{"article":{"id":10781,"heading":"In 32 of 35 Countries People Prefer Non-Military Approach","author":"Paul Rosenberg--Analysis Of Gallup Data","created":"2001-09-26 01:21:51","modified":"2005-08-15 00:39:24","last_modified":"Mon, 15 Aug 2005 07:39:24","article":"

World Opinion Poll\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\nWorld's People Say \"No\" To War<\/b>

\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n      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.

\r\n\r\n      In the US corporate media, virtually all discussion of responding to the \r\nterrorist attacks of September 11 is phrased in military terms. However, \r\nthere's another alternative: responding to it as what it actually is, a \r\ncrime against humanity. Taking the approach of international law has \r\nbarely been mentioned in the corporate media, yet 30% of Americans support \r\nthis option, compared to 54% who support a military response (with 16% undecided), according \r\nto a Gallup poll conducted last week.

\r\n\r\n      It seems quite likely that a \r\nmajority of Americans would<\/i> support the international law approach, \r\nif only they heard it talked about seriously, had it explained, and heard\r\nits pro's and con's contrasted with those of a military response. As it is,\r\nthe US is one of only 3 countries out of 35 surveyed by Gallup International\r\nin which more people favor a military approach. The other two, Israel and \r\nIndia, both have experienced decades of conflict with Islamic neighbors and\r\nare far more militaristic in their response.

\r\n\r\n      Elsewhere, landslide majorities favor a non-military approach.\r\nSupport for a non-military approach ranges from 67% to 88% among NATO\/Western\r\nEuropean nations, from 64% to 83% among Eastern European nations, and from\r\n83% to 94% in Latin America.

\r\n \r\n      This heald true even in countries with the highest levels of support for military action. \r\nIn Western Europe, France and the Netherlands \r\nshow the strongest support for a military approach, but this position is \r\noutnumbered by 2-to-1. In Eastern Europe, the 22%-64% breakdown in the \r\nCzech Republic is nearly 3-1 against a military response. In Latin America,\r\nEcuador's 19%-83% breakdown is over 4-1 against military action.

\r\n\r\n      In short, aside from the US, Israel and India, the overwhelming majority of\r\npeople around the world favor treating this terrorist act as the crime it is,\r\nrather than the act of war the terrorists want it to be.<\/b>

\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\r\n
\tMilitary Attack or Extradict Terrorists?\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/b><\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
\t1. 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?\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
\t \t<\/td>\tLaunch
Attack\t<\/td>		\tExtradite \/
Stand Trial\t<\/td>		\tDon't know \/
no answer\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
\tWESTERN EUROPE\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\r\n
 \tAustria\t<\/td>\t10\t<\/td>\t82\t<\/td>\t8\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tDenmark\t<\/td>\t20\t<\/td>\t74\t<\/td>\t6\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tFinland\t<\/td>\t14\t<\/td>\t82\t<\/td>\t4\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tFrance\t<\/td>\t29\t<\/td>\t67\t<\/td>\t4\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tGermany\t<\/td>\t17\t<\/td>\t77\t<\/td>\t6\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tGreece\t<\/td>\t6\t<\/td>\t88\t<\/td>\t6\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tItaly\t<\/td>\t21\t<\/td>\t71\t<\/td>\t8\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tLuxembourg\t<\/td>\t18\t<\/td>\t78\t<\/td>\t4\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tNetherlands\t<\/td>\t28\t<\/td>\t68\t<\/td>\t4\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tPortuigal\t<\/td>\t18\t<\/td>\t75\t<\/td>\t8\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tSpain\t<\/td>\t12\t<\/td>\t86\t<\/td>\t2\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tUK excl. NI\t<\/td>\t18\t<\/td>\t75\t<\/td>\t7\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tNorway\t<\/td>\t12\t<\/td>\t83\t<\/td>\t5\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\r\n
\tEASTERN EUROPE\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/b><\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tBosnia\t<\/td>\t14\t<\/td>\t80\t<\/td>\t6\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tBulgaria\t<\/td>\t19\t<\/td>\t66\t<\/td>\t15\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tCzech Rep\t<\/td>\t22\t<\/td>\t64\t<\/td>\t14\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tCroatia\t<\/td>\t8\t<\/td>\t82\t<\/td>\t10\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tEstonia\t<\/td>\t10\t<\/td>\t87\t<\/td>\t3\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tLatvia\t<\/td>\t21\t<\/td>\t64\t<\/td>\t15\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tLithuania\t<\/td>\t15\t<\/td>\t83\t<\/td>\t2\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tRomania\t<\/td>\t18\t<\/td>\t78\t<\/td>\t4\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\r\n
\tREST OF WORLD\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/b><\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tArgentina\t<\/td>\t8\t<\/td>\t84\t<\/td>\t8\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tColombia\t<\/td>\t11\t<\/td>\t85\t<\/td>\t4\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tEcuador\t<\/td>\t19\t<\/td>\t83\t<\/td>\t7\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tMexico\t<\/td>\t2\t<\/td>\t94\t<\/td>\t3\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tPanama\t<\/td>\t16\t<\/td>\t80\t<\/td>\t4\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tPeru\t<\/td>\t8\t<\/td>\t89\t<\/td>\t3\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tVenezuela\t<\/td>\t11\t<\/td>\t86\t<\/td>\t3\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tUSA\t<\/td>\t54\t<\/td>\t30\t<\/td>\t16\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tIndia\t<\/td>\t72\t<\/td>\t28\t<\/td>\t0\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tIsrael\t<\/td>\t77\t<\/td>\t19\t<\/td>\t4\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tKorea\t<\/td>\t38\t<\/td>\t54\t<\/td>\t9\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tPakistan\t<\/td>\t9\t<\/td>\t69\t<\/td>\t22\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tSouth Africa\t<\/td>\t18\t<\/td>\t75\t<\/td>\t7\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tZimbabwe\t<\/td>\t11\t<\/td>\t84\t<\/td>\t5\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n<\/b><\/td><\/tr><\/table>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\r\n
\r\nNo Civilian Targets<\/b>

