Europe still sees US as greatest threat to stability (1 Viewer)

[hipsterdufus]

200+ years of relationship building shot to hell.

Europeans remain deeply suspicious of US foreign policy in spite of President George W. Bush’s concerted attempts since the start of his second term to improve transatlantic relations.

In a Harris opinion poll, published on the eve of Mr Bush’s latest visit to Europe this week, 36 per cent of respondents identify the US as the greatest threat to global stability.

The poll, conducted in association with the FT, questioned a representative sample of 5,000 people in the UK, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain on a range of issues. Thirty per cent of respondents named Iran as the greatest threat to global stability, with 18 per cent selecting China.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/4d0ad7dc-feeb-11da-84f3-0000779e2340.html

 

[Kandahar]

200+ years of relationship building shot to hell.


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/4d0ad7dc-feeb-11da-84f3-0000779e2340.html

And if Europe is attacked by terrorists or a nation, they'll expect the United States to help them out. Let them wag their fingers, they know that their REAL interests lie with the United States.

 

[jfuh]

Let them scream.

 

[Navy Pride]

Who cares what Europe thinks.When they need us to bail them out again they will come running.........

 

[LaMidRighter]

I personally don't care what Europe, the U.N., or any other region/nation thinks about how we handle our business and foreign affairs, they do have common interests with us I will concede, however direct control of four policy from a foreign source is concerned ended over 200 years ago.

 

[Joby]

And those billions we gave them after their little tussle did what to stabalize them?

Can somebody please remind me why our cold-war strategy wasn't let Continental Europe and the USSR slug it out, bankrupting each other while we kept them in conventional lines with our nukes?

 

[Volker]

Yes, I'm somehow surprised, there are only 36 %. Yesterday I saw a poll from Austria and I think it was like 49 %. There was no surprise to me. Maybe this 36 % is because of the Britons, maybe they have more problems to see things clear because of their historical ties to America and the guilt of their own government and troops in actual developments. But this is just a speculation.

 

[Volker]

Oh, I checked it back, the poll question was different. It was not about who is the greatest threat, so it can not be compared.

The poll showed 62 per cent thought the US played a negative role for world peace, up from 56 per cent in the same poll in 2003, Die Presse said, and 49 per cent found the US role in fighting terrorism negative.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Bu...Austrias-Haider/2006/06/18/1150569194516.html

 

[Libertine]

And if Europe is attacked by terrorists or a nation, they'll expect the United States to help them out. .

Believe me... and I say this as a Londoner caught up in the July 7th terrorist attacks on the London underground. The very last thing we want from you is the kind of 'help' you have provided us with so far. I am quite stunned that you would find it surprising that the rest of the world (not just Europe) views the US as the biggest threat to our stability.

thanx all the same, Libertine

 

[PeteEU]

Pew research group did a similar study (one they do every year) and found a negative trend among the countries polled compared to last year.

 

[Volker]

Pew research group did a similar study (one they do every year) and found a negative trend among the countries polled compared to last year.

Pew numbers dropped significantly in Germany.

These are the numbers for German people having a positive opinion about America.

2001 - 78 %
2002 - 61 %
2003 - 45 %
2004 - 38 %
2005 - 41 %
2006 - 37 %

In Russia it is 43 %, in France 39 % for 2006.

In Spain American reputation dropped from 41 % to 23 % between 2005 and 2006.

There are accompanying assays who show it's not about the people but about politics, especially the war in Iraq.

 

[Jay R]

Greatest threat to world stability? For what? Refusing to give Iran carte blanche to do as it wishes? For refusing to withdraw support for Israel, a small nation surrounded by aggressors? For feeling threatened by a nutcase developing the capability to nuke their western seaboard, along with allies Japan and South Korea? For supporting a military regime that is the only thing keeping Pakistan from descending to the vicious Islamic theocracy that so mars much of the Middle East?

The US has the right attitude there boyos, I think this poll and others like it are bound to be marred by the whining of the anti-war brigade. When asked 'who's the greatest threat to global stability?' these people will of course respond with 'America' as they feel sore that in Britains case, Blair ignored a huge number of people to join the coalition in Iraq, and in the rest of the EU, notably France and Germany, they feel ignored by the US and UK, when they assumed that they were big enough players to be able to influence the decision. Thus I would say that these people don't vote on the basis of the actual geopolitical landscape but rather with the Green Day politics of Mtv. Iraq and the controversy over the invasion colours the opininons of many, as this poll demonstrates.

