U.S. 'was partly to blame' for terror attacks

Financial Times ^ | September 4, 2002 | Stacy Humes-Schulz

[profmike23]

A majority of Europeans think that US foreign policy is partially to blame for the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.

A survey of American and European attitudes towards foreign relations found that 55 per cent of respondents from six European countries agreed that US policy had contributed to the attacks.

The poll also found widespread public support within the US for an invasion of Iraq, with 75 per cent of American respondents in favour of using military force to overthrow Saddam Hussein and incite regime change.

But both European and American respondents were cautious about the US entering Iraq alone, with 65 per cent of Americans and 60 per cent of Europeans urging the US to gain allied support and approval from the United Nations.

A mere 10 per cent of Europeans would support US military action in Iraq without backing from the UN and allies.

The survey of 9,000 Europeans and Americans was jointly undertaken by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations (CCFR) and the German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF).

The findings also showed that terrorism is a concern for more Americans than Europeans, with 91 per cent of those polled in the US citing international terrorism as a critical threat and only 65 per cent of Europeans identifying it as extremely important.

"The tragedy of September 11 has created a seismic shift in US public attitudes about the world and America's place in it," said Marshall M. Bouton, president of CCFR.

But a majority of Americans, 52 per cent, think that the US should remain the only world superpower, while 65 per cent of Europeans said that the European Union should become a superpower similar to the US. Only 33 per cent of Americans agreed.

[weegee]

Ah but the appeasements enabled Hitler to continue. America's operations in other countries do not enable our enemies.

The poll has the respondents saying that America deserved it (at least in part) for what it was doing. We aggrivated our enemies.

Europeans sure did a lot to tick off the Germans, and Hitler in particular. This is the analogy that Europe deserved Hitler's early strikes; they were revenge for punishments Germany suffered after WWI.

Nothing justifies the actions.

[taxcontrol]

In politics (to borrow from Newton): For every action, there is a reaction.

I would also argue that to decide to do nothing or to give in to agression is to support that agression. I'm not opposed to your observation of Hitlers reaction to the oppressive settlement (Germany's view) of WWI.

It could be postulated that 'tit for tat' has been the rule of mankind from the begining.

[Big Mack]

Which Euroweenies did they ask? The ones whose a$$es we whipped, Or the ones whose a$$es we saved.