opinion polls among Europeans

takeo · 02-01-2003, 06:43 AM

it seems like most Europeans are "old europeans" while the few "new European" governments do not even represent their own population.

Most Europeans oppose war: poll

30jan03
FOUR out of five Europeans are opposed to participation in a US-led war on Iraq without explicit United Nations backing, according to a poll.

According to the survey by pollsters EOS Gallup Europe, 82 per cent of European citizens would not support their countries' participating in a military intervention without UN support.

This figure is 75 per cent in the 13 countries waiting to join the EU - Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Cyprus, Malta, Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey.

A total of 15,080 people took part in the survey, conducted from January 21-27 by pan-European pollsters who often carry out similar studies for the European Commission.

It also reveals that 72 per cent of Europeans believe that Iraq's oil resources are the main reason behind Washington's desire to intervene militarily.

Just 41 per cent characterised US foreign policy as "positive," while 54 per cent thought it was "negative", the poll shows.

In the 15 EU states, about 55 per cent of citizens felt there was a real threat of terrorist attack in their countries, including 83 per cent in Britain, 70 per cent in Spain, 59 per cent in both France and Italy.

The figure dropped to 27 per cent in the 13 candidate countries.

Across the European continent, 70 per cent of people were "rather or very pessimistic" about the world's situation, the survey shows.

Four in five Europeans against joining Washington-led strike
January 31 2003

Brussels: Four out of five Europeans are opposed to participation in a United States-led war on Iraq without explicit United Nations backing, a new poll says.

The survey by EOS Gallup Europe found that 82per cent of European citizens would not support their countries participating in a military intervention without UN support.

This figure is 75per cent in the 13 countries waiting to join the European Union - Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Cyprus, Malta, Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey.

A total of 15,080 people took part in the pan-Europe survey, conducted from January21 to 27.

On Wednesday dozens of members of the European Parliament stood up during a debate on Iraq to demand that Washington back off from its threats of military action, waving English-language cards reading "No war for oil" and "Old Europe, yes".

advertisement

advertisement

The message was a pointed criticism of the US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, who last week dismissed France and Germany as "old Europe" for their opposition to America's determination to launch a war against Iraq.

The impromptu demonstration in the 626-seat chamber, which was three-quarters full, came as the EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, briefed the MPs on the Iraq crisis.

"I was looking at some of these cards being held up so clearly by the members of the parliament," he said in an aside.

"Both fortunately and unfortunately, I'm talking to you as an 'old boy', because of everything that Europe is, was and will be," Mr Solana said to applause.

The EU's external relations commissioner, Chris Patten, an Englishman, recalled that his country had once "had a spot of trouble with one of our colonies on the other side of the Atlantic". "Speaking as a proud citizen of old Europe ... I've occasionally reflected that if King George [III] hadn't made such a mess of things, instead of fetching up as the last governor of Hong Kong I might have finished up as the governor of Arkansas or Texas," he said.

"But speaking as a citizen of old Europe, I think it's often wiser to raise a quizzical eyebrow than to return an insult."

The poll also revealed that 72per cent of Europeans believe that Iraq's oil resources are the main reason behind Washington's push for war.

kauffner · 02-01-2003, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by takeo
FOUR out of five Europeans are opposed to participation in a US-led war on Iraq without explicit United Nations backing, according to a poll.

This shows only that if you ask a question in a biased way, you get the answer you are looking for. In my opinion, there is UN backing for liberating Iraq. But quite apart from that, if you put the arguments against liberating Iraq in the question, of course respondents will give a negative answer. "US-led" and "war on Iraq" both strike me as phrases intended to trigger a particular emotional reaction.

takeo · 02-02-2003, 02:12 AM

the poll was conducted by an American polling institute.
And no, there is no un-consensus over "liberating iraq". Most nations ne the world are AGAINST a military solution concerning Iraq, and the majority of the members of the security council as well.

the US is not going to liberate Iraq, but destroy it and occupy it against the wishes of the iraqi people and use their oil to pay for the destruction of their own country.

Alfred · 02-02-2003, 03:55 PM

Heck Takeo.

I bet 4 out of 5 Europeans would vote NO to the question of: "should the Americans and British have liberated France.?"

The Europeans gave up their opinion years ago when they voted to give up their soverignty to the EU.

Or Takeo, were they allowed to vote on the subject?

