from factions of intolerant bullies, who murdered people.
I am proud to be an American, I am proud to call other people groups my allies. I do not apologize for your fear of us. Fear of something can also be considered respect, or a consideration, like the respect a child has for a father if that child does wrong by making bad choices.
Don't kill your own people because we have a problem with bullies...
Well....we only really care if it has a genuine impact on the United States or an ally*.
*That we really care about.
*And if that bully is helping you out as well then there may not be much punishment
Note: I understand that it is a necessity of international relations that some people would go unpunished, I just think its silly to say 'we take down bullies' when some bullies have clearly been OK'd to an extent.
Don't kill your own people because we have a problem with bullies...
Well....we only really care if it has a genuine impact on the United States or an ally*.
*That we really care about.
*And if that bully is helping you out as well then there may not be much punishment
Note: I understand that it is a necessity of international relations that some people would go unpunished, I just think its silly to say 'we take down bullies' when some bullies have clearly been OK'd to an extent.
Or more precisely, the United States cannot fight every battle. This means that many, many people go unpunished for what they deserve and while we can be on a moral high horse and expect and demand others to be better to their people, what can the United States truly do when it would wreck our nation to fix another nation?
Kelly502 wrote: Don't kill our people, or take them hostage, and we'll leave you alone.
Don't kill your own people because we have a problem with bullies...
I'll admit that I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that isn't how American foreign policy works.
My concern if I were to take the poll or answer a questionnaire about a people group who is a threat to ALL nations is the muslim groups who do not tolerate anyone but themselves. Since specific names of a certain people group was thrown out there, my people, I think it's fair to do the same, and name a "real" threat. This group has murdered people in most all of the world.
There was somewhere between 7,000-11,000 Iraqi combat loses in the invasion of Iraq alone with another 20,000+ during the US occupation on top of the 100,000+ civilian fatalities. All over what, exactly? There are people in this world that will look at something like that and think it's fair to say that the US is a threat to them.
I have seen some of the dark places of the world, where people live in fear of the ones with guns. So we gave them protection with our guns, and liberated them. Taught them how to protect themselves, and their children. Whether or not governments let them alone after we were done is another matter, what mattered was the people were no longer threatened by the bullies with guns who had killed them before we got there.
You're right... and then the people with the new guns become the bullies and the whole process starts over again.
My brothers in arms were the countries who believe in relative freedoms of their own people. We were right, the bad guys were taken down, nothing can change it because it is done.
My country has rescued other countries from factions of intolerant bullies, who murdered people.
We have helped plenty of countries that don't care about freedom of their people and we have set up "intolerant bullies" just because they were on our side when we needed them. At the same time we ignore the plight of areas like Africa where plenty of real "bad guys" are responsible for some of the most deplorable acts of human suffering ever visited on this planet.
I am proud to be an American, I am proud to call other people groups my allies. I do not apologize for your fear of us. Fear of something can also be considered respect, or a consideration, like the respect a child has for a father if that child does wrong by making bad choices.
Fear is not respect; coercing people with fear is not an intelligent way to build long standing relationships.
You didn't, no. I was simply trying to help you use the correct word for the argument you were making.
My argument is that the US should care about the way it is perceived internationally because, at the very least, it engages in frequent military interventions and its citizens frequently travel to other countries.
I understand that you don't want to think about "hearts and minds", but the reality is that it is necessary.
NK doesnt have hundreds of long range nukes, aircraft carriers all over the world and a history of invading anywhere with oi... erm... well...
Though they and the US both have a healthy persecution complex, paranoia, run away spending on the armed forces and a belief in their own superiority over everyone else...
In a worldwide poll these results don't seem particularly surprising. I would vote for the US as number one threat to world peace and I have little fear of them invading the UK... just no one tell them we have oil!
dogma wrote: My argument is that the US should care about the way it is perceived internationally because, at the very least, it engages in frequent military interventions and its citizens frequently travel to other countries.
I understand that you don't want to think about "hearts and minds", but the reality is that it is necessary.
The reality is that you're making an argument for caring about localized opinion when it comes to military intervention - why should we care what Botswana thinks if we're invading Japan? - and for, once again, recognizing hotspots of anti-Americanism when it comes to issuing travel advisories. That's it.
Caring about international opinion as to who's the greatest threat to world peace is pretty pointless. I'd be surprised if we weren't at the top of that list since the end of the Cold War. To quote Newton, "Haters gonna hate."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote: NK doesnt have hundreds of long range nukes, aircraft carriers all over the world and a history of invading anywhere with oi... erm... well...
You've got a point. We'd be nowhere without that Afghani oil.
Annoy enough people in enough places and eventually you will have trouble. From granting trade rights, placing of bases, overfly rights, and even sourcing equipment and services... people will start to look elsewhere first.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote:
You've got a point. We'd be nowhere without that Afghani oil.
Well, you've got to generate terrorists somewhere in order to justify invading places...
SilverMK2 wrote: Annoy enough people in enough places and eventually you will have trouble. From granting trade rights, placing of bases, overfly rights, and even sourcing equipment and services... people will start to look elsewhere first.