That said, the attitude of some American's here is suitably arrogant as to support the very kind of anti-US feeling that so annoys them. Navy Pride, jfuh, and Joby have been particularly unconstructive here, fortunately I'm intelligent enough to know that such opinions do not represent US policy towards Europe, I can't speak for my fellow Europeans, but I would hope they too can see beyond the opinions of individuals and the shadow of Iraq.

And if Europe is attacked by terrorists or a nation, they'll expect the United States to help them out.

I can't think what help this refers to, Britain and Spain handled the attacks on their citizens themselves to the best of my knowledge, or are you just raising WW2 as evidence of a European dependancy on the US? If so your supporting evidence is well out of date, if attacked by a nation state Europe would be perfectly able to defend itself thanks to the mutual defence clauses enschrined in the makeup of the EU, all 25 members are committed to supporting one another in the event of attack by non-member states. Besides the fact that no nation is presently looking hostile towards Europe we would be perfectly capable of defending ourselves and our neighbours. While I would not particularly wish to be deployed to Iraq, I could quite concievably volunteer for duty in defence of the EU if a major conflict broke out with a non-member.

The very last thing we want from you is the kind of 'help' you have provided us with so far.

What help did we get post-July 7th? Messages of support not-withstanding.

 

[Volker]

We would call Frenchies to help and the Russian people :smile:

 

[Paul]

Greatest threat to world stability? For what? Refusing to give Iran carte blanche to do as it wishes? For refusing to withdraw support for Israel, a small nation surrounded by aggressors? For feeling threatened by a nutcase developing the capability to nuke their western seaboard, along with allies Japan and South Korea? For supporting a military regime that is the only thing keeping Pakistan from descending to the vicious Islamic theocracy that so mars much of the Middle East?

The US has the right attitude there boyos, I think this poll and others like it are bound to be marred by the whining of the anti-war brigade. When asked 'who's the greatest threat to global stability?' these people will of course respond with 'America' as they feel sore that in Britains case, Blair ignored a huge number of people to join the coalition in Iraq, and in the rest of the EU, notably France and Germany, they feel ignored by the US and UK, when they assumed that they were big enough players to be able to influence the decision. Thus I would say that these people don't vote on the basis of the actual geopolitical landscape but rather with the Green Day politics of Mtv. Iraq and the controversy over the invasion colours the opininons of many, as this poll demonstrates.

That said, the attitude of some American's here is suitably arrogant as to support the very kind of anti-US feeling that so annoys them. Navy Pride, jfuh, and Joby have been particularly unconstructive here, fortunately I'm intelligent enough to know that such opinions do not represent US policy towards Europe, I can't speak for my fellow Europeans, but I would hope they too can see beyond the opinions of individuals and the shadow of Iraq.

I can't think what help this refers to, Britain and Spain handled the attacks on their citizens themselves to the best of my knowledge, or are you just raising WW2 as evidence of a European dependancy on the US? If so your supporting evidence is well out of date, if attacked by a nation state Europe would be perfectly able to defend itself thanks to the mutual defence clauses enschrined in the makeup of the EU, all 25 members are committed to supporting one another in the event of attack by non-member states. Besides the fact that no nation is presently looking hostile towards Europe we would be perfectly capable of defending ourselves and our neighbours. While I would not particularly wish to be deployed to Iraq, I could quite concievably volunteer for duty in defence of the EU if a major conflict broke out with a non-member.

What help did we get post-July 7th? Messages of support not-withstanding.

We here in the US are very thankful for the UK's constant support. Blair has faced a lot of criticism, but has stood firm, and for that, we are thankful.

Americans find it frustrating because we will put our soldiers in the way to defend a small nation, prevent a genocide, and spend billions of dollars in humanitarian aid, and we are looked at as big war-mongers. Hated by most of the world, for what?

 

[PeteEU]

We here in the US are very thankful for the UK's constant support. Blair has faced a lot of criticism, but has stood firm, and for that, we are thankful.

Americans find it frustrating because we will put our soldiers in the way to defend a small nation, prevent a genocide, and spend billions of dollars in humanitarian aid, and we are looked at as big war-mongers. Hated by most of the world, for what?

Defend a small nation? Which?

Prevent genocide? Where?

Spend billions of dollars in humanitarian aid.. yes very good...not like other countries spend billions in humanitarian aid... or that the US spends pittyfully little compared to most western nations per capita on aid... but hey dont let numbers ruin the illusion.

