If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Europeans don't see Iran as a nuclear threat
I guess the next question does a majority of Americans see
Iran as a nuclear threat?? Having just been worked up to high level of hysteria with respect to Iraq, will they believe the next round of hysteria mongering with respect to Iran. Will Americans change their travel habits with regard to this perceived danger?? Personally, I view anybody having nuclear weapons as a threat. I certainly spent part of my life worrying about the Russians and I was never too sure about the Americans either. China has "this thing" about Taiwan, pretty emotional at times and Pakistan and India both having nuclear weapons seems a formula for disaster. Britain and France? Why have them? A relatively minor attack would wipe out what is meaningful in both nations. Does having nuclear weapons improve their security?? Iran, at least, has no big conflicts with Europe. Why should we be worried? Now Israel has something to worry about. Of course, they have also not worked for peace in their part of the world. In fact, few have. Earl ****** Poll: Iran not a nuclear threat LONDON, England (CNN) -- Almost six out of 10 adults in Britain, France and Germany say that Iran does not pose a nuclear threat to Europe, according to the findings of a new CNN/TIME poll. Iran says its nuclear program is nothing for the world to fear and will only be used to generate much-needed electricity. But Washington and the EU fear Iran could use its nuclear plants to produce bombs. In his State of the Union Address in February, U.S. President George W. Bush named Iran as "the world's primary state sponsor of terror." He said the United States must "confront regimes that continue to harbor terrorists and pursue weapons of mass murder," citing Iran and Syria. In February, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said an attack on Iran over its alleged nuclear program is "not on the agenda at this point." Adults in France were more likely to think Iran posed a nuclear threat (34 per cent) than in Germany (30 per cent) and Britain (27 per cent.) Of those adults surveyed who did believe Iran posed a nuclear threat, 59 per cent said diplomacy was the best way to handle the situation. Just three per cent said using military force alone was the best course of action. Support for military action was highest in Britain (seven percent) and lowest in Germany (zero percent.) An additional 22 percent across all countries supported the combined approach of using both diplomacy and military force. Other key findings from the research showed that just 17 percent of adults in key European countries trusted politicians to tell the public the truth about the prospect of potential terrorist attacks. This compares to some 30 percent who trusted the media and 43 percent who trusted senior police officials for information on terror attacks. International aid agencies were the most trusted information source (51 percent of those surveyed.) The poll was conducted by TNS, the market information group and the world's largest custom research company. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World
War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." -- Albert Einstein |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Earl Evleth wrote: I guess the next question does a majority of Americans see Iran as a nuclear threat?? Having just been worked up to high level of hysteria with respect to Iraq, will they believe the next round of hysteria mongering with respect to Iran. Not "hysteria" - *fact*... Will Americans change their travel habits with regard to this perceived danger?? Personally, I view anybody having nuclear weapons as a threat. I certainly spent part of my life worrying about the Russians and I was never too sure about the Americans either. China has "this thing" about Taiwan, pretty emotional at times and Pakistan and India both having nuclear weapons seems a formula for disaster. Britain and France? Why have them? A relatively minor attack would wipe out what is meaningful in both nations. Does having nuclear weapons improve their security?? How many times have nuclear weapons been used since 1945? Therein lies your answer :-) Iran, at least, has no big conflicts with Europe. Why should we be worried? Now Israel has something to worry about. Of course, they have also not worked for peace in their part of the world. In fact, few have. Nonsense. Israel is a stable and open democracy. All they want is to be left alone. They have only defended themselves, never called for the total elimination of a neighboring state (as all of Israel's neighbors have done at one time or another). The rest of the states in the region are mainly ruled by a bunch of psychotics, loons, vile corrupt satraps, etc. Hopefully Israel will have the wherewithal to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilites, like they did with Iraq in 1981... -- Best Greg |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:04:51 +0200, Earl Evleth wrote:
Personally, I view anybody having nuclear weapons as a threat. I certainly spent part of my life worrying about the Russians and I was never too sure about the Americans either. A few years ago a group of us (from the US) were setting up a new data center near Reading (west of London), which meant a couple of weeks of long hours and late-night pub food (most of the restaurants closed before we were done for the day). One in our group was a recent immigrant from Russia. After a healty dose of beer and exhaustion, one evening I decided to bring up the rather politically incorrect topic of how we'd grown up ducking under desks and worried about the USSR's first strike policy. I could see the discomfort on my co-workers faces when I brought it up. Well, it turns out he grew up being told the SAME things! He said they 'never could understand why America wanted to attack them so much'. We all had a tittering sigh of disallusionment about that bit of irony. -- -BB- To e-mail me, unmunge my address |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On 31/03/05 21:16, in article
, "Gregory Morrow" gregorymorrowEMERGENCYCANCELLATIONARCHIMEDES@eart hlink.net wrote: Earl Evleth wrote: I guess the next question does a majority of Americans see Iran as a nuclear threat?? Having just been worked up to high level of hysteria with respect to Iraq, will they believe the next round of hysteria mongering with respect to Iran. Not "hysteria" - *fact*... What danger does a nuclear Iran present to the USA?? It is next door to nuclear Pakistan which is next door to nuclear India and next door to nuclear Russia. Not next door to the USA. Does having nuclear weapons improve their security?? How many times have nuclear weapons been used since 1945? Therein lies your answer :-) Then the more the merrier, so why be so hysterical about Iran?? In fact the more the more dangerous. Nonsense. Israel is a stable and open democracy. Not for Arab Israelis, 19% of the population. The state does have some fascist elements. They "unelected Rabin". All they want is to be left alone. Why is there a territorial grab going on in the occupied territories?? Can you fit that statement into the Eretz Israel movement trying to restore Biblical Israel?? Judea, Samaria are yet to be integrated back into "Israel". Earl |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On 31/03/05 21:16, in article
