error

World's People Say "No" To War       A simultaneous international poll conducted by Gallup International provides a surprising picture of the world's people in substantial agreement with one another, while world leaders are distinctly out-of-step with a more militaristic attitude. Concerns about the economic future and the impact of US foreign policy were also investigated.       In the US corporate media, virtually all discussion of responding to the terrorist attacks of September 11 is phrased in military terms. However, there's another alternative: responding to it as what it actually is, a crime against humanity. Taking the approach of international law has barely been mentioned in the corporate media, yet 30% of Americans support this option, compared to 54% who support a military response (with 16% undecided), according to a Gallup poll conducted last week.       It seems quite likely that a majority of Americans would support the international law approach, if only they heard it talked about seriously, had it explained, and heard its pro's and con's contrasted with those of a military response. As it is, the US is one of only 3 countries out of 35 surveyed by Gallup International in which more people favor a military approach. The other two, Israel and India, both have experienced decades of conflict with Islamic neighbors and are far more militaristic in their response.       Elsewhere, landslide majorities favor a non-military approach. Support for a non-military approach ranges from 67% to 88% among NATO/Western European nations, from 64% to 83% among Eastern European nations, and from 83% to 94% in Latin America.       This heald true even in countries with the highest levels of support for military action. In Western Europe, France and the Netherlands show the strongest support for a military approach, but this position is outnumbered by 2-to-1. In Eastern Europe, the 22%-64% breakdown in the Czech Republic is nearly 3-1 against a military response. In Latin America, Ecuador's 19%-83% breakdown is over 4-1 against military action.       In short, aside from the US, Israel and India, the overwhelming majority of people around the world favor treating this terrorist act as the crime it is, rather than the act of war the terrorists want it to be. Military Attack or Extradict Terrorists? 1. In your opinion, once the identity of the terrorists is known, should the American government launch a military attack on the country or countries where the terrorists are based or should the American government seek to extradite the terrorists to stand trial?   Launch Attack Extradite / Stand Trial Don't know / no answer WESTERN EUROPE   Austria 10 82 8   Denmark 20 74 6   Finland 14 82 4   France 29 67 4   Germany 17 77 6   Greece 6 88 6   Italy 21 71 8   Luxembourg 18 78 4   Netherlands 28 68 4   Portuigal 18 75 8   Spain 12 86 2   UK excl. NI 18 75 7   Norway 12 83 5 EASTERN EUROPE   Bosnia 14 80 6   Bulgaria 19 66 15   Czech Rep 22 64 14   Croatia 8 82 10   Estonia 10 87 3   Latvia 21 64 15   Lithuania 15 83 2   Romania 18 78 4 REST OF WORLD   Argentina 8 84 8   Colombia 11 85 4   Ecuador 19 83 7   Mexico 2 94 3   Panama 16 80 4   Peru 8 89 3   Venezuela 11 86 3   USA 54 30 16   India 72 28 0   Israel 77 19 4   Korea 38 54 9   Pakistan 9 69 22   South Africa 18 75 7   Zimbabwe 11 84 5 No Civilian Targets       Opposition to targeting civilians was even more widespread. In no country did a majority of the population favor targeting civilians. The highest level of support for targeting civilians was 36% in Israel, the lowest was 1% in Greece. Military Targets Only? 2. If the United States decides to launch an attack, should the American government attack military targets only or both military and civilian targets?   Military Targets Only Military & Civilian Targets Don't know / no answer WESTERN EUROPE   Austria 82 5 13   Denmark 84 8 8   Finland 76 11 13   France 84 10 6   Germany 84 8 8   Greece 82 1 17   Italy 86 6 8   Luxembourg 82 9 9   Netherlands 68 29 12   Portuigal 74 19 16   Spain 84 6 10   UK excl. NI 84 8 8   Norway 86 7 7 EASTERN EUROPE   Bosnia 72 14 14   Bulgaria 71 9 20   Czech Rep 75 13 12   Croatia - - -   Estonia 88 4 8   Latvia 82 9 9   Lithuania 73 11 16   Romania 85 6 9 REST OF WORLD   Argentina 70 6 24   Colombia 71 8 21   Ecuador 74 26 0   Mexico 73 11 16   Panama 62 29 9   Peru 66 11 23   Venezuela 81 8 11   USA 56 28 16   India 76 22 2   Israel 56 36 8   Korea 79 17 5   Pakistan 55 2 43   South Africa 66 16 18   Zimbabwe 79 18 11 Coaxing Support       The highest levels of support for military action came from framing the question in terms of having one's country join with the US. In fourteen nations more people said their country should join US military actions than should not.       