I recall the Irish were foolishly allowed to vote and voted no.

Oh well....Cheers.

takeo · 02-03-2003, 06:08 AM

Actually, i'm not a great supporter of the EU in its current form either, but for entirely different reasons than yours, because it's not social enough (you're just afraid it might be competition for the US)
Yes there were referendums in most European countries, in france as well, in the 90's, a small majority voted "yes". what about a referendum in kouweit if it should or should not allow american troops to use its territory for an aggression against iraq, that would be interesting... What about a referendum among Americans if the us should attack iraq even without a new mandate of the un...

of course the majority of Europeans would have voted "yes" to a Brittish-American participation in the war against the nazi's. this was a necessary war gainst a great evil, Iraq isn't a danger and this war isn't necessary at all, even Hans Blix confirmed it.

**Mediocrates** · 02-03-2003, 06:44 AM

The real question is, does ignoring the political polarization in the world in fact lead to more polarization?

We hear as if it is common wisdom that 'they'll hate us and that will lead to more terrorism'.

Compared to what?

Whether or not it makes sense to either disarm Iraq by any means necessary and/or simply make an example of Iraq on general purposes, the rationale that to do nothing at all will engender progress and well wishing is frankly, fairydust nonsense.

The only rationale that countries like France and Germany can defend is that they want no war AND a lifting of sanctions for the obvious economic self interest. This is the only credible response to the "It's about the OIL" argument. The fact is that NO ONE, not the US not Europe not Russia (and the rest of the former-istans) not the KSA not Kuwait not Iran not Israel. No Body, with the possible of exception of Syria and Arafat want or desire or are hopeful for the continued existence of Iraq as a recognizable political entity. Either it will be bombed, bulldozed, raped, plundered, economically disassembled or paved over.

Take you pick. One or more of these options will occur. Iraq is simply living in that limbo state between the trapdoor's opening and the noose's jerk.

Am Yisrael · 02-03-2003, 07:38 AM

I think the view of Europeans will change once they experience a terrorist attack. Im sure if you asked Americans before September 11th if Iraq should be attacked, the polls would probably have similar results as this European poll. Who blames Europeans? Europeans dont want a war unless they are directly involved and until that happens my freind the majority will still vote against a war. Even if everyone in Europe sees what Saddam has done with his evil regime, the majority will still be against war.

Saddam has murdered and tortured innocent people for so F ing long now and the whole world has on a whole ignored his actions. Any military exercise against Saddam will probably benifit Iraq. Takeo are you against military exercise from the US on Iraq? Im not against it! My father is a Jew from Iraq. My uncle was totured by Saddam and was nearly hanged. In Baghdad alone a population of 130,000 jews now there are less than 50. These remaining jews are unable to flee Iraq, and they are constantly hit by anti-semitism and anti-zionism. Imagine what it is like for Kurds or Christians in Iraq?

When I speak to my father, he always says that he feels sorry for Iraqi people and they just like many other Islamic countries are bred on propoganda and hate. When he tells me stories about when Saddam first came to power I firstly get shocked and then I am sad that the whole world ignores Saddams actions until they themselves are directly involved. Hes been in power for over 30 years!!! I am afraid my freind that if Saddam got a chance to kill on a scale of Hitler he wouldnt think twice.

http://thesite2000.virtualave.net/iraqijews/index2.html

takeo · 02-03-2003, 03:13 PM

The real question is, does ignoring the political polarization in the world in fact lead to more polarization?

We hear as if it is common wisdom that 'they'll hate us and that will lead to more terrorism'.

yes it does If the us continues to push its own policy without considering the interests and views of other countries, allies and non-allies alike, it will sooner or later lead to confrontations. Even in the cold war the us tried to avoid polarisation, in order to avoid a nuclear war. (that's why, for example, they never again invaded cuba)

Whether or not it makes sense to either disarm Iraq by any means necessary and/or simply make an example of Iraq on general purposes, the rationale that to do nothing at all will engender progress and well wishing is frankly, fairydust nonsense.

Do nothing will stabilise Iraq and devellop new ties with its neighbours, as was happening before 11/9. Iraq will become a more or less normal Arab country, as for example Libia today, not at all a danger to the us, perhaps to israel.
invading Iraq can destabilise some regimes in the neighbourhood, regimes that have always been loyal to the states, and in can provoke the start of a long civil war in iraq, which will certainly destabilise the entire region. Of course not taking into consideration the moral point of view, whereas doing nothing will save perhaps 100's of 1000's of innocent victims who will die for... for what in fact?