, "Gregory Morrow" gregorymorrowEMERGENCYCANCELLATIONARCHIMEDES@eart hlink.net wrote: Earl Evleth wrote: I guess the next question does a majority of Americans see Iran as a nuclear threat?? Having just been worked up to high level of hysteria with respect to Iraq, will they believe the next round of hysteria mongering with respect to Iran. Not "hysteria" - *fact*... What danger does a nuclear Iran present to the USA?? It is next door to nuclear Pakistan which is next door to nuclear India and next door to nuclear Russia. Not next door to the USA. Does having nuclear weapons improve their security?? How many times have nuclear weapons been used since 1945? Therein lies your answer :-) Then the more the merrier, so why be so hysterical about Iran?? In fact the more the more dangerous. Nonsense. Israel is a stable and open democracy. Not for Arab Israelis, 19% of the population. The state does have some fascist elements. They "unelected Rabin". All they want is to be left alone. Why is there a territorial grab going on in the occupied territories?? Can you fit that statement into the Eretz Israel movement trying to restore Biblical Israel?? Judea, Samaria are yet to be integrated back into "Israel". Earl |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Earl Evleth wrote:
On 31/03/05 21:16, in article , "Gregory Morrow" gregorymorrowEMERGENCYCANCELLATIONARCHIMEDES@eart hlink.net wrote: [] Nonsense. Israel is a stable and open democracy. Not for Arab Israelis, 19% of the population. What are you referring to, exactly? I wouldn't argue the situation is perfect, but Arab Israelis vote, both for Arab MPs and other parties, inluding zionist ones. 20% of Israel is Arab, and 10% of the MPs in the Knesset are. That compares better with, say, the representation of Muslims in the UK and French parliaments as a proportion of their population. It's a sad reflection on the mess which is the middle east that Arab Israelis, despite the problems they face(and there are some worrying developments with loss of immunity etc.) are better off, both financially and politically, than any other state in the region. -- David Horne- www.davidhorne.net usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Earl Evleth wrote:
On 31/03/05 21:16, in article , "Gregory Morrow" gregorymorrowEMERGENCYCANCELLATIONARCHIMEDES@eart hlink.net wrote: [] Nonsense. Israel is a stable and open democracy. Not for Arab Israelis, 19% of the population. What are you referring to, exactly? I wouldn't argue the situation is perfect, but Arab Israelis vote, both for Arab MPs and other parties, inluding zionist ones. 20% of Israel is Arab, and 10% of the MPs in the Knesset are. That compares better with, say, the representation of Muslims in the UK and French parliaments as a proportion of their population. It's a sad reflection on the mess which is the middle east that Arab Israelis, despite the problems they face(and there are some worrying developments with loss of immunity etc.) are better off, both financially and politically, than any other state in the region. -- David Horne- www.davidhorne.net usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Earl Evleth wrote:
On 31/03/05 21:16, in article , "Gregory Morrow" gregorymorrowEMERGENCYCANCELLATIONARCHIMEDES@eart hlink.net wrote: [] Nonsense. Israel is a stable and open democracy. Not for Arab Israelis, 19% of the population. What are you referring to, exactly? I wouldn't argue the situation is perfect, but Arab Israelis vote, both for Arab MPs and other parties, inluding zionist ones. 20% of Israel is Arab, and 10% of the MPs in the Knesset are. That compares better with, say, the representation of Muslims in the UK and French parliaments as a proportion of their population. It's a sad reflection on the mess which is the middle east that Arab Israelis, despite the problems they face(and there are some worrying developments with loss of immunity etc.) are better off, both financially and politically, than any other state in the region. -- David Horne- www.davidhorne.net usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On 31/03/05 22:15, in article
1gub426.13hqkxs17eqaicN%this_address_is_for_spam@y ahoo.com, "chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn" wrote: Earl Evleth wrote: Not for Arab Israelis, 19% of the population. What are you referring to, exactly? There are a number of exclusionary practices which makes life difficult for Arabs in Israel. Land grabs are still not that uncommon, water rights are fairly distributed. A 2003 poll showed that 56% of Israelis are for their Government "stimulating" the depart of Israeli Arabs. I wouldn't argue the situation is perfect, but Arab Israelis vote, both for Arab MPs and other parties, inluding zionist ones. 20% of Israel is Arab, and 10% of the MPs in the Knesset are. That compares better with, say, the representation of Muslims in the UK and French parliaments as a proportion of their population. The French assembly is not elected according to proportionality, which also prevents the Front National members from being represented. Small groups, parties etc don't get representation as such. Next, the "ethnic" Arabs also do not represent 20%, even 10% of the national population. Nor do they represent a monolithic group. Many are not even French citizens so can't vote. But once a citizen they are not counted as ethnic Arabs. As a person born in the USA, once I became a French citizen I was statistically French! The French don't even keep crime statistics according to ethnic background of French citizens. Whatever, I don't think there is a serious movement (56% of the French) to get rid of ethnic Arabs in France. Some in the Front National would like this and the national sentiment might be 10-15%. But mostly it is xenophobic grump. We also do not have a broad terrorist movement among these minority groups. Earl |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
iran Nuclear weapon | Rag742 | Europe | 92 | March 5th, 2005 01:30 AM |
Why Europeans dislike Bush and rue his re-election | towelie | Air travel | 90 | November 23rd, 2004 07:52 PM |
Euro Disney sees its losses increase | Earl Evleth | Europe | 191 | November 18th, 2004 09:26 AM |
Saudis consider nuclear bomb | Meghan Powers | Air travel | 4 | September 19th, 2003 05:57 PM |