Half of the Europeans think that USA is dangerous for the world peace

[zamboe]

I didn't know until today that that the oposition against US foreing policy were so big in Europe, I knew it existed, but I didn't expect it to be so conclussive. I'll just drop some numbers, that were included in the last Eurobarometer prepared by the Executive Commission of the EU .

1. 46% of Europeans think that the USA is dangerous for the world peace.

2. 32% think that US is good for the world peace.

3. The extreme numbers are in : Greece where 76% think that US is dangerous for world peace, not even in Great Britain (the less worst case) the numbers are good, since 47% of UK citizens think that US is dangerous for world peace.

Please consider that the word used is "dangerous", not other soft word.

Now, this is real data, since it was made by the European Union itself.

It just looks that in those countries with unrestricted support to US foreing policy, local parties that are currently in the administration will have some serious issues in the upcoming elections on their respective countries, perhaps then and only then they will realize what their local population is asking.

I didn't want to put this in the some Iraq thread, since it's not Iraq related, it's about the whole US foreing policy towards world peace/war.

Anyway, check the link for further details. (pdf file)

[GhostHunter]

America has become the worlds uncontested super power, and thus has to remind others of that by attacking and riding the world of evil type forces. Once you start acting as the whole damn worlds peace keeper people start wacthing EVERY move you make and well America has made a lot.....

And besides, peace can NOT be achieved, impossible without question during this stage of evolution in humanity.

[SurlyPIG]

Since when was there world peace? There has never been world peace.

There has, however, always been people sitting around in circles doing Yoga singing "Imagine" that would sooner ignore the African tribal violence, Middle-Eastern religious wars and human rights violations, and supressive dictators rather than take some initiative and fix the problem.

When asked, "Is the US a threat to world peace?" the correct response is, "What world peace?"

[zamboe]

To the question :

Is the US a threat to the current level of world peace ?. Majority of Europeans think so.

Will the US foreing policy reduce the current level of world peace and therefore increase the danger in the world in the long run ?. Majority of Europeans think so.

Eurobarometer prepared by the Executive Commission of the EU .

[Miles]

To the question :

Is the US a threat to the current level of world peace ?. Majority of Europeans think so.

Will the US foreing policy reduce the current level of world peace and therefore increase the danger in the world in the long run ?. Majority of Europeans think so.

Eurobarometer prepared by the Executive Commission of the EU .

It's too bad that most Europeans are satisfied with the current level of world peace. They would rather sit on their butts and dabate helping others in need because they neither have the courage, nor the power to do anything about it.

The world is in chaos at the moment with dictators mass murdering, starving and oppressing their own citizens. Others battling over lands no bigger than Rhode Island, with the threat of nuclear attack. Aids and other diseases running rampant through third world countries. Terrorism taking a choke hold on the world paralizing them in fear and destroying their will to confront those who would harbor and fund them.

Europeans hate us because we take our moral obligation to attempt to fix these problems. They would have us stand by and watch billions suffer and die as many of them do. Because we take such an active role as the world's only superpower, therefore the only country that can have significant impact, we are put under the microscope and demonized for our mistakes. Yes, sometimes we lose our way, and sometimes people suffer for it, but those are the risks of trying to take real action to better the world.

It's funny to me that people like Edric, a communist, would not understand the morality in helping those in need, those that cannot help themselves. He says "let the countries decide for themselves" but fails to see that under ruthless oppression, the people are powerless to make their wishes known.

Our motivations, admitedly are not only for others, as I know this will be the response from others on this board. We act sometimes to stabilize our interests and protect our own safety. In some cases other countries are wronged, but it is unavoidable in our efforts and impossible to make everyone happy, especially when doing the right thing might not be the most popular stance.

[emprworm]

To the question :

Is the US a threat to the current level of world peace ?. Majority of Europeans think so.

Will the US foreing policy reduce the current level of world peace and therefore increase the danger in the world in the long run ?. Majority of Europeans think so.

