These polls have been done online by Time magazine.

1- Which country poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2003?

North Korea 5.6 %
Iraq 6.7 %
The United States 87.6 %

Total Votes Cast: 606825

2- Why do Europeans attack President Bush's line on war with Iraq?

They doubt Saddam is a danger 6.3%
They don't want Iraqis to die 3.3%
They fear war may spread 13.0%
They think war will hit efforts to beat terror 5.8%
They suspect Bush's motives 46.4%
They've forgotten the lesson of history 12.3%
They're jealous of America 13.0%

Total Votes Cast: 17974

Of course this is not scientific.

Yeah, definitely not scientific. The pool of voters (people who cast votes on Time's website) is surely biased.

Even so, the numbers are surprisingly overwhelming. The second poll is the one that surprises me with "They suspect Bush's motives" as the leading vote-getter. I mean, almost half of these people think we're just after oil (assuming that's the motive they are suspicious of)? That seems pretty silly to me.

It may be more complex. The options prposed are quite restrictive and people who oppose the war for motives related to the USA rather than Iraq have only that choice. It is also not possible to choose more than one answer.
I voted for "They suspect Bush's motives", but I also think that 2 and 3 are true.
Plus, people are not asked what they think but what they think other people think. Even if you're pro-war, you can choose "They suspect Bush's motives".

This is revealing. The biggest one by far being - they suspect Bush's motives.

Thats a weak and insecure reason. To have any credibility the reason should be
They doubt Saddam is a danger 6.3%
They don't want Iraqis to die 3.3%.

Yet these are much bigger
They've forgotten the lesson of history 12.3%
They're jealous of America 13.0%

If you remove the doubt bushes motives one & recast the % you get
They doubt Saddam is a danger 11.8%
They don't want Iraqis to die 6.15%
They fear war may spread 24.2%
They think war will hit efforts to beat terror 10.88%
They've forgotten the lesson of history 22.3%
They're jealous of America 24.2%

The smallest one of all is they don't want iraqi's to die. The biggest being - jealous of America and fear of the war spreading.

What these numbers say is that there is no credibility in reasons why the UN security council resolutions should not be enforced

I think I voted on the first poll. I voted for the U.S.

Originally posted by DrewM
The biggest one by far being - they suspect Bush's motives.

Thats a weak and insecure reason. To have any credibility the reason should be
They doubt Saddam is a danger 6.3%
They don't want Iraqis to die 3.3%.

Yet these are much bigger
They've forgotten the lesson of history 12.3%
They're jealous of America 13.0%

If you remove the doubt bushes motives one & recast the % you get (…)



1- Sorry Drew but your reasoning is wrong.

You decide regarding to your own opinion what answer should be removed !

All the people who reply to this poll are not against war. And what do the people who are for war vote for ? Mostly "forgotten" and "jealous". So we can estimate that about 25% (12,3+13) of the voters are pro-war and the other 75% anti war. Probably 30-70 is a better ratio since even some pro-war can have a different interpretation of the anti-war reasons.

2- About "suspecting Bush" : I disagree that this is a weak reason.

In your point of view, a- Saddam is a major threat and b- who opposes to him is not the big issue as long as he is removed from power (correct me if my interpretation is wrong). OK, this is coherent as long as a- is true.

But in my point of view, a- even if Saddam is a tyrant, he is not a major threat, not enough to justify war. b- anyway, Bush wants this war.
So, I have to wonder : why does he want this war ? Because he's dumb ? For oil ? For personal revenge ? Bush is the president of the only superpower. If Bush decides he can rule the world for its personal interest, this is a big problem for the other countries ! So even if I also care for Iraqi lives and the risks of this war, I think Bush should be stopped first because he's dangerous.

Do you understand (I don't say "agree with") my point ?

I agree with your point (1) - I should have read what the poll was more closely :p

On (2) - The issue is much greater than if Sadaam is a threat or not.

in 1991 he signed a truce by which he would relinquish WMD. 12 years later, countless UN resolutions later he has not done that. Even 1441 states serious consquences - if the UN members had no intention of acting on 1441 then why vote for it in the 1st place? There is only 1 reason why Sadaam is moving at all - his country is surrounded by the US military, it's not because of Hans Blix, words, or anything other than the real threat of cruise missiles, laser guided bombs, 6 aircraft carrier battle groups & 200,000 troops.

So, to say now we doubt the motives of Bush & to question the use of force serves only to make the UN look completely stupid & useless, and plays into Sadaams hands & it threatens the viability of the UN as an institution of value.

Add on top of that why France & Russia are not keen to see force being used. It's not because they think Bush is a loose cannon - it's because they do not want the US controlling that region. You can discount Germany from the equation.

So, the next question - why not give inspections more time? Well he's had 12 years - why make it harder on the troops due to hot weather? just to give him a few more months.

I think Sadaam is a huge threat once he gets nukes - he will hold the whole region ransom. There is no reason to put off the issue just because that day isn't here yet.