\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n      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.\r\n\r\n<\/b>

\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\r\n
\tMilitary Targets Only?\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/b><\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
\t2. If the United States decides to launch an attack, should the American government attack military targets only or both military and civilian targets?\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
\t \t<\/td>\tMilitary
Targets
Only\t<\/td>		\tMilitary &
Civilian
Targets\t<\/td>		\tDon't know \/
no answer\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
\tWESTERN EUROPE\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\r\n
 \tAustria\t<\/td>\t82\t<\/td>\t5\t<\/td>\t13\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tDenmark\t<\/td>\t84\t<\/td>\t8\t<\/td>\t8\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tFinland\t<\/td>\t76\t<\/td>\t11\t<\/td>\t13\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tFrance\t<\/td>\t84\t<\/td>\t10\t<\/td>\t6\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tGermany\t<\/td>\t84\t<\/td>\t8\t<\/td>\t8\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tGreece\t<\/td>\t82\t<\/td>\t1\t<\/td>\t17\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tItaly\t<\/td>\t86\t<\/td>\t6\t<\/td>\t8\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tLuxembourg\t<\/td>\t82\t<\/td>\t9\t<\/td>\t9\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tNetherlands\t<\/td>\t68\t<\/td>\t29\t<\/td>\t12\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tPortuigal\t<\/td>\t74\t<\/td>\t19\t<\/td>\t16\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tSpain\t<\/td>\t84\t<\/td>\t6\t<\/td>\t10\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tUK excl. NI\t<\/td>\t84\t<\/td>\t8\t<\/td>\t8\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tNorway\t<\/td>\t86\t<\/td>\t7\t<\/td>\t7\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\r\n
\tEASTERN EUROPE\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/b><\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tBosnia\t<\/td>\t72\t<\/td>\t14\t<\/td>\t14\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tBulgaria\t<\/td>\t71\t<\/td>\t9\t<\/td>\t20\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tCzech Rep\t<\/td>\t75\t<\/td>\t13\t<\/td>\t12\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tCroatia\t<\/td>\t- \t<\/td>\t-\t<\/td>\t-\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tEstonia\t<\/td>\t88\t<\/td>\t4\t<\/td>\t8\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tLatvia\t<\/td>\t82\t<\/td>\t9\t<\/td>\t9\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tLithuania\t<\/td>\t73\t<\/td>\t11\t<\/td>\t16\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tRomania\t<\/td>\t85\t<\/td>\t6\t<\/td>\t9\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\r\n
\tREST OF WORLD\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/b><\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tArgentina\t<\/td>\t70\t<\/td>\t6\t<\/td>\t24\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tColombia\t<\/td>\t71\t<\/td>\t8\t<\/td>\t21\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tEcuador\t<\/td>\t74\t<\/td>\t26\t<\/td>\t0\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tMexico\t<\/td>\t73\t<\/td>\t11\t<\/td>\t16\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tPanama\t<\/td>\t62\t<\/td>\t29\t<\/td>\t9\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tPeru\t<\/td>\t66\t<\/td>\t11\t<\/td>\t23\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tVenezuela\t<\/td>\t81\t<\/td>\t8\t<\/td>\t11\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tUSA\t<\/td>\t56\t<\/td>\t28\t<\/td>\t16\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tIndia\t<\/td>\t76\t<\/td>\t22\t<\/td>\t2\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tIsrael\t<\/td>\t56\t<\/td>\t36\t<\/td>\t8\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tKorea\t<\/td>\t79\t<\/td>\t17\t<\/td>\t5\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tPakistan\t<\/td>\t55\t<\/td>\t2\t<\/td>\t43\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tSouth Africa\t<\/td>\t66\t<\/td>\t16\t<\/td>\t18\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tZimbabwe\t<\/td>\t79\t<\/td>\t18\t<\/td>\t11\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n<\/b><\/td><\/tr><\/table>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\r\n\r\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\r\n\r\nCoaxing Support<\/b>