Eurobarometer prepared by the Executive Commission of the EU .

and? Majority Europeans also protested Ronald Reagan who did more for Europe then any foreign person in the world since WWII. They protested him also. Thankfully he ignored it.

Those same types of people protested during WWII as well and wanted Neville Chamberlains appeasement policies.

most of you are too young to know anything about Reagan so don't even bother responding until you read this article:

http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2002/06/09/09myview.htm

Reagans most famous speech...perhaps the most famous speech ever given since WWII. Where he was labeled an extremist, and a cowboy. Protested and hated. Yet now the world sees how utterly brave and courageous it was.

the actual speech: http://www.reaganfoundation.org/reagan/speeches/wall.asp

[Gobalopper]

I would like to see polls where they test to find people's knowledge of these topics. It's one thing to say you think the US is bad for peace and another if you actually know what you are talking about.

[SurlyPIG]

I agree Gob. (BTW, nice sig and funny title...but won't that scare people away? :O)

The maker of this topic doesn't even know what he's talking about. Zamboe has used words like "dangerous to world peace" and when corrected said that the poll asked about the "current level" of world peace. I suspect he didn't think anyone would use the find function in that huge report to discover he was wrong (or lying) in both areas:

"On the question of world peace virtually one in two (46%) Europeans held a negative view of the

US’s role in this area. Making up the average EU figure of 32% of those polled who took a

positive stance towards the US’s role regarding world peace were 42% of respondents in Ireland

and 47% of those in the UK. At the other end of the spectrum were just 13% of the Greeks."

Correct figures, very different question entirely. It mentions nothing about the "current level" of world peace, and asks about world peace as a whole, suggesting it is somehow intact. Firstly, if anyone believes that world peace is real and intact, I would wonder how educated their answer could possibly be to this question. Second, it was not asking if the US was a danger to world peace, it said that most Europeans held a negative view of the US in this area. Again, two very different things.

Now, I can understand how this might be a simple English mistake, Zamboe, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and spare you the comparisons to communist propagators...

[zamboe]

The maker of this topic doesn't even know what he's talking about. Zamboe has used words like "dangerous to world peace" .

And you think you know ?. LMAO.

I use the word "dangerous to world peace" , because that's what my primary source explained in a short summary of that huge report.

http://www.latercera.cl/lt/Articulo/0,4293,3255_5702_17741254,00.html

Read the first paragraph "Estados Unidos es un peligro para la paz mundial" which translated means exactly that "USA is dangerous to world peace". (peligro=danger)

and when corrected said that the poll asked about the "current level" of world peace.

That's my view, "current level" to answer your ambiguous statment "Since when was there world peace?" meaning that we are currently in war, at least in the 95% of the countries of this planet there are not wars going on. You seemt to focus on the exception to deny that actually almost all the world is living in peace.

"On the question of world peace virtually one in two (46%) Europeans held a negative view of the

US’s role in this area. Making up the average EU figure of 32% of those polled who took a

positive stance towards the US’s role regarding world peace were 42% of respondents in Ireland

and 47% of those in the UK. At the other end of the spectrum were just 13% of the Greeks."

Correct figures, very different question entirely.

You checked the numbers, that's perfect, because that exactly what I said.

I explained before the "main point" that is that Europeans consider DANGEROUS the current US foreing policy.

Very same thing entirely.

Now, I can understand how this might be a simple English mistake, Zamboe, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and spare you the comparisons to communist propagators...

WOW. You don't have to give me anything because I don't need to ask you anything.

You can't argue against those number 46% of Europeans, 75% of Greeks and 47% of UK citizens, but instead you try to start a semantic issue that doesn't exist.

[rigel6669]

because we take our moral obligation to attempt to fix these problems.

There is not 1 country in the world that is attemping something without receiving something in return. Does that ring a bell??

The US governement does not care what is happening to the iraqi people ... they just want war for personal gain ...

