Pew Survey, Distrust of America Increases

[Witling]

The first few paragraphs of an LA Times article.


LA Times Article

By Sonni Efron, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON ? A year after the Iraq war, mistrust of the United States abroad has intensified, and the ill will toward America has spilled over into declining levels of support for the U.S.-led war on terrorism, a global attitude survey released today found.

The ongoing study of public opinion in nine countries was conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in February and March ? before the bombings in Madrid and the defeat of the pro-American Spanish government. Spain was not included in the survey. Britain is much less supportive than a year ago.

The study elucidates the widening opinion gulf between America and many of its key allies, a divide that thrust itself into the public eye Sunday with a surprise defeat for one of the Bush administration's staunchest allies on U.S. policy in Iraq and the war on terror, the party of Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar.

While most Americans believe the war to oust Saddam Hussein helped in the global fight against terrorism, majorities in Germany, France and Turkey, and half of those surveyed in Britain and Russia, said the U.S.-led Iraq war undermined the struggle against terrorism.

Large numbers in every country said they believed that U.S. and British leaders lied when they claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that the United States was not sincere in the war on terrorism, and that they had less confidence that the United States wants to promote democracy around the world.


PEW Survey in PDF Format

 

[chess9]

Excellent post!

And people doubt Kerry has support from foreign leaders? Bwuahahaha! Only about 100+ leaders are probably hoping he gets elected. (I'm not a big Kerry fan, but he is marginally, and only marginally, better than the dumbest human being since Garfield to occupy the Presidency.)

We'll see if this actually translates to a win for Kerry. I doubt it because he is no Howard Dean, who is probably the best Presidential candidate since McCain. Too bad for the country...on both counts.

-Robert

 

[etech]

It does appear that Al Queda is winning.

I'm sure they appreciate your support.

 

[FrodoB]

This is exactly why the left is so dangerous. The defense of this country should NEVER be based on world opinion. This article is garbage.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: etech
It does appear that Al Queda is winning.

I'm sure they appreciate your support.

ever think Bush might be doing something wrong in the war against terrorism?

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: FrodoB
This is exactly why the left is so dangerous. The defense of this country should NEVER be based on world opinion. This article is garbage.

in modern times good allies are the more important for defense than brute force

 

[Witling]

This kind of stupid statement by Etech comes out every time we have a national disagreement about policy. The stupid statement is:

"It does appear that Al Queda is winning.
I'm sure they appreciate your support."

Hey, Etech. If I can't express my opinion, they've already won.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: etech
It does appear that Al Queda is winning.

I'm sure they appreciate your support.

Bush destroyed the anti-AQ coalition over Iraq. I am sure they appreciate his support. I wonder what could be accomplished if hundreds of billions of dollars and 150K troops used to nationbuild in Iraq were used to hunt down AQ, how much progress could be made in WoT.

 

[FrodoB]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: FrodoB
This is exactly why the left is so dangerous. The defense of this country should NEVER be based on world opinion. This article is garbage.

in modern times good allies are the more important for defense than brute force

Who do you trust as being a good ally? To put it bluntly, Europe would rather bend over and take it up the rear. Spain is just the latest example. We dictate our defense, not anyone else.

 

[chess9]

Etech:

What is the evidence for Al Quaida winning? Just because our traditional allies think Bush is a red neck cowboy doesn't mean AQ is winning. Your conclusion is totally unwarranted. I'd say it's a stalemate right now, but we have those bastages on the run. If we find OBL and eviscerate him one cell at a time I'll be very pleased. Everyone who lost a loved one in 911 should be given one cut with the knife.... I am not kidding. That guy deserves a brutal torture. Two eyes for an eye....

-Robert

 

[FrodoB]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: etech
It does appear that Al Queda is winning.

I'm sure they appreciate your support.

ever think Bush might be doing something wrong in the war against terrorism?

We haven't been attacked since 9/11. Despite the attack in Spain, Al Queda is a shell of its former self.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: FrodoB
This is exactly why the left is so dangerous. The defense of this country should NEVER be based on world opinion. This article is garbage.

Your post is garbage. When you are dealing with a spread out global network, you need unity that was there after 9/11 but was needlessly squandered by righwing neocons more interested in their obsession with Saddam than defending the United States from the real threat of AQ.

 

[heartsurgeon]

Howard Dean, who is probably the best Presidential candidate since McCain

Gee...you fail in getting any significant support from your OWN political party, much less the general public, and this qualifies you as the "Best Presidential Candidate"? You've got some strange definition of "the best". McCain and Dean the best? HAHAHAHA, that's rich.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: etech
It does appear that Al Queda is winning.

I'm sure they appreciate your support.

Heh, what does it say about the "leader" on this fight against Al Queda...oh well, he will probaly come up with 1000 execuses why he is not responsible like everything else that happened during his watch.

 

[FrodoB]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: FrodoB
This is exactly why the left is so dangerous. The defense of this country should NEVER be based on world opinion. This article is garbage.