The reason you look like big war mongers is because you act like big war-mongers. You did start the Iraq war .... and dont forget Afganistan (even though the world agreed on that one)... not exactly peaceful diplomacy is it?

Another thing that I think is rarely talked about.. double standards. Trying to promote democracy world wide, while supporting dictators and trying to promote coups against democraticly elected goverments or even worse, influence elections in other countries... just does not look good.

 

[Gardener]

People display quite a consistant pattern when it comes to risk analysis (or should I say lack thereof) in that the sudden and cataclysmic is given precedence overthe slow and incremental. People fear the big bang while discounting the multitude of little bangs, and just as the case in boiling lobsters, most people fail to notice major upheavels as long as these uphevals are gradual.

In the case of Europeans, I would ask them to define the word "stability", for in a time when their national identities are eroding and their traditional liberal values are undermined by an unwillingness to confront the sector of their own populations hell bent on destroying such liberal values, I would question whether most Europeans are looking in the proper place. It is certainly always easier to look from without rather than from within, but in a time when the population of those within Europe who refuse to accept European liberal values is exploding exponentially, and the traditional, more liberal populations are declining, I would say that the risk to European stability is much greater from the rot arising from within rather than from anything external.

Is it just cultural self-loathing? Has the constant barrage of propaganda aimed at demonizing everything associated with the west (the hackneyed, old colonianism rant) brought Europe to the point where it it is intent upon cultural self-destruction, especially in regards to the destruction of the liberal societies thus built? What is wrong with British being proud of being British, Italians Italians and French French, and why don't Europeans recognize the threat to them arising from within?

As the human tide rises within their midsts that refuses to assimilate and who places loyalty to a totalitarian mindset above loyalty to country, I would say that the United States should be the least of their worries.

 

[Paul]

Defend a small nation? Which?

We defend Israel, and help many small nations prosper, as I will go into more detail below.

Prevent genocide? Where?

Iraq- read the link

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/legacyofterror.html

400,000 dead bodies. Killed for no reason.

http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemiraqgas2.html


5,000 people persecuted for their religion. He SLAUGHTERED his own people!! What kind as peaceful ruler do you take him for!!! You want to just sit around and wait and ignore the bodies piling up!? Let us wait until he has nuclear capabilities, because that would be the peaceful solution. If he used chemical weapons against his own people, why wouldn't he use nuclear weapons against the rest of the civilized world!?

Spend billions of dollars in humanitarian aid.. yes very good...not like other countries spend billions in humanitarian aid... or that the US spends pittyfully little compared to most western nations per capita on aid... but hey dont let numbers ruin the illusion.

-The U.S is the top importer of of goods from developing countries in 2004 with $661 billion

-World's largest single country donor of foreign aid. According to preliminary figures, annual official development assistance nearly tripled from $10 billion in 2000 to $27.5 billion in 2005

-$2.7 billion in HIV/AIDS funding through the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief in 2005

-$7.8 billion in bilateral humanitarian relief and reconstruction assistance in 2005. This expenditure consisted of $3.6 billion for humanitarian relief and $4.2 billion for reconstruction

-$6.8 billion in private charitable contributions to developing countries

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2006/66060.htm

Hudson study shows American generosity to poor nations over 3 1/2 times U.S. Government aid- Americans as a people care about the world as well, because the American people as a whole are very caring.

"Hudson Institute released new private international giving numbers today in a white paper, "America's Total Economic Engagement with the Developing World," by Dr. Carol Adelman, Mr. Jeremiah Norris and Ms. Jeanne Weicher. Updating their research on American generosity, the authors found at least $62.1 billion in U.S. private donations to developing countries in 2003"

http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=3712

The reason you look like big war mongers is because you act like big war-mongers. You did start the Iraq war .... and dont forget Afganistan (even though the world agreed on that one)... not exactly peaceful diplomacy is it?

Would you consider this word peaceful diplomacy... Appeasement? We tried using peaceful diplomacy once, and it resulted in World War II.

We started the Iraq war? Well I would say 9/11 started the Iraq war. Saddam Hussein sponsored terrorists.

"Let’s start with money. At a minimum, we know that Saddam Hussein’s government supported terrorism by paying "bonuses" of up to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. How do we know this? Tariq Aziz, Hussein's own deputy prime minister, was stunningly candid about the Baathist government’s underwriting of terrorist killings in Israel.


“President Saddam Hussein has recently told the head of the Palestinian political office, Faroq al-Kaddoumi, his decision to raise the sum granted to each family of the martyrs of the Palestinian uprising to $25,000 instead of $10,000,” Aziz, announced at a Baghdad meeting of Arab politicians and businessmen on March 11, 2002, Reuters reported the next day.""