\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n      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<\/i> join US military actions than should not.

\r\n\r\n      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<\/i> to doing nothing.

\r\n\r\n      Even so, in 19 countries more people said their country should not<\/i> join the US in military action.\r\n\r\n<\/b>

\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\r\n
\tShould Your Country
Take Part In Military Action?\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/b><\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
\t3. 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?\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
\t \t<\/td>\tShould
Take Part\t<\/td>		\tShouldn't
Take Part\t<\/td>		\tDon't know \/
no answer\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
\tWESTERN EUROPE\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\r\n
 \tAustria\t<\/td>\t14\t<\/td>\t82\t<\/td>\t4\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tDenmark\t<\/td>\t80\t<\/td>\t13\t<\/td>\t7\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tFinland\t<\/td>\t8\t<\/td>\t83\t<\/td>\t9\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tFrance\t<\/td>\t73\t<\/td>\t23\t<\/td>\t4\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tGermany\t<\/td>\t53\t<\/td>\t43\t<\/td>\t4\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tGreece\t<\/td>\t29\t<\/td>\t60\t<\/td>\t11\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tItaly\t<\/td>\t66\t<\/td>\t26\t<\/td>\t8\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tLuxembourg\t<\/td>\t74\t<\/td>\t18\t<\/td>\t8\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tNetherlands\t<\/td>\t66\t<\/td>\t20\t<\/td>\t14\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tPortuigal\t<\/td>\t70\t<\/td>\t23\t<\/td>\t7\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tSpain\t<\/td>\t58\t<\/td>\t37\t<\/td>\t5\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tUK excl. NI\t<\/td>\t79\t<\/td>\t12\t<\/td>\t9\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tNorway\t<\/td>\t58\t<\/td>\t32\t<\/td>\t10\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\r\n
\tEASTERN EUROPE\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/b><\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tBosnia\t<\/td>\t43\t<\/td>\t47\t<\/td>\t10\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tBulgaria\t<\/td>\t21\t<\/td>\t66\t<\/td>\t13\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tCzech Rep\t<\/td>\t55\t<\/td>\t34\t<\/td>\t11\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tCroatia\t<\/td>\t36\t<\/td>\t56\t<\/td>\t9\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tEstonia\t<\/td>\t38\t<\/td>\t53\t<\/td>\t9\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tLatvia\t<\/td>\t-\t<\/td>\t-\t<\/td>\t-\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tLithuania\t<\/td>\t41\t<\/td>\t49\t<\/td>\t10\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tRomania\t<\/td>\t40\t<\/td>\t52\t<\/td>\t8\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\r\n
\tREST OF WORLD\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/b><\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tArgentina\t<\/td>\t20\t<\/td>\t77\t<\/td>\t3\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tColombia\t<\/td>\t40\t<\/td>\t57\t<\/td>\t3\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tEcuador\t<\/td>\t35\t<\/td>\t64\t<\/td>\t1\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tMexico\t<\/td>\t21\t<\/td>\t78\t<\/td>\t1\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tPanama\t<\/td>\t20\t<\/td>\t75\t<\/td>\t5\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tPeru\t<\/td>\t46\t<\/td>\t52\t<\/td>\t2\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tVenezuela\t<\/td>\t6\t<\/td>\t91\t<\/td>\t3\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tUSA\t<\/td>\t-\t<\/td>\t-\t<\/td>\t-\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tIndia\t<\/td>\t86\t<\/td>\t8\t<\/td>\t6\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tIsrael\t<\/td>\t66\t<\/td>\t29\t<\/td>\t5\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tKorea\t<\/td>\t46\t<\/td>\t42\t<\/td>\t12\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tPakistan\t<\/td>\t32\t<\/td>\t62\t<\/td>\t6\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tSouth Africa\t<\/td>\t44\t<\/td>\t46\t<\/td>\t10\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tZimbabwe\t<\/td>\t27\t<\/td>\t69\t<\/td>\t4\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n<\/b><\/td><\/tr><\/table>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\r\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\r\n\r\nEconomic Crisis<\/b>