By eliminating the option of joining in some other sort of action, questions posed in this manner are expected to raise the level of support by recruiting support from people who would prefer another option, but more strongly prefer doing something to doing nothing.       Even so, in 19 countries more people said their country should not join the US in military action. Should Your Country Take Part In Military Action? 3. Some countries and all NATO member states have agreed to participate in any military action against the terrorists responsible for the attacks or against those countries harboring the terrorists. Do you agree or disagree that should take part in military actions against terrorists with the United States?   Should Take Part Shouldn't Take Part Don't know / no answer WESTERN EUROPE   Austria 14 82 4   Denmark 80 13 7   Finland 8 83 9   France 73 23 4   Germany 53 43 4   Greece 29 60 11   Italy 66 26 8   Luxembourg 74 18 8   Netherlands 66 20 14   Portuigal 70 23 7   Spain 58 37 5   UK excl. NI 79 12 9   Norway 58 32 10 EASTERN EUROPE   Bosnia 43 47 10   Bulgaria 21 66 13   Czech Rep 55 34 11   Croatia 36 56 9   Estonia 38 53 9   Latvia - - -   Lithuania 41 49 10   Romania 40 52 8 REST OF WORLD   Argentina 20 77 3   Colombia 40 57 3   Ecuador 35 64 1   Mexico 21 78 1   Panama 20 75 5   Peru 46 52 2   Venezuela 6 91 3   USA - - -   India 86 8 6   Israel 66 29 5   Korea 46 42 12   Pakistan 32 62 6   South Africa 44 46 10   Zimbabwe 27 69 4 Economic Crisis       Many people were obviously concerned about the possibility of an economic crisis being triggered by the terrorist attacks. Concern was generally higher among the poorer, less developed nations. Lead to Global Economic Crisis? 4. Do you think the terrorist events in the United States will lead to a global economic crisis or do you think these events will have no lasting effect on the global economy?   Lead to Crisis No Lasting Effect Don't know / no answer WESTERN EUROPE   Austria 43 46 11   Denmark 35 52 13   Finland 19 60 21   France 46 49 5   Germany 48 53 7   Greece 75 16 9   Italy 59 33 8   Luxembourg 50 37 13   Netherlands 40 43 17   Portuigal 75 18 7   Spain 53 34 13   UK excl. NI 55 35 10   Norway 28 54 18 EASTERN EUROPE   Bosnia 53 35 12   Bulgaria 42 33 25   Czech Rep 48 24 28   Croatia 66 22 12   Estonia 49 41 18   Latvia - - -   Lithuania 32 59 9   Romania 41 43 16 REST OF WORLD   Argentina 70 23 7   Colombia 81 18 1   Ecuador 78 22 9   Mexico 86 11 3   Panama 62 37 1   Peru 91 9 0   Venezuela 53 37 10   USA 40 45 15   India 74 17 9   Israel 43 48 9   Korea 82 14 4   Pakistan 52 37 11   South Africa 68 24 8   Zimbabwe 68 24 8 Impact of US Policy       In Eastern Europe, more people thought US policy had a positive impact in 6 countries, while more people thought it had a negative impact in just one country. However, outside of Eastern Europe, attitudes toward the impact of US foreign policy is decidedly mixed.       In Western Europe, more people thought US policy had a positive impact in 7 countries, while more people thought it had a negative impact in 5.       In Latin America, more people thought US policy had a positive impact in 2 countries, while more people thought it had a negative impact in 4.       More Americans thought that it had a positive impact on America, but this amount--22%--was well short of a majority.       In the rest of the world, more people thought US policy had a positive impact in 3 countries, while more people thought it had a negative impact in 3. Effect Of US Policy On Your Country 5. Some say American foreign policy has contributed to this terrorism against the United States. Generally, do you think American foreign policy has a positive effect on , a negative effect or does American foreign policy have no effect on ?   Positive effect Negative effect No effect Don't know / no answer WESTERN EUROPE   Austria 16 30 25 29   Denmark 32 23 17 28   Finland 13 18 42 27   France 24 36 29 11   Germany 37 34 19 18   Greece 12 58 15 15   Italy 47 24 10 19   Luxembourg 40 11 27 22   Netherlands 22 22 26 30   Portuigal 40 25 0 35   Spain 13 40 27 22   UK excl. NI 43 20 15 22   Norway 38 20 12 30 EASTERN EUROPE   Bosnia 41 32 16 11   Bulgaria 21 26 29 24   Czech Rep 36 22 26 16   Croatia 36 24 14 26   Estonia 42 13 23 22   Latvia - - - -   Lithuania 50 13 23 14   Romania 34 26 24 16 REST OF WORLD   Argentina 17 56 11 16   Colombia 41 36 17 7   Ecuador 38 40 22 0   Mexico 39 28 25 8   Panama - - - -   Peru 32 45 14 9   Venezuela 23 43 15 19   USA 33 22 25 20   India 8 54 20 18   Israel 61 20 9 10   Korea 19 53 7 22   Pakistan 6 76 15 3   South Africa 44 20 15 21   Zimbabwe 42 41 - 17 All data from Gallup International.