-Ousted Iraqi deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

Saddam also harbored terrorist training camps as this article points out.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp

Another thing that I think is rarely talked about.. double standards. Trying to promote democracy world wide, while supporting dictators and trying to promote coups against democraticly elected goverments or even worse, influence elections in other countries... just does not look good.

Yes double standards, doing the best we can to protect western civilization, and getting treated like crap. Everyone is quick to jump on the U.S if something goes wrong, or we make a mistake, but it is ok for the rest of the world. Thats the only double standard I can think of.

Supporting dictators? Could you please give me an example? If you want me to believe something you say I would like you to back it up.

Influence Elections in other countries? Like in 2004 when Al-Qaeda sponsored John Kerry, and said that the Americans shouldn't vote for Bush. Why? Because they know Bush is going to crack down on their illegal operations.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Defend a small nation? Which?

Kuwait, Moghadeshiu(sp?), Somalia, Haiti, Grenada, Panama..........

Prevent genocide? Where?

see above, first three countries, BTW, where was the U.N. in all of that? Yes, I know it was in the African countries, but what did it do?

Spend billions of dollars in humanitarian aid.. yes very good...not like other countries spend billions in humanitarian aid... or that the US spends pittyfully little compared to most western nations per capita on aid... but hey dont let numbers ruin the illusion.

So, the fact that we spend more money than anyone else doesn't matter right? We're not giving enough of a percentage right? Sheesh, we have our own things to pay for here.

The reason you look like big war mongers is because you act like big war-mongers. You did start the Iraq war .... and dont forget Afganistan (even though the world agreed on that one)... not exactly peaceful diplomacy is it?

To adress these points in logical order, in WWII we went to war with Germany, who never attacked us, we have fought other two front wars started by single agressors before because of logical or strategic reasons, we know that Saddam was funding terrorism and that he had weapons, we don't know for sure that he didn't when we went in because we gave him a window of opportunity to move them(the current theory is that they are in Syria, and one of his former generals says this is the case). Point two, Afghanistan, the Taliban was housing the Al-Quaida network, there is no debate, and if the world didn't agree with our action it would not have mattered as Iraq war opinions don't. As far as peaceful diplomacy goes, Saddam thumbed his nose at every diplomatic solution, the sanctions did not work, he used corrupt U.N. affiliates to move around them, and diplomacy starved his own people. What would you do at this point?

 

[Kandahar]

Believe me... and I say this as a Londoner caught up in the July 7th terrorist attacks on the London underground. The very last thing we want from you is the kind of 'help' you have provided us with so far.

You're right, American influence on Europe during WWII and the Cold War was a horrible thing that has made the world a terrible place. Heil Hitler.

I am quite stunned that you would find it surprising that the rest of the world (not just Europe) views the US as the biggest threat to our stability.

And if your governments suddenly became unstable for whatever reason (say, Muslims gain a majority and vote to impose sharia), are you telling me that you wouldn't expect America to do anything about it? Bullshit.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Believe me... and I say this as a Londoner caught up in the July 7th terrorist attacks on the London underground. The very last thing we want from you is the kind of 'help' you have provided us with so far. I am quite stunned that you would find it surprising that the rest of the world (not just Europe) views the US as the biggest threat to our stability.

thanx all the same, Libertine

Then I suggest you actually handle problems on your own.

I don't think anyones really surprised. I just think nobody really cares.

 

[Deegan]

LOL, don't fall for this crap, this is a few radicals that act as if they speak for the majority, they do not. America is still respected, just not loved at the moment, that actually rarely happens, as we are one of the few nations that actually stick our necks out, and do they heavy lifting that opens us up for criticism.

These polls are laughable at best, I wish we could get the wording of these "polls" you would probably then realize how these numbers were reached.:lol:

 

[MSgt]

......and? What Europe are we talking about?

The descendents of Mussolini and the faithful to Hitler that are still embittered that they were denied their hell on earth?

The great appeasers that cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as they negotiated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements?

The appeasers that crippled Europe as genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even though they had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, they debated and debated, and were still debating when American soldiers and Marines went halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do their work for them?

Those Europeans that are motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, who has the gall to issue bad grades to America, even after it was uncovered that the loudest critics of our action in Iraq made illicit tens of billions in the corrupt U.N. oil-for-food program?