[SurlyPIG]

I use the word "dangerous to world peace" , because that's what my primary source explained in a short summary of that huge report.

http://www.latercera.cl/lt/Articulo/0,4293,3255_5702_17741254,00.html

Read the first paragraph "Estados Unidos es un peligro para la paz mundial" which translated means exactly that "USA is dangerous to world peace". (peligro=danger)

What a good example of how bad the South American media is. And for the last time, SPEAK ENGLISH! (there's a picture on the rules page for a reason)

You posted the link to the document but you obviously did not read it yourself, otherwise you would have found out that your preciously infallable media made completely erroneous claims.

That's my view, "current level" to answer your ambiguous statment "Since when was there world peace?" meaning that we are currently in war, at least in the 95% of the countries of this planet there are not wars going on. You seemt to focus on the exception to deny that actually almost all the world is living in peace.

Again, English. You should really learn more otherwise you'll keep getting beaten to a pulp in debates. World peace is not a relative term. It is an all-inclusive term, hence the WORLD part. Since the entire world is not at peace, there IS no world peace. There may be peace between 95% or even 99% of the countries in the world (not even counting civil wars raging as we speak), but the entire world has never been at peace and probably won't be for a long, LONG time. You cannot argue with the absolute fact that there is no world peace. It's 100% or none at all, hence the WORLD part.

You checked the numbers, that's perfect, because that exactly what I said.

Even a trained monkey can copy numbers. Do not mistake that statement for high praise.

I explained before the "main point" that is that Europeans consider DANGEROUS the current US foreing policy.

Very same thing entirely.

Hehehe, this is funny. You are so, utterly wrong.

Those 46% percent of Europeans said "Yes, I have a NEGATIVE VIEW of the US's role in world peace." They did not say, "Yes, the US is DANGEROUS to world peace." Those are two very, very, very different things entirely.

Go grab an English to Spanish dictionary, and look up negative in English. Then look up dangerous in English.

You have essentially said that negative = dangerous. You could not be more wrong.

A pessimist is a negative person. Does that mean they're dangerous? Hell no. A murderer is a dangerous person. Does that mean they're negative? Hell no. They could be the cheeriest person you'll ever meet.

You can't argue against those number 46% of Europeans, 75% of Greeks and 47% of UK citizens, but instead you try to start a semantic issue that doesn't exist.

You created the semantic error yourself, by making a clam that was very different from what was contained in the link you posted. And as for the numbers? Well, I say that if they are naive enough to actually think the whole world is at peace, what they say is probably coming straight out of their ass anyhow. Even if I was a US-hatemonger like you I would not answer such a poor question.

That's like asking if erosion will negatively effect a brick when the brick is already in pieces.

[zamboe]

No matter how much I try, for one reason or other all thread are conduced to Iraq.

Europeans hate us because we take our moral obligation to attempt to fix these problems.

rigel6669, as you might have noticed there is some kind of paranoia in several members (Miles being one of them) here that actually think that if you disagree that means hate.

For them thear are only two possible choices : Unrestricted blind support or hate.

I'd rather let them call hate, because they just can't realize that is disagreement and nothing else.

Btw, I agree with your last post.

[zamboe]

LMAO.

Acelephal, you can't stay on topic, can you ?.

It's not the first time you say that English is my problem. What a lame way to avoid the core point.

I'll put it this way (once more),

Gobalopper :

"Is there any problem with provinding some links in a different language, when there is no alternative links to english language sites, if at the same time I provide the translation to english of the parts I am refering to ?".

Gob, please answer that, so you can explain us YOUR rules.

What a good example of how bad the South American media is.

You don't agree, then is bad media. Plain lame and pointless, you always take it that way when someone think different ?

World peace is not a relative term.

Semantics, semantics again. World peace "is" a relative term, if you don't know it, I am not going to teach you that, that's not the subject being considered.

Go grab an English to Spanish dictionary, and look up negative in English. Then look up dangerous in English.