"In 32 of 35 Countries People Prefer Non-Military Approach". Got bias? Gee... 32 against 3? What doesn't seem to be a focus of your 'analysis' is that, I believe, the population of 2 out of the 3 (India and the US) is similar to, if not FAR exceeding, the combined populations of the other 32 countries polled. For a organization that claims to be a champion of democratic principles, you seem ready and willing to distort the wishes of the overall masses as long as it meets your needs. Organizations like the 'conservative' NewsMax and 'progressive' Indymedia dig up some great info, but it's hard to give them credibility when then engage in such petty distortions like the one I've brought up.

while i stand amongst those who are against the current wave of military attacks, i am somewhat troubled by your presentation of the poll. It seems to me that the US government has already been trying to extradite Bin Laden for 4 weeks, and that the Taliban has simply refused. Indeed, even Pakistan, the Taliban's strongest supporter, urged its leaders to hand over Bin Laden, but with no success. Also, it is important to note that Bin Laden has already been implicated in 3 other terrorist attacks, for which he should also stand trial.
i am firmly against violence, which i believe will only produce more violence, but i think its also important to present the facts as they truly are..

while i stand amongst those who are against the current wave of military attacks, i am somewhat troubled by your presentation of the poll. It seems to me that the US government has already been trying to extradite Bin Laden for 4 weeks, and that the Taliban has simply refused. Indeed, even Pakistan, the Taliban's strongest supporter, urged its leaders to hand over Bin Laden, but with no success. Also, it is important to note that Bin Laden has already been implicated in 3 other terrorist attacks, for which he should also stand trial.
i am firmly against violence, which i believe will only produce more violence, but i think its also important to present the facts as they truly are..

I don't give a damn what the rest of the world wants or thinks. This attack was an act of war against the United States and we are responding in kind. We do not need the rest of the worlds blessing or permission to defend ourselves.