The only rationale that countries like France and Germany can defend is that they want no war AND a lifting of sanctions for the obvious economic self interest. This is the only credible response to the "It's about the OIL" argument. The fact is that NO ONE, not the US not Europe not Russia (and the rest of the former-istans) not the KSA not Kuwait not Iran not Israel. No Body, with the possible of exception of Syria and Arafat want or desire or are hopeful for the continued existence of Iraq as a recognizable political entity. Either it will be bombed, bulldozed, raped, plundered, economically disassembled or paved over.

economic interest is one issue, as well as geo-political stabilisation of the middle East. we do not have a problem with iraq currently, and would prefere to see iraq as a political entity instead of different fundamentalist/nationalist regions fighting eachother. perhaps Iran would like such an outcome, as it wants to install a shiite-religious regime in bagdad. But really noone else, certainly not Turkey, Syria, SA, or Europe.

I think the view of Europeans will change once they experience a terrorist attack. Im sure if you asked Americans before September 11th if Iraq should be attacked, the polls would probably have similar results as this European poll. Who blames Europeans? Europeans dont want a war unless they are directly involved and until that happens my freind the majority will still vote against a war. Even if everyone in Europe sees what Saddam has done with his evil regime, the majority will still be against war.

we have experienced terrorism as well. the difference is that europeans are smarter. they want to fight real terrorists such as al-quaida, and did not see sufficient prooves linking Iraq to al-quaida, in fact they saw none, which could explain European refusal to go at war with iraq. they fail to see why iraq is so much more dangerous than, for example, North korea or pakistan.

Saddam has murdered and tortured innocent people for so F ing long now and the whole world has on a whole ignored his actions. Any military exercise against Saddam will probably benifit Iraq. Takeo are you against military exercise from the US on Iraq? Im not against it! My father is a Jew from Iraq. My uncle was totured by Saddam and was nearly hanged. In Baghdad alone a population of 130,000 jews now there are less than 50. These remaining jews are unable to flee Iraq, and they are constantly hit by anti-semitism and anti-zionism. Imagine what it is like for Kurds or Christians in Iraq?

not only Saddam murdered and tortured, all the dictators in the neighbourhood did so, often supported and encouraged by the us. i have met a lot of christians in Iraq, mostly armenians. they are nice people and not oppressed at all, in fact christians have mostly highlevel jobs in the administration. remember, tarek aziz is a Christian himself! The kurds and jews is a different case, i agree.
Fact is that Saddam isn't any worse a dictator than, let's say Assad or the ayatollahs, the sheiks or even Mubarrak. noone in iraq is asking to be bombed and destroyed, especially since noone knows who will succeed Saddam. The us handpicked succeeders do not have a very ensuring and democratic past either.
Iraq was a quite dangerous country in the past, not to the west but to its neighbours. currently that's the past, iraq has signed mutual non-aggression pacts with virtually all its neighbours and recognised the existence of kouweit for the first time in iraqi history. also Saddam has made clear that he wants to give autonomy to the Kurds in the north, much more than they have in NATO-ally Turkey, where torture and murder is still a daily business.
Containment during and after the gulf-war had its results, there is no need for any more actions that will cost many lives and can result in a civil or even regional war. and there are much more dangerous countries in the world.

**Mediocrates** · 02-03-2003, 03:33 PM

You're basically guessing. And you're banking on a loser. Which is fine but it's a blind guess all the same. You reinforce my point. You have your own interests, that's all they are. You can tart it up but that's all they are. It is in the interests of France/Germany to ignore politics altogether and merely trade with the Iraquis, who will subcontract the work back to French and German firms anyway so the nation of Iraq becomes a gigantic contract churning machine to help jumpstart the somewhat flat French and German economies.

I can't even imagine that the French have the remotest care for al Qaeda nor does the prosecution of terrorism, which according to you what we here in the US do, have any attraction for those countries. So your interests are likewise singular. It nothing at all to do with any higher purpose.

takeo · 02-03-2003, 04:29 PM

You're basically guessing. And you're banking on a loser. Which is fine but it's a blind guess all the same. You reinforce my point. You have your own interests, that's all they are. You can tart it up but that's all they are. It is in the interests of France/Germany to ignore politics altogether and merely trade with the Iraquis, who will subcontract the work back to French and German firms anyway so the nation of Iraq becomes a gigantic contract churning machine to help jumpstart the somewhat flat French and German economies.