\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n      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.\r\n<\/b>

\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\r\n
\tLead to Global Economic Crisis?\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/b><\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
\t4. 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?\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
\t \t<\/td>\tLead to
Crisis\t<\/td>		\tNo Lasting
Effect\t<\/td>		\tDon't know \/
no answer\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
\tWESTERN EUROPE\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\r\n
 \tAustria\t<\/td>\t43\t<\/td>\t46\t<\/td>\t11\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tDenmark\t<\/td>\t35\t<\/td>\t52\t<\/td>\t13\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tFinland\t<\/td>\t19\t<\/td>\t60\t<\/td>\t21\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tFrance\t<\/td>\t46\t<\/td>\t49\t<\/td>\t5\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tGermany\t<\/td>\t48\t<\/td>\t53\t<\/td>\t7\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tGreece\t<\/td>\t75\t<\/td>\t16\t<\/td>\t9\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tItaly\t<\/td>\t59\t<\/td>\t33\t<\/td>\t8\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tLuxembourg\t<\/td>\t50\t<\/td>\t37\t<\/td>\t13\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tNetherlands\t<\/td>\t40\t<\/td>\t43\t<\/td>\t17\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tPortuigal\t<\/td>\t75\t<\/td>\t18\t<\/td>\t7\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tSpain\t<\/td>\t53\t<\/td>\t34\t<\/td>\t13\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tUK excl. NI\t<\/td>\t55\t<\/td>\t35\t<\/td>\t10\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tNorway\t<\/td>\t28\t<\/td>\t54\t<\/td>\t18\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\r\n
\tEASTERN EUROPE\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/b><\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tBosnia\t<\/td>\t53\t<\/td>\t35\t<\/td>\t12\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tBulgaria\t<\/td>\t42\t<\/td>\t33\t<\/td>\t25\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tCzech Rep\t<\/td>\t48\t<\/td>\t24\t<\/td>\t28\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tCroatia\t<\/td>\t66\t<\/td>\t22\t<\/td>\t12\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tEstonia\t<\/td>\t49\t<\/td>\t41\t<\/td>\t18\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tLatvia\t<\/td>\t-\t<\/td>\t-\t<\/td>\t-\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tLithuania\t<\/td>\t32\t<\/td>\t59\t<\/td>\t9\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tRomania\t<\/td>\t41\t<\/td>\t43\t<\/td>\t16\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\r\n
\tREST OF WORLD\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/b><\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tArgentina\t<\/td>\t70\t<\/td>\t23\t<\/td>\t7\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tColombia\t<\/td>\t81\t<\/td>\t18\t<\/td>\t1\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tEcuador\t<\/td>\t78\t<\/td>\t22\t<\/td>\t9\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tMexico\t<\/td>\t86\t<\/td>\t11\t<\/td>\t3\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tPanama\t<\/td>\t62\t<\/td>\t37\t<\/td>\t1\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tPeru\t<\/td>\t91\t<\/td>\t9\t<\/td>\t0\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tVenezuela\t<\/td>\t53\t<\/td>\t37\t<\/td>\t10\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tUSA\t<\/td>\t40\t<\/td>\t45\t<\/td>\t15\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tIndia\t<\/td>\t74\t<\/td>\t17\t<\/td>\t9\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tIsrael\t<\/td>\t43\t<\/td>\t48\t<\/td>\t9\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tKorea\t<\/td>\t82\t<\/td>\t14\t<\/td>\t4\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tPakistan\t<\/td>\t52\t<\/td>\t37\t<\/td>\t11\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tSouth Africa\t<\/td>\t68\t<\/td>\t24\t<\/td>\t8\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n
 \tZimbabwe\t<\/td>\t68\t<\/td>\t24\t<\/td>\t8\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\t\t\r\n<\/b><\/td><\/tr><\/table>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\r\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\r\n\r\nImpact of US Policy<\/b>