Read my previous post as many times as necessary until you understand. Don't give up, somehow you'll make it.

And as for the numbers? Well, I say that if they are naive enough to actually think the whole world is at peace, what they say is probably coming straight out of their ass anyhow. Even if I was a US-hatemonger like you I would not answer such a poor question.

You just said that 46% of Europeans are naive, 76% of greeks are naive and 47% of UK citizens are naive. Suddendly . What can they say about you ?.

You just called naive to more than 100 millions of educated people.

Guys listen, if you live in Europe and somehow you feel represented in that 46% that are against US foreing policy, aceletal just called you naive.

Aceletal, your answers are getting utterly stupid and arrogant when you comment other's people opinion.

[Anathema]

I concur with Zamboe. Ace, you're just being a dick.

Furthermore, if anybody says one more time "the Euros hate us because we do what is right", f*ck you. I listed all my arguments against US policy a million times and I'm sick of getting such a random insult tossed at me like that.

[ken124578]

1. 46% of Europeans think that the USA is dangerous for the world peace.

46% of the europeans that participated in those polls think that the USA is 'dangereus for the world peace.

I haven't heard of a poll about "is the USA dangereus for the world peace?" from the EU.

[rigel6669]

Europeans hate us

What kind of statement is that, your own opinion?

[DukeLeto]

and? Majority Europeans also protested Ronald Reagan who did more for Europe then any foreign person in the world since WWII. They protested him also. Thankfully he ignored it.

Reagan sold weapons of mass destruction to several middle-eastern nations! Ever heard of the "Iran-Contra Scandal"? ::)

[emprworm]

reagan ended the cold war. ever hear of the cold war? ::)

[Anathema]

Ended the cold war? You mean, as in he destroyed the Soviet Union? Funny, I thought it collapsed on it own. Reagan once called the Soviet Union an "evil empire", wich didn't really improve foreign relations.

[emprworm]

of course Reagan didn't destroy the soviet union, that is not what I said.

I wouldn't say that Reagan ended the cold war by himself, but historical scholars both liberal and conservative nearly unanimously give him a large amount of credit for ending it.

[Miles]

rigel6669, as you might have noticed there is some kind of paranoia in several members (Miles being one of them) here that actually think that if you disagree that means hate.

For them thear are only two possible choices : Unrestricted blind support or hate.

No, people have a right to disagree. That is fine. It makes me believe that many Europeans hate us because they burn our flags in their streets, chant "down with USA" and show Bush with nazi signs, calling us an oppressive evil empire, while their leaders get elected on anti-american platforms. I don't know, from this I could maybe conclude that many Europeans don't like us none too much, but maybe I am misinterpereting.

While it is ok to disagree with us, the European stance is wrong, and threatens the security of the region and our own national security. We have to show the world that while the UN is impotent, the US is not, otherwise rogue states will become bolder and infinitely more dangerous.

[rigel6669]

the European stance is wrong, and threatens the security of the region and our own national security.

It is far too easy to say that the US is right and that the countries that do not agree with attacking iraq are wrong.

It is the US and Germany that gave the chemical weapons to iraq in the first place during the "iran-iraq" war remember?

And that countries do not agree with a war is normal.

No use in sending troops and wasting money to find the "invisible" nucleair weapons.

There is just not enough evidence to justify a war for the moment. Give the UN inspectors more time to do their job and wait for the report.

[Davidu]

Every country has the right to do whatever it wants in its own territory. If it is under atack is has the right to counterattack.

The US is trying to get Iraq's oil. And it's starting a war for that.

Anyway... the US troops camped in Romania (in Constanta) were under attack a few days ago.

Two soldiers were bitten by street dogs! LOL!!

[Anathema]

Did they lose? ;D

[Davidu]

Actually they were trated on the spot, so they didn't have to leave the base.

These US troopers... they're so good looking... and tasty too... ::) ::)