H
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/4d0ad7dc-feeb-11da-84f3-0000779e2340.htmlEuropeans 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.
hipsterdufus said:200+ years of relationship building shot to hell.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/4d0ad7dc-feeb-11da-84f3-0000779e2340.html
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.
Kandahar said:And if Europe is attacked by terrorists or a nation, they'll expect the United States to help them out. .
Pew numbers dropped significantly in Germany.PeteEU said: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.
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 If so your supporting evidence is well out of date, if attacked by a nation state Europe would be perfectly able to defend itself thanks to the mutual defence clauses enschrined in the makeup of the EU, all 25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.Kandahar said:And if Europe is attacked by terrorists or a nation, they'll expect the United States to help them out.
Libertine said:The very last thing we want from you is the kind of 'help' you have provided us with so far.
JamesRichards said: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.
Paul said: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 said:Defend a small nation? Which?
PeteEU said:Prevent genocide? Where?
PeteEU said: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.
PeteEU said: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?
PeteEU said: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.
Kuwait, Moghadeshiu(sp?), Somalia, Haiti, Grenada, Panama..........PeteEU said:Defend a small nation? Which?
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?Prevent genocide? Where?
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.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.
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?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?
Libertine said: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.
Libertine said: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.
Libertine said: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
LaMidRighter said: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.
G-Man said: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.
GySgt said:Castro declared war on the U.S. a couple times. Where was that war?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?