\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n      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.

\r\n      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.

\r\n      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.

\r\n      More Americans thought that it had a positive impact on America, but this amount--22%--was well short of a majority.

\r\n      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. \r\n<\/b>

\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\r\n
\tEffect Of US Policy On Your Country\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/b><\/td><\/tr>\t\r\n
\t5. 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 ?\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\r\n
\t \t<\/td>\tPositive
effect\t<\/td>		\tNegative
effect\t<\/td>		\tNo effect\t<\/td>\tDon't know \/
no answer\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\r\n
\tWESTERN EUROPE\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\r\n
 \tAustria\t<\/td>\t16\t<\/td>\t30\t<\/td>\t25\t<\/td>\t29\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\r\n
 \tDenmark\t<\/td>\t32\t<\/td>\t23\t<\/td>\t17\t<\/td>\t28\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\r\n
 \tFinland\t<\/td>\t13\t<\/td>\t18\t<\/td>\t42\t<\/td>\t27\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\r\n
 \tFrance\t<\/td>\t24\t<\/td>\t36\t<\/td>\t29\t<\/td>\t11\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\r\n
 \tGermany\t<\/td>\t37\t<\/td>\t34\t<\/td>\t19\t<\/td>\t18\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\r\n
 \tGreece\t<\/td>\t12\t<\/td>\t58\t<\/td>\t15\t<\/td>\t15\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\r\n
 \tItaly\t<\/td>\t47\t<\/td>\t24\t<\/td>\t10\t<\/td>\t19\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\r\n
 \tLuxembourg\t<\/td>\t40\t<\/td>\t11\t<\/td>\t27\t<\/td>\t22\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\r\n
 \tNetherlands\t<\/td>\t22\t<\/td>\t22\t<\/td>\t26\t<\/td>\t30\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\r\n
 \tPortuigal\t<\/td>\t40\t<\/td>\t25\t<\/td>\t0\t<\/td>\t35\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\r\n
 \tSpain\t<\/td>\t13\t<\/td>\t40\t<\/td>\t27\t<\/td>\t22\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\r\n
 \tUK excl. NI\t<\/td>\t43\t<\/td>\t20\t<\/td>\t15\t<\/td>\t22\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\r\n
 \tNorway\t<\/td>\t38\t<\/td>\t20\t<\/td>\t12\t<\/td>\t30\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\r\n
\tEASTERN EUROPE\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/b><\/td><\/tr>\t\r\n
 \tBosnia\t<\/td>\t41\t<\/td>\t32\t<\/td>\t16\t<\/td>\t11\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\r\n
 \tBulgaria\t<\/td>\t21\t<\/td>\t26\t<\/td>\t29\t<\/td>\t24\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\r\n
 \tCzech Rep\t<\/td>\t36\t<\/td>\t22\t<\/td>\t26\t<\/td>\t16\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\r\n
 \tCroatia\t<\/td>\t36\t<\/td>\t24\t<\/td>\t14\t<\/td>\t26\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\r\n
 \tEstonia\t<\/td>\t42\t<\/td>\t13\t<\/td>\t23\t<\/td>\t22\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\r\n
 \tLatvia\t<\/td>\t-\t<\/td>\t-\t<\/td>\t-\t<\/td>\t-\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\r\n
 \tLithuania\t<\/td>\t50\t<\/td>\t13\t<\/td>\t23\t<\/td>\t14\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\r\n
 \tRomania\t<\/td>\t34\t<\/td>\t26\t<\/td>\t24\t<\/td>\t16\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\r\n
\tREST OF WORLD\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/b><\/td><\/tr>\t\r\n
 \tArgentina\t<\/td>\t17\t<\/td>\t56\t<\/td>\t11\t<\/td>\t16\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\r\n
 \tColombia\t<\/td>\t41\t<\/td>\t36\t<\/td>\t17\t<\/td>\t7\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\r\n
 \tEcuador\t<\/td>\t38\t<\/td>\t40\t<\/td>\t22\t<\/td>\t0\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\r\n
 \tMexico\t<\/td>\t39\t<\/td>\t28\t<\/td>\t25\t<\/td>\t8\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\r\n
 \tPanama\t<\/td>\t-\t<\/td>\t-\t<\/td>\t-\t<\/td>\t-\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\r\n
 \tPeru\t<\/td>\t32\t<\/td>\t45\t<\/td>\t14\t<\/td>\t9\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\r\n
 \tVenezuela\t<\/td>\t23\t<\/td>\t43\t<\/td>\t15\t<\/td>\t19\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\r\n
 \tUSA\t<\/td>\t33\t<\/td>\t22\t<\/td>\t25\t<\/td>\t20\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\r\n
