Stands to reason, doesn't it. "THE NEW WORLD DISORDER EU poll: Israel 'biggest threat' to world peace U.S. beats out 'axis of evil' in causing global instability Over half of Europeans think Israel poses the "biggest threat to world peace," according to a controversial poll commissioned by the European Commission. The same survey has the United States beating out Iran, Iraq and North Korea â the trio dubbed the "axis of evil" by President George W. Bush â as well as Afghanistan in a ranking of what countries contribute most to world instability. EUobserver.com reports the survey, conducted between Oct. 8 and 16 by Taylor Nelson Sofres/EOS Gallup of Europe, consisted of 15 questions regarding "the reconstruction of Iraq, the conflict in the Middle East and World peace." ... http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35383
Time magazine's European edition asked its readers in an admittedly non-representative poll - unlike the representative EU poll above - what nation posed the greatest threat to world peace. Of the nearly 700, 000 respondents 6,7% replied North Korea, 6,3% named Iraq and a shocking 86.9% said the United States, thanks to our unprecedented and highly counter productive war of aggression against Iraq based on nothing but spin, lies and deceit, that has succeeded only in creating an entire new generation of terrorists. "The Biggest Threat To Peace Which country really poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2003? TIME asks for readers' views Earlier this year TIMEeurope.com asked you: "Who really poses the greatest danger to world peace? Iraq, North Korea or The United States." http://www.time.com/time/europe/gdml/peace2003.html
Diplomats attack Blair's Israel policy Matthew Tempest, political correspondent Monday April 26, 2004 Tony Blair's foreign policy was under scrutiny tonight after an unprecedented coalition of more than 50 former diplomats attacked his policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The virtually unprecedented letter criticises the prime minister for claiming influence over the US president, George Bush, and American policy, then backing the Israel policy when it was already "doomed to failure". The document's coordinator, Oliver Miles, a former ambassador to Greece, said they did not intend to damage Mr Blair politically but simply wanted to make their voice heard. They told Mr Blair they had "watched with deepening concern" as Britain followed the US lead in Iraq and Israel and called for a debate in parliament. The diplomats, who include former ambassadors to Baghdad and Tel Aviv, urge the prime minister to regain a say in US foreign policy over the Middle East as "a matter of the highest urgency". "We feel the time has come to make our anxieties public, in the hope that they will be addressed in parliament and will lead to a fundamental reassessment," the letter said. Mr Blair met Mr Bush in Washington for a brief summit earlier this month where he agreed with the president that Ariel Sharon's withdrawal from the Gaza strip - linked to fixity for several illegal settlements in the West Bank - was both an "opportunity" and did not detract from the US/UK backed "roadmap". Many commentators saw President Bush's declaration of support for the twin-state "roadmap" solution - for the first time publicly backing a Palestinian state - as a "reward" to Mr Blair's powers of persuasion following UK backing of the US position on the Iraq war. The 52 diplomats urged Mr Blair to use his alliance with Mr Bush to exert "real influence as a loyal ally ... If that is unacceptable or unwelcome, there is no case for supporting policies which are doomed to failure." The ambassadors also accuse the US-led coalition of having "no effective plan" for Iraq after the war and an apparent disregard for the lives of Iraqi civilians. They said Mr Blair had "merely waited" for the US to advance a "road map" for peace that had raised expectations of a lasting Israeli-Palestinian settlement. They condemned Mr Bush's decision to endorse an Israeli plan to retain some settlements in the West Bank as an illegal and one-sided step - and criticised Mr Blair's public support for the move. "Our dismay at this backward step is heightened by the fact that you yourself seem to have endorsed it, abandoning the principles which for nearly four decades have guided international efforts to restore peace in the Holy Land," the diplomats said. They urged Mr Blair to act urgently to challenge the UK's portrayal as a partner in US policies condemned by the Arab and Muslim world. News of the letter comes on the day that the Foreign Office announced its new ambassador to Iraq and plans for a large new embassy in Baghdad when the Coalition Provisional Authority hands over to the US-appointed Iraqi Interim Government on July 1. http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,1203898,00.html
That Western Europeans are clueless, hypocritical, ungrateful and irrelevant? Yes, I agree wholeheartedly.
No, I'd say they are just not as uninformed and gullible like Americans who believed all the lies and deceit Bush dished up about this war, and, unlike Bush they actually have an interest in combatting terror, not promoting it like Bush.
Hey, I have an idea. For simplification purposes and to save time by having fewer letters to type, what's say we all agree from now on to refer to Europeans of any stripe as "Germans" since that's what they'd be were it not for us "uninformed", "gullible" and "deceitful" Americans? Sound like a plan? P.S. If you'd prefer "Russians", that's fine with me as well.
Me too. Sorry, I should have qualified the statement to clarify that it applies to "continental" Western Europeans. By the way, I realize I neglected to add "cowardly" to the description. Mea culpa.
Scandinavians are no saints either... when I traveled scandinavia I met great people, but their political opinions, well that's a different story...