Remember Bush is the president, but the US president has limited powers. The congress holds the real power & they voted to give him the green light.

Yes the US is the worlds only superpower - but remember - nobody gave the US anything, it is a superpower because of the innovation and hardwork of the US people. Being a superpower makes it a big target and the US will act in it's interests first - not in Frances interest, not in Germany's interest, but in the US interest. It is the US best interest to have a stable secure middle east and that is what this is about. Every country will & does act in it's own best interest first - just because the US is a superpower doesn't change that or make it less right, even if the weaker countries don't happen to like the fact that they are weak. Their weakness is not the US's problem - sorry, every country has had the opportunity to be stonger.

Bear in mind also that for the most part - what is good for the US is also good for Europe and other countries too. The US is handing out billions to other countries and is also the defender of western europe which has no real military of it's own

The UN does not set US policy or agenda's - but the US has gone through the UN. I think if Bush just wanted to rule the world as you put it - then I don't think he would have bothered wth the UN too much. The US does not need the UN. The UN needs the US - without the US the UN is finished.

Originally posted by DrewM

1- if the UN members had no intention of acting on 1441 then why vote for it in the 1st place? (…)

2- Add on top of that why France & Russia are not keen to see force being used. It's not because they think Bush is a loose cannon - it's because they do not want the US controlling that region.

3- why not give inspections more time? Well he's had 12 years - why make it harder on the troops due to hot weather? just to give him a few more months.

4- (…) the US will act in it's interests first - not in Frances interest, not in Germany's interest, but in the US interest. It is the US best interest to have a stable secure middle east and that is what this is about. Every country will act in it's own best interest first - just because the US is a superpower doesn't change that.

The UN does not set US policy or agenda's - but the US has gone through the UN. I think if Bush just wanted to rule the world as you put it - then I don't think he would have bothered wth the UN too much.

1- 1441 was not an ultimatum. The franco-german memorandum on how it should be applied shows these countries want 1441 enforced. That does not mean war is the best way of enforcing it.

2- Right. But it is not so different in fact - they want to oppose to the present policy of Bush.

3- Before the inspections stopped in 1998, the inspectors destroyed more Iraqi weapons than the US army during the guylf war. Inspections have proven a very efficient, peaceful - and cheap - way of disarming. Only the 1998-2002 period has been interrupting them.

4- Your argument in fact legitimates the French and German position.
But I think that our countries (super or minor power) have greater responsiblities than their own immediate interest.
"With great power comes great responsibilities" (Spiderman - yes, I'm quite literate ;) )
And, furthermore, I think that the interst of the USA is not to do this war.
a- because Iraq does not really threaten the USA
b- because the idea of this war being the start of peace and democray in Middle East is utopist. It would be the cause for more anger towards the USA and further terrorism.

The Bush administration is full of people dedicated to private interests. It is also a nest of idealistic hawks, who really believe they should make a crusade for their values. Maybe these are even more dangerous. The combination of both groups could lead the USA to a disaster.

Originally posted by astrapol2
[B]1- 1441 was not an ultimatum. The franco-german memorandum on how it should be applied shows these countries want 1441 enforced. That does not mean war is the best way of enforcing it.

2- Right. But it is not so different in fact - they want to oppose to the present policy of Bush.

3- Before the inspections stopped in 1998, the inspectors destroyed more Iraqi weapons than the US army during the guylf war. Inspections have proven a very efficient, peaceful - and cheap - way of disarming. Only the 1998-2002 period has been interrupting them.

4- Your argument in fact legitimates the French and German position.
But I think that our countries (super or minor power) have greater responsiblities than their own immediate interest.
"With great power comes great responsibilities" (Spiderman - yes, I'm quite literate ;) )
And, furthermore, I think that the interst of the USA is not to do this war.
a- because Iraq does not really threaten the USA
b- because the idea of this war being the start of peace and democray in Middle East is utopist. It would be the cause for more anger towards the USA and further terrorism.


1 - 1441 was an ulltimatum that warned of serious consequences. Perhaps in a Franco-German viewpoint it was not Force - maybe their interpretation of serious consequences was a stern telling off by Chirac and an early bedtime with no supper

3 - Incorrect, they have been proved to be ineffective, and time consuming. Until Sadaams son in law defected they knew of very few of the programs. Furthermore the inspectors role is not to be detectives - it is supervise the disarmament - not unlike the experience with South Africa (who wanted to disarm, Iraq does not want to). All UN resolutions are not worth a thing without the US military as the stick. Without the threat of force any UN resolution would be simply ignored as a joke.

4
a) Iraq does threaten US interests (not necessarily the US mainland in a tangible way, or at least not in the short term - I have never been convinced of the potential links between BinLadens group & Iraq)
b) It is not at all Utopic - History is on the US side on that one

You are right that with power comes responsibility - which is why it is left to the US to deal with this issue.