While aggregate population counts on one side or the other may be meaningless, it is crucial that the united states have a meaningful worldwide consensus right now. clearly the administration has spent time and energy on building that consensus in the past 4 weeks.

sadly, however, decades of hostile and arrogant us policy will not be forgotten, nor will the wounds of our much discussed covert and overt military action heal in four weeks. the truth is that the united states has failed to form a worldwide consensus. this poll is valuable in explaining that reponse. the president is lying.

we must ask why the world hesitates to back us action.

do we really have the right to expect our "right" to vengeance to overwhelm all the other concerns of governments, militaries, and civilians all over the entire world? what is the realistic outcome of that kind of thinking? will we use force "put down" the concerns and reistance of the entire world?

we have failed to convince the world of the justice of our foreign policy and desires for war. it isn't that the rest of the world cannot understand our grief and anger at our loss, i think it understands better than we could imagine.

which "evildoers" will the u.s. target? how long must every sovereign human on the planet side with the u.s. or against the u.s.?

Yeah, we've been trying to get the Taliban to hand over bin Laden, and they've refused.

However, as I understand it, so far we've said "hey, Taliban, give us bin Laden or you'll be sorry."

We have not, TTBOMK, done anything like present evidence before a world court and get that court to demand the delivery of bin Laden.

I don't give a damn what the rest of the world wants or thinks. ... We do not need the rest of the worlds blessing or permission to defend ourselves.


Perhaps that's true. However, we are claiming to have the world's blessing. If it's irrelevant, let's shut up about it. If we're going to make claims about it, let's make only those claims that are true.

Now, I don't know if we should say "the majority of the world's population saysthis is a bad idea, so we don't have their blessings", or "the majority of leaders are with us, so we do have the world's blessings."

Yeah, we've been trying to get the Taliban to hand over bin Laden, and they've refused.

However, as I understand it, so far we've said "hey, Taliban, give us bin Laden or you'll be sorry."

We have not, TTBOMK, done anything like present evidence before a world court and get that court to demand the delivery of bin Laden.

I am not certain that a small faction of militant extremeists can actually commit an act of war. War is the exclusive province of the State.
An example, if a group of Americans for whatever reason, attacked Cananda and caused enormous harm there, many would argue that their actions did not constitute an act of war since they are not part of our military or government.
Afghanistan has no love for the US but, the possibility that Afghani militants attacked the US does not mean that the Afghan govt is responsible for their actions, even if they were happy with them.
We chose to interpret an act of violent terrorism as an act of war. It is nessecary to maintain a distinction between the actions of the citizens of a country and the actions of it's government.
Many people in the world are capable of making this distinction, which is why Americans are not killed on sight by the peoples of Guatemala, El Salvador, Vietnam, Russia, Nicaragua, etc, when we travel there.

I went to the CIA's site which has estimated population stats current as of July 2001. Using this data and the %'s in each category, it shows that the's world's people are divided nearly 50/50 on whether there should be a military or non-military approach to this injustice. Here's what the numbers say:

Question #1. Military Attack or Extradite Terrorists?
Launch Attach = 1,041,259,242 people (46%)
Extradite / Stand Trial = 1,084,656,472 people (48%)
Don't Know / No Answer = 121,778,870 people (5%)

Question #2. Military Targets Only?
Military Targets Only = 1,632,871,533 people (73%)
Military & Civilian Targets = 392,483,636 people (17%)
Don't Know / No Answer = 220,990,369 people (10%)

Question #3. Should Your Country Take Part in Military Action?
Should Take Part = 1,301,469,560 people (66%)
Shouldn't Take Part = 547,351,249 people (28%)
Don't Know / No Answer = 117,505,850 people (6%)

Question #4. Lead to Global Economic Crisis?
Lead To Crisis = 1,451,220,974 people (64%)
No Lasting Effect = 590,889,247 people (26%)
Don't Know / No Answer = 210,174,764 people (9%)