I can't even imagine that the French have the remotest care for al Qaeda nor does the prosecution of terrorism, which according to you what we here in the US do, have any attraction for those countries. So your interests are likewise singular. It nothing at all to do with any higher purpose.

I'm not guessing any more than the Bush-administration or even the weapons inspectors are guessing. Politics is all about guessing. a loser, says who? The US turned saddam into one of the most popular Arabs ever. And by the way, Saddam is not my favorite, which doesn't mean however that we have to invade Iraq, as a lot of people are not my favorite!
Yes, european interests are part of our concerns, but some "higher purposes" as well. we do not want to endanger the lifes of many iraqi people without any clear and justified goal.
The US-policy on the contrary is entirely about own interests, no higher goals at all. Difference with Europe is that the us is persuing its own interests by unnecessary violence and brutality, as a real mob-gangster.

yes we care for the prosecution of terrorism and especially al-quaida. Did you remember that France has been targetted as well by al-quaida?

Am Yisrael · 02-04-2003, 03:33 AM

i have met a lot of christians in Iraq, mostly armenians. they are nice people and not oppressed at all, in fact christians have mostly highlevel jobs in the administration. remember, tarek aziz is a Christian himself! The kurds and jews is a different case, i agree.

The government has brutally oppressed the Shi'ite population (the Sunni portion of the population is politically dominant) and the Kurds who live in the northern part of the country. The Assyrian Christians who also live in the North have suffered numerous injustices, including forced relocations and artillery bombardments. The Assyrians are often accused of aiding the Kurds, who are struggling to create their own state. Heres a recent example: August 15, 2002 - An Assyrian nun, Sister Cecilia Moshi Hanna, was brutally murdered inside of the Sacred Heart of Jesus Monastery in Baghdad. Three armed men stabbed Sister Cecilia with daggers and decapitated her. The body was found the next day by other nuns. Sister Cecilia was alone at the time of the murder. This is probably the work of Saddams "men". Local church leaders estimate that a third of the nation's Christians have left the country since the Gulf War, with somewhere between 350,000 and a half-million still remaining in Iraq.
I agree the christians in Iraq are having it slightly OK compared to the Kurds. Would you like some exapmles of how the regime treats the Kurds?
The main thing is that Saddam has done enough "damage" that calls for war action. I also think that as soon as Saddam is gone (and his family and so called "board of directors") from power, and the Iraqi people see what has been done and hidden from them, it will bring only good to the region. Maybe there will be a lot of innocent people killed, but in the long run it will benifit Iraq, the middle east, and the "west".

Fact is that Saddam isn't any worse a dictator than, let's say Assad or the ayatollahs, the sheiks or even Mubarrak. noone in iraq is asking to be bombed and destroyed, especially since noone knows who will succeed Saddam.

True in a small sense, but its more the case of propoganda of the Gulf War spewed out by the regime to the communities depicting that the US will attack civilians if there is a war. The iraqi communities only want what is best for them. If the US has a controlled attack, or even better to assasinate Saddam and his cabinet, then the Iraqi population will be more enthusiastic.

The us handpicked succeeders do not have a very ensuring and democratic past either.

What needs to be done by the international commity is to re-shape Iraqs regime into a democracy. From there, all will continue for the better.

christian · 02-05-2003, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by Am Yisrael

What needs to be done by the international commity is to re-shape Iraqs regime into a democracy. From there, all will continue for the better.

B.S. Democracy is a propangda rhoeric from the west. The truth is the western world have centuries of revolution before the government implements democracy. Any "sudden" democracy would result a temporary "show" democracy. The government will eventually back to dictationship. (French revolution)

**Mediocrates** · 02-05-2003, 06:56 AM

Even revolutions are democratic. I'm not sure there's a relevant comparison between the two. Why do you think there is?