 \tIndia\t<\/td>\t8\t<\/td>\t54\t<\/td>\t20\t<\/td>\t18\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\r\n
 \tIsrael\t<\/td>\t61\t<\/td>\t20\t<\/td>\t9\t<\/td>\t10\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\r\n
 \tKorea\t<\/td>\t19\t<\/td>\t53\t<\/td>\t7\t<\/td>\t22\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\r\n
 \tPakistan\t<\/td>\t6\t<\/td>\t76\t<\/td>\t15\t<\/td>\t3\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\r\n
 \tSouth Africa\t<\/td>\t44\t<\/td>\t20\t<\/td>\t15\t<\/td>\t21\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\r\n
 \tZimbabwe\t<\/td>\t42\t<\/td>\t41\t<\/td>\t-\t<\/td>\t17\t<\/td><\/tr>\t\r\n<\/b><\/td><\/tr><\/table>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\nAll data from Gallup International.\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/b><\/td><\/tr>\r\n<\/table>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\n","contact":"rad@gte.net","link":"http:\/\/www.gallup-international.com\/terrorismpoll_figures.htm","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/html","summary":"A Gallup International poll finds that substantial majorities in 32 out of 35 countries favor a criminal justice response to the terrorist attack on America, rather than military action. Opposition to attacking civilians is even stronger. However, when asked if their country should join in US military action, supporters outnumber opponents in 14 countries. This forced-choice approach still left miliatry supporters outnumbered in 19 countries.","numcomment":20,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/2001\/09\/worldt0agfk.htm","filesize":"69.3 kibibytes","article_url":"\/news\/2001\/09\/10781.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[{"id":11431,"heading":"Flawed (?) Analysis Of Gallup Data","article":"\"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.","author":"Eid","parent_id":10781,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2001-10-09 13:53:54","modified":"2001-10-09 14:17:12","fileurl":""},{"id":11435,"heading":"extradition","article":"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.\r\ni 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.. ","author":"eleanor","parent_id":10781,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2001-10-09 14:17:11","modified":"2001-10-09 14:34:24","fileurl":""},{"id":11436,"heading":"extradition","article":"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.\r\ni 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.. ","author":"eleanor","parent_id":10781,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2001-10-09 14:17:19","modified":"2001-10-09 14:34:24","fileurl":""},{"id":11456,"heading":"So What?","article":"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.","author":"Nexus","parent_id":10781,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2001-10-09 16:44:10","modified":"2001-10-09 17:00:03","fileurl":""},{"id":11467,"heading":"us vs. who","article":"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.\r\n\r\nsadly, 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.\r\n\r\nwe must ask why the world hesitates to back us action. \r\n\r\ndo 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?\r\n\r\nwe 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. \r\n\r\nwhich \"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.? \r\n\r\n","author":"peacable","parent_id":10781,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2001-10-09 18:45:02","modified":"2001-10-09 18:59:07","fileurl":""},{"id":11495,"heading":"but it's the method of our attempts...","article":"Yeah, we've been trying to get the Taliban to hand over bin Laden, and they've refused.\r\n\r\nHowever, as I understand it, so far we've said \"hey, Taliban, give us bin Laden or you'll be sorry.\"\r\n\r\nWe have not, TTBOMK, done anything like present evidence before a world court and get that court to demand the delivery of bin Laden.","author":"Sean McGuire","parent_id":10781,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2001-10-10 00:33:47","modified":"2001-10-10 01:00:16","fileurl":""},{"id":11496,"heading":"permission and honesty","article":"\r\nI 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.\r\n<\/i>\r\n\r\nPerhaps that's true. However, we are claiming<\/em> 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.\r\n\r\nNow, 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.