Not really, no. What the government does vs. what the people under the government want it to do are often entirely different concepts. A lot of Japanese have wanted us off Okinawa since 1945; we're getting an expanded base.
The United States fighting men have been deployed to the African continent more than you know, undermining evil men.
When someone fears something there is a respect. i.e. A hiker in the woods fears the bear, so he respects the bear's territory, and avoids it, for fear of being killed by the bear. That is an intelligent way to deal with the bear.
The reality is that you're making an argument for caring about localized opinion when it comes to military intervention - why should we care what Botswana thinks if we're invading Japan? - and for, once again, recognizing hotspots of anti-Americanism when it comes to issuing travel advisories. That's it.
Are you of the opinion that the phrase "international opinion" only denotes the so-called "international community"?
Caring about international opinion as to who's the greatest threat to world peace is pretty pointless.
I specifically said that this survey shouldn't be regarded as a single poll, but a collection of many polls. You're conflating arguments made by several different people and attributing them to a single person (Me, in this case.), which is one of your worse habits.
dogma wrote: Are you of the opinion that the phrase "international opinion" only denotes the so-called "international community"?
I'm of the opinion that the phrase "international opinion" can denote any number of things. In the case of the polling presented, it denotes popular opinion in a variety of countries.
I specifically said that this survey shouldn't be regarded as a single poll, but a collection of many polls. You're conflating arguments made by several different people and attributing them to a single person (Me, in this case.), which is one of your worse habits.
Those are some rather large stones to be chucking about in such a small glass house.
The United States fighting men have been deployed to the African continent more than you know, undermining evil men.
We've also done a great deal to prop up evil men elsewhere. We do what is in our best interest, just like every other country. While we generally try to do the right thing, just like most other countries, so lets not put on the blue and red tights and fly around the forum, either. There are a good deal of military interventions where the "right thing to do" would have been to act, and I strenuously argued against them, but I don't think that was an evil decision.
Kelly502 wrote: When someone fears something there is a respect. i.e. A hiker in the woods fears the bear, so he respects the bear's territory, and avoids it, for fear of being killed by the bear. That is an intelligent way to deal with the bear.
This is a flawed analogy for a lot of different reasons that have already been expressed by SilverMK2.
Is is better to be feared, or to be loved? I fear my boss*, so I perform at my job... adequately, while looking for better opportunities. I love my family, so I selflessly go above and beyond for them. They're both useful, but I think you generally get miles per gallon out of love. Or the international community equivalent of such.
*my boss is actually very nice, and I like my job, I'm just making an analogy, with "my boss" as an abstraction for fear of the consequences of being fired
Just making a point that fear is a form of respect. I did not state that causing folk to fear you is a good way to have a form of respect, or a relationship with them.
I think there are leaders out there that need to fear the United States, they need to fear that if they overstep international laws that the United States will probably do something about it. I am speaking of dictators, and such.
Since we all know there are many types of relationships, respectful ones, and fearful ones, friendly, and hateful, that the point has been made so let's not throw on the black robe, and don the gavel, and buzz around the forum either.
The United States fighting men have been deployed to the African continent more than you know, undermining evil men.
I am well aware that the United States has military involvement in Africa, much like we do in every part of the world. Just exactly how successful have we been at "undermining evil men" in Africa? I also know it has recently ratcheted up a notch in some areas (like Mali and Sudan, but that is to stem the tide of radical Islam and Chinese influence, respectively) but when has the African continent has ever been the primary concern of American foreign policy or the public at large?
When someone fears something there is a respect. i.e. A hiker in the woods fears the bear, so he respects the bear's territory, and avoids it, for fear of being killed by the bear. That is an intelligent way to deal with the bear.
Again, that is a horrible analogy with absolutely no bearing on international foreign relations.
" Fear is not respect; coercing people with fear is not an intelligent way to build long standing relationships. "
Your quoted argument from earlier. I was just making a point that fear is a form of respect. You said no it is not repsect. Having fear of the bear killing him, the hiker respects the bear's territory.
Did I ever say coercing folks with fear is good? I did not. But if they fear us then so be it. There are leaders out there who fear the gun behind every blade of grass, otherwise if they did not they would have invaded, and learned to respect the guns behind the grass.
You've missed the point.
How successful have "we" been at undermining or eliminating evil men there? I didn't know you served, I thought you were in construction. Usually stating "we" means you've been directly involved.
Ahtman wrote: I hear that on occasion the US likes to sell and buy goods/services from other countries.
China, India and Russia are quickly catching up as premier consumers, who aren't quite as picky as Americans and will literally buy anything to fit their simple and unrefined expectations.
Your average uninformed foreigner probably doesn't know that he is living in a world totally fabricated around satisfying the American economy, and the pervasive commercialism that we represent.
I'm of the opinion that the phrase "international opinion" can denote any number of things. In the case of the polling presented, it denotes popular opinion in a variety of countries.
Yes, but not the popular opinion of the world; an argument I made on page two and restated on page three.