Question #5. Effect Of U.S. Policy On Your Country
Positive Effect = 441,483,057 people (20%)
Negative Effect = 993,021,520 people (44%)
No Effect = 438,710,645 people (19%)
Don't Know / No Answer = 376,826,672 people (17%)

Seeing the data in this form still shows me that the world's people are not overwhelmingly supportive of a military attack. I would also say that seeing the data in the format shown is helpful. Sheer numbers are not the only thing that matters. Seeing where a country and an area stand are also very helpful. To me, the numbers say the U.S. government should look at how its treatment of the rest of the world causes the rest of the world to react to it, especially given that 44% of the world's people feel that U.S. policy has a negative effect on them.

If the US really believes that one or few people are responsible for Sept 11, then
they could claim way big street cred by following the example of Israel's handling of ex-WWII Nazi's -- paramilitary kidnappings of alleged and well-known war criminals from un-cooperative states, for the sole purpose of BRINGING THEM TO TRIAL IN A WORLD COURT.

Revenge is for stupid people. A major reason for a genuine trial is DOCUMENTATION DOCUMENTATION DOCUMENTATION. The perpetrator gets to tell their side -- not necessarily for anyone to agree with, but to hear the reasoning, or lack thereof, for the historical record. Evidence is introduced, which also becomes public record. This is all generally recognized as a good thing, and if Americans really value the good parts of our system, then we'll apply it here.

If the US simply kills bin Laden, assuming he's culpable here, then we'll never know anything beyond propaganda (their lies) and public information (our lies), and civilization (however you define it) loses.

The rest of the world realizes the US military and the CIA is responsible for much of the evildoing around the world - hell, Kissinger alone is responsible for more deaths world- wide than Bin-Laden. Imagine Chile, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and East Timor launching a military strike in order to capture him! Wouldn't that be a kick!

I have heard only one person in this forum refer to a World Court - i.e that very simple and good idea to have an international institution that can try offenders such as the terrorist groups that attacked and destroyed the World Trade Centre on 11th Sept. If one person can indicate to me a plausible reason for America turning down this suggestion then I would then take any 'moral' principle seriously., (apart from the fact that it has been involved itself in mass crime over the last century, continues to be involved to this day, and doesn't want its own war criminals tried justly)

I have heard only one person in this forum refer to a World Court - i.e that very simple and good idea to have an international institution that can try offenders such as the terrorist groups that attacked and destroyed the World Trade Centre on 11th Sept. If one person can indicate to me a plausible reason for America turning down this suggestion then I would then take any 'moral' principle seriously., (apart from the fact that it has been involved itself in mass crime over the last century, continues to be involved to this day, and doesn't want its own war criminals tried justly)

1. This was not a criminal act. It was an act of war.

2. This attack was directed at the United States. Not any 'world' anything.

3. The U.S. Constitution is the law of the land. No international organizations supersede it.

4. We require no ones blessing or permission for self defense.

please do yourself a favor and take a few history courses, political science courses, and some economy courses before you open your mouth again. may the universe forgive you for your complete and total ignorance.

RE - "This attack was directed at the United States. Not any 'world' anything."

The whole point of the idea of a World Court was to side-step the 'it's our business' defence of serious human rights abuses, torture, mass murders, and other atrocities. To prevent countries and governments using the 'it's our business who we torture, maim and kill because it's not a 'world' thing' excuse for their crimes. The idea of international concensus would ensure that one person or country's political and strategic ambitions wouldn't be seen to affect and twist this international justice.

It is without a doubt that in such a Court the overwhelming majority would be in favour for the trying and punishment of the leaders and main players of Sept 11th's atrocities.
However the problem for America is that it has also, and continues to have, a huge catalogue of equally horrendous crimes that have been taking place over the last century, in fact since the birth of the country. In Chile, in 1973 to quote just one example, America helped organise, finance and arm a mass-murderer, merely because it was uncomfortable with the socialist leanings of the newly elected government. This involved in just one instance the single crime of herding 5000 ordinary citizens into a stadium and slaughtering them, an event more than comparable to the events of Sept 11th.