Your post is garbage. When you are dealing with a spread out global network, you need unity that was there after 9/11 but was needlessly squandered by righwing neocons more interested in their obsession with Saddam than defending the United States from the real threat of AQ.

So you believe that governments across the globe are no longer cooperating with us in the war against terror?? Bull.

 

[Witling]

Well, Spain ain't cooperating like it did last week.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: etech
It does appear that Al Queda is winning.

I'm sure they appreciate your support.

nice.... troll on.
while we have been on a DETOUR in IRAQ led by the neochicken hawks GWB,
Al Qaeda have been reforming, recruiting and regaining strength.

Bali Bombing
Riyadh Bombing
Casablanca Bombing
Istanbul Turkey Bombing
Madrid bombing
since 9-11-01
all of these attacks have reported Al Qaeda ties or groups with ties to Al Qaeda.

Should not our focus in this war on terror BE on Al Qaeda whose head is Osama Bin Laden not Saddam Hussein? Shouldn't we have had 300,000 soldiers in Afghanistan/Pakistan searching for this man day and night. Should not we be focused on rooting out Al Qaeda cells whereever they may hide. Why did we spend billions and billions of dollars in military intelligence, time and focus on IRAQ when it is Al Qaeda that is the threat?

 

[chess9]

FrodoB:

Oh, yeah, Uzbekhistan and El Salvador have been sending us millions. Bwuahahaha!! When we replace Blair, Bush, Howard, and Berlusconi, I'll be listening for your song, my little chickadee....

-Robert

 

[conjur]

There's not really much news in that survey. France and Germany already were against the war last year (Germany with its big oil contracts with Iraq...France just being France - they were dragged kicking and screaming back in '91). Then countries like Jordan and Pakistan with populations that have never really cared for the U.S.

 

[FrodoB]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: etech
It does appear that Al Queda is winning.

I'm sure they appreciate your support.

nice.... troll on.
while we have been on a DETOUR in IRAQ led by the neochicken hawks GWB,
Al Qaeda have been reforming, recruiting and regaining strength.

Bali Bombing
Riyadh Bombing
Casablanca Bombing
Istanbul Turkey Bombing
Madrid bombing
since 9-11-01
all of these attacks have reported Al Qaeda ties or groups with ties to Al Qaeda.

Should not our focus in this war on terror BE on Al Qaeda whose head is Osama Bin Laden not Saddam Hussein? Shouldn't we have had 300,000 soldiers in Afghanistan/Pakistan searching for this man day and night. Should not we be focused on rooting out Al Qaeda cells whereever they may hide. Why did we spend billions and billions of dollars in military intelligence, time and focus on IRAQ when it is Al Qaeda that is the threat?

None of your examples prove that "Al Qaeda have been reforming, recruiting and regaining strength." Those attacks required a minimum amount of planning and resources.... certainly not proof that they are regaining strength. They are on the run. We haven't had an attack since 9/11. The only dangerous advance made by Al Queda is the discovery that Europe and the American Left are without a backbone and fold in the face of fear.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: FrodoB
This is exactly why the left is so dangerous. The defense of this country should NEVER be based on world opinion. This article is garbage.

How so? The world supported our war on terror. They were behind us 110%. We only lost their support when Bush-lite abandoned the WoT for his little adventure in Iraq. The world did NOT support that, and rightly so.

Iraq was not a threat to America. Therefore, your statement, "The defense of this country ..." is irrelevant.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: FrodoB
This is exactly why the left is so dangerous. The defense of this country should NEVER be based on world opinion. This article is garbage.

How so? The world supported our war on terror. They were behind us 110%. We only lost their support when Bush-lite abandoned the WoT for his little adventure in Iraq. The world did NOT support that, and rightly so.

Iraq was not a threat to America. Therefore, your statement, "The defense of this country ..." is irrelevant.

:beer:

 

[Witling]

Conjur, to a certain extent, I agree with you. People who didn't like us before still don't. But, we spent some major goodwill that the British had for us.

 

[arsbanned]

We dictate our defense, not anyone else.

Attacking another country not remotely connected with the real threat facing us has hardly been an effective defense. Think about it.
Also, throughtout history, building alliances and maintaining them through close cooperation has been key in winning wars. In fact, look at the cases where nations simply went it alone. In every one they eventually ran themselves into the ground.

 

[FrodoB]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: FrodoB
This is exactly why the left is so dangerous. The defense of this country should NEVER be based on world opinion. This article is garbage.

How so? The world supported our war on terror. They were behind us 110%. We only lost their support when Bush-lite abandoned the WoT for his little adventure in Iraq. The world did NOT support that, and rightly so.

Iraq was not a threat to America. Therefore, your statement, "The defense of this country ..." is irrelevant.

Really? Saddam's regime had given sanctuary to terrorists in the past. He financially supported Palestinian suicide bomber families. This obviously worsens a situation that is one of the driving forces behind many terrorists. The full scope of his wmd program is still unknown. It was a good thing he was taken out. Also, creating a democracy in Iraq will be a huge blow to Islamic terrorists.
He was still a destabilization force in this world. The world, including the U.S. , is much better off without him.