\"\r\n","author":"Sean McGuire","parent_id":10781,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2001-10-10 00:38:23","modified":"2001-10-10 01:00:16","fileurl":""},{"id":11497,"heading":"but it's the method of our attempts...","article":"Yeah, we've been trying to get the Taliban to hand over bin Laden, and they've refused.\r\n\r\nHowever, as I understand it, so far we've said \"hey, Taliban, give us bin Laden or you'll be sorry.\"\r\n\r\nWe have not, TTBOMK, done anything like present evidence before a world court and get that court to demand the delivery of bin Laden.","author":"Sean McGuire","parent_id":10781,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2001-10-10 00:38:44","modified":"2001-10-10 01:00:16","fileurl":""},{"id":11563,"heading":"An act of war?","article":"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.\r\nAn 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. \r\nAfghanistan 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.\r\nWe 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. \r\nMany 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.\r\n\r\n\r\n","author":"Rusty","parent_id":10781,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2001-10-10 23:27:26","modified":"2001-10-11 00:00:01","fileurl":""},{"id":11577,"heading":"Analysis by the Numbers","article":"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:\r\n\r\nQuestion #1. Military Attack or Extradite Terrorists?\r\nLaunch Attach = 1,041,259,242 people (46%)\r\nExtradite \/ Stand Trial = 1,084,656,472 people (48%)\r\nDon't Know \/ No Answer = 121,778,870 people (5%)\r\n\r\nQuestion #2. Military Targets Only?\t\t\r\nMilitary Targets Only = 1,632,871,533 people (73%)\r\nMilitary & Civilian Targets = 392,483,636 people (17%)\r\nDon't Know \/ No Answer = 220,990,369 people (10%)\r\n\r\nQuestion #3. Should Your Country Take Part in Military Action?\t\t\r\nShould Take Part = 1,301,469,560 people (66%)\r\nShouldn't Take Part = 547,351,249 people (28%)\r\nDon't Know \/ No Answer = 117,505,850 people (6%)\r\n\r\nQuestion #4. Lead to Global Economic Crisis?\t\t\r\nLead To Crisis = 1,451,220,974 people (64%)\r\nNo Lasting Effect = 590,889,247 people (26%)\r\nDon't Know \/ No Answer = 210,174,764 people (9%)\r\n\r\nQuestion #5. Effect Of U.S. Policy On Your Country\r\nPositive Effect = 441,483,057 people (20%)\r\nNegative Effect = 993,021,520 people (44%)\r\nNo Effect = 438,710,645 people (19%)\r\nDon't Know \/ No Answer = 376,826,672 people (17%)\r\n\r\nSeeing 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.","author":"Sarah","parent_id":10781,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2001-10-11 05:46:01","modified":"2001-10-11 06:00:02","fileurl":""},{"id":11609,"heading":"US credibility","article":"If the US really believes that one or few people are responsible for Sept 11, then\r\nthey 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.\r\n\r\nRevenge 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.\r\n\r\nIf 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.","author":"tom jennings","parent_id":10781,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2001-10-11 16:53:16","modified":"2001-10-11 17:18:35","fileurl":""},{"id":11665,"heading":"\"evildoers\"","article":"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! ","author":"Mamabahama","parent_id":10781,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2001-10-12 17:12:24","modified":"2001-10-12 17:26:10","fileurl":""},{"id":11771,"heading":"World Court","article":"\r\nI 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)","author":"matthew","parent_id":10781,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2001-10-14 12:07:35","modified":"2001-10-14 12:23:19","fileurl":""},{"id":11813,"heading":"Answer","article":"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)\r\n\r\n1. This was not a criminal act. It was an act of war.\r\n\r\n2. This attack was directed at the United States. Not any 'world' anything.\r\n\r\n3. The U.S. Constitution is the law of the land. No international organizations supersede it. \r\n\r\n4. We require no ones blessing or permission for self defense.","author":"Nexus","parent_id":10781,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2001-10-15 01:36:36","modified":"2001-10-15 01:53:35","fileurl":""},{"id":11861,"heading":"r u serious?","article":"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.","author":"noname","parent_id":10781,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2001-10-16 02:00:59","modified":"2001-10-16 02:13:34","fileurl":""},{"id":11879,"heading":"Still can't hear that moral imperative","article":"\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nRE - \"This attack was directed at the United States. Not any 'world' anything.