You come from a highly managed benign tyranny of sorts so I can see where you would believe there is no upside to democratic politics. But if we made any large city into it's own country it would tend to look like Singapore. I know New York would. It's simply a matter of crowd control and managment. So again, I'd ask you how you connect or correlate the two. Are not revolutions universally true? Could we not say that opressive regimes like Mao's China and Chang Kai Chek's Taiwan both fall under the same exclusion?

takeo · 02-05-2003, 07:35 AM

The government has brutally oppressed the Shi'ite population (the Sunni portion of the population is politically dominant) and the Kurds who live in the northern part of the country. The Assyrian Christians who also live in the North have suffered numerous injustices, including forced relocations and artillery bombardments. The Assyrians are often accused of aiding the Kurds, who are struggling to create their own state. Heres a recent example: August 15, 2002 - An Assyrian nun, Sister Cecilia Moshi Hanna, was brutally murdered inside of the Sacred Heart of Jesus Monastery in Baghdad. Three armed men stabbed Sister Cecilia with daggers and decapitated her. The body was found the next day by other nuns. Sister Cecilia was alone at the time of the murder. This is probably the work of Saddams "men". Local church leaders estimate that a third of the nation's Christians have left the country since the Gulf War, with somewhere between 350,000 and a half-million still remaining in Iraq.
I agree the christians in Iraq are having it slightly OK compared to the Kurds. Would you like some exapmles of how the regime treats the Kurds?
The main thing is that Saddam has done enough "damage" that calls for war action. I also think that as soon as Saddam is gone (and his family and so called "board of directors") from power, and the Iraqi people see what has been done and hidden from them, it will bring only good to the region. Maybe there will be a lot of innocent people killed, but in the long run it will benifit Iraq, the middle east, and the "west".

Again, persecution of minorities is not the reason why the us is going at war with iraq. There is persecution in a lot of other neighbouring countries as well, for example in nATO-ally Turkey.
christian Iraqi's are not persecuted by the regime, churches are open and even receive subsidies from the government. it's more likely that the nun was murdered by the fundamentalist underground resistance that exists in iraq since a couple of years (and presumably have relations with al-quaida, those would be the real winners of nay us-war against iraq, get lots of new sympathy because of increased anti-american feelings AND at the same time an old ennemy destroyed)
Yes, Christians emigrate from iraq since the Gulf-war, as other iraqi's as well, since the economy has suffered harshly since that time.
Iraqi people aren't stupid nor brainwashing, they hear daily anti-Saddam radio-stations operating from neighbouring countries and have heard both sides. Most do not really like Saddam either, but they truly and passionately hate Americans, who have caused a lot of trouble and death in the country.
once saddam has gone, the struggle for power will start, Americans will impose their own military administration, which of course is pure colonialism and will lead to heavy resistance among the population, the surviving elements of the former regime AND opposition who will feel betrayed (especially the pro-iranian opposition, the strongest in the shiite parts of iraq)
You can't build a democracy by imposing a military occupation, it doesn't work like that, democracy has to come from inside the iraqi people, not outside powers.

True in a small sense, but its more the case of propoganda of the Gulf War spewed out by the regime to the communities depicting that the US will attack civilians if there is a war. The iraqi communities only want what is best for them. If the US has a controlled attack, or even better to assasinate Saddam and his cabinet, then the Iraqi population will be more enthusiastic.

according to all estimations more than 100000 iraqi will die.

What needs to be done by the international commity is to re-shape Iraqs regime into a democracy. From there, all will continue for the better.

the international community will not help the us if it decides to go to war unilaterally.

Even revolutions are democratic. I'm not sure there's a relevant comparison between the two. Why do you think there is?

You come from a highly managed benign tyranny of sorts so I can see where you would believe there is no upside to democratic politics. But if we made any large city into it's own country it would tend to look like Singapore. I know New York would. It's simply a matter of crowd control and managment. So again, I'd ask you how you connect or correlate the two. Are not revolutions universally true? Could we not say that opressive regimes like Mao's China and Chang Kai Chek's Taiwan both fall under the same exclusion?

the question is, isn't the us as well a highly managed benign tyranny? (one with two faces, as the head of the Byzantine eagle...)

**Mediocrates** · 02-05-2003, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by takeo
the question is, isn't the us as well a highly managed benign tyranny? (one with two faces, as the head of the Byzantine eagle...)

No of course not. That's just bloody shirt waving people mouth to get credit in college. Or to get laid. Only fat lazy bourgeois upper middle class zipheads who've never gone more than 6 without a snack or a videogame think that. WhereTF do you think John Walker Lindh comes from?