What, Me Worry (Western and Eastern Europe dilemnas with Iraq)

Newsweek ^ | 02/23/03 | Stryker Mcguire

[zefrog]

What, Me Worry

European leaders who support a war in Iraq are struggling to maintain their positions despite massive opposition from their own people

March 3 issue — Munich 1938. Prague 1968. Kosovo 1999. Iraq 2003. For Vaclav Havel, the line between tyranny and liberty is neither blurred nor crooked, and he has no qualms supporting America’s coming war on Saddam Hussein. “Evil should be resisted as soon as it is born,” the Czech dissident turned president declared at the NATO summit in Prague.

YET WHEN HAVEL affixed his signature to the now famous “gang of eight” manifesto supporting the United States a few weeks ago, days before his retirement, the Czech prime minister pointedly refused to join him. As for his fellow Czechs, two thirds oppose the war—a reminder that most identified more with the peace sign Havel flashed at the end of his farewell speech to the nation than with his moral stand behind George W. Bush.

There are two great divides in Europe. One is the split between governments that are for or against war in Iraq. The other (and perhaps —greater) divides the masses of people from the Baltics to the British Isles who oppose war and their leaders who have lined up with the United States. In Britain, Spain and Italy, prime ministers are going against huge antiwar majorities to side with America. So are the leaders of Eastern Europe, albeit against somewhat less daunting tides. In Greece, which quietly allows U.S. planes spying on Iraq to be based on the island of Crete, there’s so little support for war that nobody bothers to conduct polls on the matter. [...]

[zefrog]

BTW, for all you boycott-enthusiasts, I have just heard on french news the latest pan-European polls: The irony is that the french, with 70% opposed, 27% in favor, and 3% undecided, appear to be among the least reticent to war, in both the EU and Eastern Europe.

[Mudboy Slim]

Are you FRench, mi amigo?!

MUD

[Mudboy Slim]

"The irony is that the french, with 70% opposed, 27% in favor, and 3% undecided, appear to be among the least reticent to war, in both the EU and Eastern Europe."

The FRench EffeteElite and the FRench proletariat are not of one mind, and these poll numbers are dubious, IMHO...MUD

[zefrog]

I am.

[Mudboy Slim]

Welcome, monsiuer...MUD

BTW...habla frances?!

[Cicero]

A pretty fair article for Newsweak, although it's hard to tell how truthful it is.

Very few people WANT war, especially after having lived through fifty years of peaceful prosperity. That's understandable. The governments' job is to educate them. Bush has done a pretty good job of that here, in spite of the lying media. And of course bin Ladin did a pretty good job convincing people, too.

It must be admitted that it's hard for governments to educate people (I mean persuade them, not brainwash them) when the press and the schools have gotten so decadent. But something needs to be done.

Of course we've all understood that it make take a few MORE 9/11s before everyone wakes up, and even that won't change the minds of the hopelessly ideological leftists. They'll just blame it on Bush and the Americans--as they have already tried to do with 9/11. But the more Muslim atrocities, the harder they will be to sell. Not the ideal path, but possibly the necessary one.

[zefrog]

these poll numbers are dubious.?

Which numbers? The numbers for France, ot the numbers for other countries, such as the ones indicated in the Newseek article?w

Anyway, it's very easy to introduce a bias in the results. Depending on how you emphasize the "with or w/o support of the UN" in the formulation of the question, the pollsters can obtain very different numbers. But, roughly speaking, the polls show one thing: wherever their governments might be, the Europeans tend to be on the same line from one country to another. That means, rather opposed.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[WOSG]

Pollaganda is easy ...
Asking only "la guerre, oui ou non?" is simplistic and sure to bias the poll against strong action when this is not just war or not, it is about what our policy is towards Iraq and what ends we desire.

tell me the polling answer to the question:

"Are you in favor or opposed to having the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein disarmed of weapons of mass destruction?"

The ask the question:
"What will be sufficient to disarm Iraq?
a) doing nothing b) sanctions and inspections
or c) military force or d) an 18th UN resolution on the matter"

Many want Iraq disarmed but fail to face the illogic of wanting something but not being willing to pay the price for it.

Then ask:
"Do you favor or oppose the liberation of Iraq and the replacement of Saddam Hussein's regime with a democratic one?"

then "how should this be achieved?"


Nobody wants war if we can avoid it. But we have war, we have violence, we have terrorism, started by Bin Laden and friends. And Saddam aids and abets those terrorists and have weapons of mass destruction that could make those terrorists an even larger danger. It cannot stand.

Now what is the polling on that argument?

[WOSG]

I suspect though the euro media is minimizing the threat of saddam and his terror links and maximizing the sinister depictions of American motives, misleading many European citizens into having a false view of the situation. Another way for polls to be lead in one direction.

I certainly observed this in the UK / BCC media and that's not as bad I suspect as French media on this.

JMHO.