\" \r\n\r\nThe 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. \r\n\r\nIt 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. \r\nHowever 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. \r\n\r\nThe 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? \r\nA 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. \r\n\r\nI 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.)\r\n\r\nAs 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. \r\n\r\nWhat 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.\r\n\r\nThere is no moral imperative with US foreign policy. \r\n","author":"matthew","parent_id":10781,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2001-10-16 06:40:00","modified":"2001-10-16 07:00:02","fileurl":""},{"id":11960,"heading":"What about China and Indonesia?","article":"\r\nI lived in China for about one year, and it would\r\nnot be presumptious for me to conjecture that\r\nthe vast majority of the Chinese people would\r\nsay the US should NOT launch military strikes.\r\n\r\nI would guess that between 80 and 90 per\r\ncent of the Chinese people would oppose\r\nUS strikes. There reasoning would be based\r\non a general perception that the US tends\r\nto intervene to often in the affairs of others,\r\ncreating pretexts for intervention. They would\r\nalso object to US military action in a nation\r\nwhich shares a border with China. Many other\r\nreasons, consistent with Chinese thinking could\r\nbe mentioned. \r\n\r\nChinese opposition overwhelms the support which US citizens\r\nand the people India might lend to the notion \r\nof a direct strike.\r\n\r\nAlso, it is noteworthy that Indonesia is not\r\nlisted in the survey. Indonesia is the most\r\npopulous Muslim nation on earth, and its\r\nlegitimate government was overthrown by\r\na US sponsored coup in the early 70's.\r\n\r\nThe anti-US government demonstrations in\r\nIndonesia have been THE MOST virulent in the\r\nworld. Americans are fleeing the country.\r\nThe US overseas school in Jakarta has been\r\nclosed down, and US businesses, esp. those\r\nwhich have employed sweatshop labor are\r\nclosing down, and moving to non-Muslim\r\ncountries.\r\n\r\nThe exclusion of China and Indonesia from\r\nthe survey throws it seriously off balance.\r\n\r\nThere should be little doubt that the vast\r\nmajority of the world's population is\r\nAGAINST the US decision to launch attacks.\r\n\r\nRead article 51 of the UN Charter, and you\r\nwill also see that the US does NOT have the\r\nlegal authority to attack Afghanistan, simply \r\nbecause it BELIEVES Bin Laden is the perpetrator.\r\n\r\nThe Charter clearly provides for involvement\r\nof the Security Coucil at this point, earlier \r\nin fact. The \"self-defense\" clause only \r\nprovides for an on-going attack, and even\r\nin the case of an on-going attack, the matter\r\nshould be brought to the attention of the \r\nSecurity Council as soon as is reasonably possible.\r\n\r\nIts been over a month, and the US has stated\r\nthat it WILL NOT bring the matter to the council.\r\n\r\nThe US is wreaking vengeance, not justice. The\r\nAfghan people, and not the perpetrators,\r\nare receiving the brunt. This is a crime against\r\nhumanity, in no way justified by the attacks \r\nof September 11. ","author":"al-Farabi","parent_id":10781,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2001-10-17 15:36:35","modified":"2001-10-17 16:00:03","fileurl":""},{"id":12167,"heading":"International court","article":"\r\nProblem 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. \r\n\r\nBoth sides are playing retarded games and trying to have it their way... none wish to come an agreement. When will our world learn?","author":"Caligula","parent_id":10781,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2001-10-23 01:49:36","modified":"2001-10-23 02:43:00","fileurl":""},{"id":12563,"heading":"should not kill innocent citizens","article":"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.","author":"birch","parent_id":10781,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2001-11-02 03:22:24","modified":"2001-11-02 03:54:51","fileurl":""},{"id":12564,"heading":"military targets only","article":"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.","author":"birch","parent_id":10781,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2001-11-02 03:26:50","modified":"2001-11-02 03:54:51","fileurl":""}]}