The point does not at all strengthen the Franco-German position because the Franco-German position is not a focus rooted in any care for Iraq - it is rooted in self interest. That is fine, afterall it is no different than the US in that regard, but the plain facts are that the US self-interests win over Franco-German self interests because the US is bigger & stronger.

Germany can be discounted - their political position is only that - internal politics and once Schroder is gone it will be forgotten. France on the other hand - is shooting itself in the foot - Chirac believes that France's best interest is to be against the US - why - French pride & lack of ability to accept change. What will happen - France is going to fall on it's face & will come out of this a far weaker nation in terms of global influence. Chirac is selling France down the river & is a huge disaster for France. In plain terms he is an idiot & his psudo-morality will result in the deaths of many of Iraq's people. He should know better & work to prevent war in the only way possible - show strength not division. Nobody wants a war, but Chriac is the best chance for one to happen. I'm sure the weapons manufacturers will have a photo of Chirac on the factory floor out of respect for his personal boost to their profitability.

Originally posted by DrewM

Iraq does threaten US interests (not necessarily the US mainland in a tangible way, or at least not in the short term - I have never been convinced of the potential links between BinLadens group & Iraq)

So how does it ?

Oil

Can you be more precise ?

The US has an interest in a stable middle east - because 40% of the oil used in the US comes from the middle east. Saddaam has made it clear he wants WMD so he can hold the region ransom - he already invaded Kuwait! Started a war with Iran..gassed his own people...put up with 12 years of crippling sanctions rather than take the route of being a good citizen.

Sadaam with WMD = an unstable and uncertain region.

9-11 provided the will to tackle this issue that has been outstanding for a long time.

Sadaams neighbors want him gone also. No tears will be shed by his overthrow.

Exactly : as you admit it, it is all about oil, not human rights. You are perfectly right : 9-11 provided the will, or rather the pretext.

The WMD are a joke - none has been found so far, and even the destruction of missiles does not satisfy Bush.

Saddams neighbours don't like him but they fear the USA even more. Nobody in the middle east wants the american army. Nobody in the arab world agrees that US could impose democracy.
The arabs don't want anyone giving lessons to them, especially by the use of force.

Sure the Middle East could do with more democracy and stability. Sure the Iraqis should throw Saddam away. But Bush is the last person they would take lessons from. This is why this war cannot succeed in establishing peace and stability. It can only lead to a long, difficult and expensive military occupation of Iraq. Only the military and oil lobby will benefit from it.

Of course it is not fundamentally about human rights - but that doesn't mean that human rights won't benefit from it & are a important factor

"The WMD are a joke - none has been found so far, and even the destruction of missiles does not satisfy Bush"

Of course none have been found - Iraq doesn't want them found - Iraq is the size of california. I'm confident the US will find them after the upcoming invasion.

The destruction of those missiles is not even close to satisfying 1441 - they are not WMD - they are just some WWII style rockets.

"Nobody in the middle east wants the american army" - Wrong again, the US has many bases in the middle east & will launch the attack from middle eastern countries. The countries in the middle east are no different than any other countries - they want security and prosperity.

You can stick your head in the sand as an idealist, but this is what is going to happen - so best get used to the idea

- the US will invade Iraq
- Saddam will be overthrown
- The Iraqi people will be dancing in the streets
- Countries like France will move from a 2nd rate power to 3rd rate power due to their proven lack of relevance
- The middle east will change over time

The root of your miss-conceptions is an over simplfication of Bush (no doubt you would have thought the same about Reagan), and an over simplification of what the role of the president is & what he can and can not do on his own

My guess is :
- In spite of a growing opposition, and maybe without the UN, the US will attack Iraq.
- there will be many casualties. The war will soon be impopular even in the USA.
- Saddam will finally be overthrown.
- the US will have to go back to the UN to rebuild the country. France and othe countries that opposed to the war will be a necessary intermediate.
- Iraq will not be democratic. Probably it will stay 5 years or more under american and UN juridiction until elections put in power an american puppet who will rely on repression to keep the power.
- There will be no other regime change in Middle east, but the people will get angrier and repression of opponents will be stronger. In the long term islamist movements will win in some countries.
- more terrorist movements and a greater anger against the USA will be the main "security" result of this war.


In a way I hope you're right and I'm wrong. Anyway I still hope the war can be avoided (maybe 15% chance ?)

Now let's wait and see.

Now wait and see what happen and who was right.

I think finally we agree :)

I also hope that the war is avoided. I think the only chance will be if Hussain goes into exile.

Once a war starts then it will not be unpopular in the US. The US people always rally around the president. If the war stretches on then it will become unpopular.

The UK is writing a 3rd resolution at the moment that describes post war UN actions.

Ultimately I think the UN will not veto a resolution because that would be ultimately very destructive to the UN. If France veto's a resolution then they will play absolutely no role in any post war situation. If both Russia & France veto then I think it will be different.

If Hussain uses chemical weapons for example during a war, or a huge hidden WMD program is discovered then this will significantly change the perception & will set a new accepted standard on the expectation on the international community.