The argument we are presently having, at least absent your attempts at deflection, is over whether or not the US should "care" about international opinion given that, minimally, it tends to engage in military intervention and its citizens tend to travel to other countries.
USA 17%
afghanistan 15%
north korea 15%
iran 9%
china 6%
iraq6%
syria 4%
pakistan4%
austrialia 4%
israel 3%
russia1%
canada doesnt even make up 1%
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh god... i just read canada's...
of all the people to think canada is a threat, canadians are the ones to think so more then anyone else at 2% of canadians think canada is the biggest threat...
canadas biggest percieved threat is the USA tied for first with IRAN at 17%
Thats incredibly incorrect. I have it on good information Aussies are afraid of:
1. Killer spiders
2. Killer wasps
3. Killer drop bears
4. Killer lizards (crocodiles)
5. Killer flying snakes
6. Killer fish (great whites)
In essence Aussies are afraid of no country, save their own...
Kelly502 wrote: " Fear is not respect; coercing people with fear is not an intelligent way to build long standing relationships. "
Your quoted argument from earlier. I was just making a point that fear is a form of respect. You said no it is not repsect. Having fear of the bear killing him, the hiker respects the bear's territory.
Did I ever say coercing folks with fear is good? I did not. But if they fear us then so be it. There are leaders out there who fear the gun behind every blade of grass, otherwise if they did not they would have invaded, and learned to respect the guns behind the grass.
You've missed the point.
How successful have "we" been at undermining or eliminating evil men there? I didn't know you served, I thought you were in construction. Usually stating "we" means you've been directly involved.
Fear equals respect only to the weak minded. Again, any foreign policy based on fear will not be productive, hence it is undesirable if any meaningful progress is to be made. You could understand that it you drop your machismo and look past your terrible analogy.
I also find it odd that you think the trade I make a living with somehow makes me unequipped to enter parlance with you over foreign policy.
Think I will add to the jokes...
What IS to be afraid of is that the USA would be near impossible to oppose.
All it would take is one really careful despot getting voted in and getting some of the more aggressive elements on-side and see it go down hill in a hurry.
Talizvar wrote: Think I will add to the jokes... What IS to be afraid of is that the USA would be near impossible to oppose. All it would take is one really careful despot getting voted in and getting some of the more aggressive elements on-side and see it go down hill in a hurry.
easysauce wrote: to the people complaining its off a RT site... its NOT... this is a GALLUP world wide poll,
Well no, its a WIN/GIA poll, an organization that is completely unaffiliated with Gallup Inc (though they were founded by the same person). In fact, Gallup Inc. sued Gallup International Association over its use of the Gallup name.
Looking at the provided methodology, i would argue that the survey should not be viewed as a single poll, but a collection of many polls. This is probably why aggregate data was not presented by WIN/GIA.
gallup international is all over that site, i welcome you to contact the person at the above link and argue with them that they, as gallup international, are not a respectable poller, and their name doesnt have "gallup" in it...
or is your complaint one of "you should have said warhammer 40k, just saying 40k is cutting off important bits".... OK then, its a gallup international poll... happy? such was stated in the OP already, you must have missed it.
Gallup, Inc., is a research-based, global performance-management consulting company. Founded by George Gallup in 1935, the company became famous for its public opinion polls, which were conducted in the United States and other countries. Gallup works with major businesses and organizations around the world.[1]
The Gallup International Association (GIA) is an association of polling organizations registered in Zurich, Switzerland. The Gallup International Association was founded in May 1947. Dr. George H. Gallup served as its first President, until his death in 1984.[1][2]
Gallup, Inc. and the Gallup International Association (GIA) are involved in a legal dispute over the use of the Gallup name.[3]
both are by the same guy, and both have very solid credentials, its a hugly respectable polling group, so put away your tin foil hat... its a perfectly respectable source,
I think it reached the point where I think few care about the threat to world peace the USA can pose.
Think of the entertainment value they provide instead.
Every action and inaction are always viewed as wrong by the world public.
They cannot win and statistically it is not possible for them to be as wrong as they are said to be in the world theatre.
Peace: a state in which there is no war or fighting
To be completely serious, really, do certain places deserve their version of "peace" usually at a hefty cost to human rights?
I know what the acronym stands for. I work in that industry, and personally know people who work for both WIN/GIA and Gallup Inc.; as well as people that work for members of WIN/GIA.
gallup international is all over that site, i welcome you to contact the person at the above link and argue with them that they, as gallup international, are not a respectable poller, and their name doesnt have "gallup" in it...
The point is that when you say "Gallup" most people in North America will think of Gallup Inc., which is not affiliated with WIN/GIA. And no, WIN/GIA is not as well respected as Gallup Inc. because it is not itself a polling organization, but an association of many polling organizations of varying quality.
Regarding this survey in particular: the methodology was not consistent from country to country, nor were exhaustive methodology sections provided for the polls conducted by individual WIN/GIA members. As such reaching a definitive conclusion on the basis of the presented information is wrong.