Those core countries of Europe, France and Germany, who between them, have been responsible for every major European conflict since the Napoleonic era? Those Europeans who now accuse us of aggression who bear the weight of hundreds of millions of corpses?

Those self-proclamied voices of humanitarianism that saw a heat wave sweep Europe, killing more than 25,000 of the elderly and unprotected in 2004 (15,000 in glorious France alone)? Those hypocrits who like to remind us of the virtues of Euro-socialism that told their elderly that to avoid the heat in 2005, they should move to better climate?

That civilization of people who perfected genocide and ethnic cleansing that plays the moral superiority card while dismissing that no German soldier ever liberated anybody and the only claim to fame for the Frnch has been the killing of unarmed blacks in their provinces in western Africa?

Those weak bystander critics that adhere to the notion that a dictator, no matter how cruel and illegitimate, is untouchable behind his "sovereign" borders?

Those Europeans that pioneered the methods which are imitated by individuals like Saddam?

Those Europeans of whose diplomacy has been, and remains, the preservation of the powerful, by the powerful, for the powerful? Those Europeans who raped locales for it's resources and vomited it's culture upon the "savages?" (India = British colonies...South Africa = British colonies...Somalia = French colonies...Vietnam = French presence...Sudan = British occupation…. Middle East = British and French occupations...etc.)



Are these the Europeans that see America as a great threat to global stability? Save your polls. Consider the voters.

 

[G-Man]

To adress these points in logical order, in WWII we went to war with Germany, who never attacked us, we have fought other two front wars started by single agressors before because of logical or strategic reasons, we know that Saddam was funding terrorism and that he had weapons, we don't know for sure that he didn't when we went in because we gave him a window of opportunity to move them(the current theory is that they are in Syria, and one of his former generals says this is the case). Point two, Afghanistan, the Taliban was housing the Al-Quaida network, there is no debate, and if the world didn't agree with our action it would not have mattered as Iraq war opinions don't. As far as peaceful diplomacy goes, Saddam thumbed his nose at every diplomatic solution, the sanctions did not work, he used corrupt U.N. affiliates to move around them, and diplomacy starved his own people. What would you do at this point?

In WWII we were forced to go into war against Germany because Hitler declared war on the US after the Pearl Harbor attacks. It is incorrect to suggest we went to war with Germany to 'save' the europeans, in truth this was a conflict neither Germany nor the US wanted but Japanese actions made it inevitable. Whether Germany had actually attacked us or not before we took action I don't now but I guess its irrelevant when they declare war against us.

If we don't want Saddam to have WMD then we really shouldn't have sent 'rummy' over there to sell him the stuff. It seems stupid to sell him the stuff then attack him because he possesses it. I guess its ok for Saddam to have WMD when he's our pal but not when he's out of favour.

As for Saddam funding terrorism I'm not convinced. I've heard he gave payments to the relatives of suicide bombers but I believe this was to compensate them when the Israelis came and bulldozed all the relatives homes. Surely if he wanted to fund terrorism against the Israelis he could do better than give $25k to the families of suicide bombers..equipment and training would be an easy option for him to give.

"we don't know for sure that he didn't when we went in" - I thought we knew for sure he DID have them and we knew exactly where they were?

Afghanistan - you are dead right. The taliban supported Al-Q, provided them a safehaven and refused to hand them over. Action was definately needed and I don't see how anyone can argue otherwise.

As for peaceful diplomacy - why does the worlds only superpower need it? There is no diplomatic solution..its either our way or you are a terrorist sponsor and under threat of military action..of course other nations are worried and view the US as a threat.

 

[MSgt]

In WWII we were forced to go into war against Germany because Hitler declared war on the US after the Pearl Harbor attacks. It is incorrect to suggest we went to war with Germany to 'save' the europeans, in truth this was a conflict neither Germany nor the US wanted but Japanese actions made it inevitable. Whether Germany had actually attacked us or not before we took action I don't now but I guess its irrelevant when they declare war against us.

The Fact remains.....Germany never attacked us. Merely declaring to be at war with us doesn't mean that is has to invoke a military response. Yet, we went anyway while fighting an empire that did attack us in the Pacific. Castro declared war on the U.S. a couple times. Where was that war?

We did, indeed, go to war to save Europeans. We did, indeed, go to war to protect trades. We did, indeed, go to war to protect economies.

 

[Captain America]

Castro declared war on the U.S. a couple times. Where was that war?

I think his soldiers made it as far as Miami and then got sidetracked by Pina Colada's and bikini's. :rofl