The problem here is applying your 'this is not a world thing' idea. All very well when you are the most powerful military country in the world, but what was an ordinary Chilean to do in this situation, or the elected government, of whom the leader was brutally murdered, for that matter?
A similar example exists in the US financed genocide of the East Timorese in the last quarter century. The answer is that IF (and here I think we differ), IF we operate on a moral principle, we would regard all human suffering as appalling and would vote for an operative World system that provides weaker countries access to justice.

I think in your last two points the absence of any moral imperative is clear. The fact that the no international law supersedes the US constitution is exactly that, a fact. That doesn't necessarily make it right or moral. (not to mention the fact that throughout history although US sovereignty is sacroscant, other lands such as Vietnam, Panama and Iraq seem to have to forget about theirs when the US so wills it.)

As is clear with your final words ('we require no one's blessing or permission for self defence') morality has long since retreated from the equation. Quite apart from the fact that the US seems not to need anyone else's permission for ANY action (see example above) self-defence or not.

What we have here is very simple. It's a playground with the law of the biggest bully getting their way. Not to diminish the horror of any of these actions including 11th Sept, and I do feel horror (in equal measures), but figuratively the only thing different with recent events is that the bully got violence back in their face.

There is no moral imperative with US foreign policy.

I lived in China for about one year, and it would
not be presumptious for me to conjecture that
the vast majority of the Chinese people would
say the US should NOT launch military strikes.

I would guess that between 80 and 90 per
cent of the Chinese people would oppose
US strikes. There reasoning would be based
on a general perception that the US tends
to intervene to often in the affairs of others,
creating pretexts for intervention. They would
also object to US military action in a nation
which shares a border with China. Many other
reasons, consistent with Chinese thinking could
be mentioned.

Chinese opposition overwhelms the support which US citizens
and the people India might lend to the notion
of a direct strike.

Also, it is noteworthy that Indonesia is not
listed in the survey. Indonesia is the most
populous Muslim nation on earth, and its
legitimate government was overthrown by
a US sponsored coup in the early 70's.

The anti-US government demonstrations in
Indonesia have been THE MOST virulent in the
world. Americans are fleeing the country.
The US overseas school in Jakarta has been
closed down, and US businesses, esp. those
which have employed sweatshop labor are
closing down, and moving to non-Muslim
countries.

The exclusion of China and Indonesia from
the survey throws it seriously off balance.

There should be little doubt that the vast
majority of the world's population is
AGAINST the US decision to launch attacks.

Read article 51 of the UN Charter, and you
will also see that the US does NOT have the
legal authority to attack Afghanistan, simply
because it BELIEVES Bin Laden is the perpetrator.

The Charter clearly provides for involvement
of the Security Coucil at this point, earlier
in fact. The "self-defense" clause only
provides for an on-going attack, and even
in the case of an on-going attack, the matter
should be brought to the attention of the
Security Council as soon as is reasonably possible.

Its been over a month, and the US has stated
that it WILL NOT bring the matter to the council.

The US is wreaking vengeance, not justice. The
Afghan people, and not the perpetrators,
are receiving the brunt. This is a crime against
humanity, in no way justified by the attacks
of September 11.

Problem is, in order to trial Bin Laden in an international court, the US and the Taliban would have to establish diplomtic ties - something that they havent done.

Both sides are playing retarded games and trying to have it their way... none wish to come an agreement. When will our world learn?

I believe that America should seek some sort of revenge but not at the loss of innocent citizens. Vengence should be taken out on the taliban and Osama Bin Laden but in a strategized way. Killing innocent people will cause more anger and hatred toward the U.S.

Without knowing where Osama Bin Laden is then the only thing left is to try and weeken the taliban, until there is nothing left. It would not be right to attack civilian homes, just military spots.