Majority of French Would Back Iran Strike

If you’re the type to put faith into polls, then this is very interesting.

Apparently, even the French would support military action against Iran rather than allow them to aquire nuclear capabilities. Of course the majority of Germany still thinks it’s better to allow Iran to have nukes than support military action.

However, the key phrase in this article being “last resort”. We all know that everones idea of last resort can be wildly different.

Interesting.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060906/pl_nm/eu_usa_poll_dc

French, Americans would back strike on Iran: poll

By Paul Taylor, European Affairs Editor
Wed Sep 6, 11:39 AM ET

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Most French and Americans would support military action against Iran as a last resort if other means fail to stop it acquiring nuclear weapons, a major transatlantic opinion survey showed on Wednesday.

But among Germans polled, more said they would accept Iran getting the atom bomb rather than using force if diplomacy or sanctions do not work.

The annual Transatlantic Trends survey found that while Europeans’ views of U.S. foreign policy have turned even more negative in the last year, the two sides of the Atlantic share broadly similar perceptions of the threats to their security.

Despite closer U.S.-EU cooperation at government level on issues ranging from Iran’s nuclear program to Afghanistan and the Middle East, most voters on both sides of the Atlantic feel relations have either turned worse or stayed the same.

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried told reporters in Berlin the findings showed that both Americans and Europeans saw Iran’s nuclear ambitions as a serious problem.

“I don’t see these high numbers as indicative of a European desire to support military attacks on Iran,” he said.

“I regard them much more simply, as an expression of determination that Iran not get away with it.”

The poll, conducted in June, also showed a profound shift in Turkish public opinion away from the West and toward sympathy with Iran, partly reflecting a decline of support for Turkey’s bid to join the European Union among both Turks and Europeans.

The study, conducted for the German Marshall Fund of the United States, found European disapproval of President George W. Bush’s conduct of foreign policy has risen to 76 percent, the highest in five years, while only 18 percent support it.

NO BOUNCE

“The interesting question is why, when official relations have got better in last two years, there is no bounce in public opinion,” said Ron Asmus, director of the German Marshall Fund’s Transatlantic Center think-tank in Brussels.

“There has been a rapprochement between policy elites but it hasn’t produced visible breakthroughs or solved any big problems together that people register,” he said.

Most worrying for Washington was that public support for U.S. global leadership has eroded even in traditional allies such as Britain, the Netherlands and Germany, Asmus said.

A parallel survey of European Parliament members and European Commission officials, conducted by the Italian think-tank Compagnia di San Paolo, found they were much more supportive of U.S. leadership although they too disapproved overwhelmingly of Bush’s handling of international policies.

They were also more inclined to accept a nuclear-armed Iran ultimately rather than to use force but many were ambivalent.

Asked about threats, Europeans and Americans agree that terrorism is the greatest danger facing the world in the next 10 years, closely followed by the risk of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and by radical Islamic fundamentalism.

They also share similar views on the limits to restricting civil liberties to combat terrorism. But while Europeans tend to fear global warming more, Americans are more concerned about the spread of disease and the rising power of China.

On Iran, 96 percent of Americans and 85 percent of Europeans see the possibility of Tehran becoming a nuclear power as a very important or somewhat important threat.

Asked the best way to avert the risk, 45 percent in Europe and 28 percent of Americans favored incentives while 36 percent of Americans and 28 percent of Europeans backed sanctions.

Only a handful in either the United States or Europe cited supporting opposition groups, while 15 percent of Americans and 6 percent of Europeans see military action as the best way.

However, when asked what should happen if non-military measures failed to stop Tehran acquiring atomic weapons, 53 percent of Americans and 43 percent of Europeans supported taking military action rather than accepting a nuclear Iran.

In France, the figure was 54 percent. In Germany, 40 percent supported military action but 46 percent said it would be better to let Iran acquire nuclear arms.

The TNS Opinion poll was conducted in the United States and 12 European countries on June 6-24 among samples of about 1,000 men and women aged 18 and older in each country. The margin of error was plus/minus 3 percentage points.

“Even the French”

What do you know about the French, or are you one of those sheeples who rebabble the common prejudges?

[quote]Ken Kaniff wrote:
“Even the French”

What do you know about the French, or are you one of those sheeples who rebabble the common prejudges?[/quote]

I assume by prejudges you mean prejudices, and given France’s opposition to the Iraq War is he wrong to be prejudiced as to their attitude towards Iran?

Or are you just being overly sensitive to stereotypes? Had he said ‘Even the French support military action against Iran, even if it means surrendering…’ you might have a leg to stand on.

[quote]Ken Kaniff wrote:
“Even the French”

What do you know about the French, or are you one of those sheeples who rebabble the common prejudges?[/quote]

Ken,

I believe you’re misinterpreting my posting of this article as a slam on the French. That is not what I intended. I posted the article because I thought it was interesting due to the positions recently held by the French w/r/t military action in the middle east.

Do you not think that the majority of the French backing a strike against Iran is remarkable? IMO it is.

When considering the geopolitics of the past ten years, to say “even the French” is quite appropriate I do believe.

Two things surprised me;

I’ll admit to not having been abroad in quite awhile, but 18% approval? Wow.

This made me wonder about the survey, peoples’ top three concerns in the next 10 yrs. are Terrorism, Atomic Iran, and Radical Fundamentalism? What were four, five, and six? Unstable religious-based governments, militant attacks on civilians by civilians for socio-political gain, and random increases in weapons capabilities of foreign nations?

It doesn’t state if the French approve military action by French forces.

Americans would correctly assume that US forces would take the military action against Iran. My guess is the French assume the same thing.

The French built Saddam’s nuclear reactor that Isreal bombed before it was complete. Isreal did the right thing.

Either France wanted to keep doing business with Saddam and/or they knew invading Iraq would be a cluster F.

At the end of the day they were not incorrect about what would happen but their intentions were/are more than questionable.

Diplomacy rarely works. Glad the French recognize this fact.

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
The French built Saddam’s nuclear reactor that Isreal bombed before it was complete. Isreal did the right thing.

Either France wanted to keep doing business with Saddam and/or they knew invading Iraq would be a cluster F.

At the end of the day they were not in correct about what would happen but their intentions were/are more than questionable.[/quote]

The facts show France (and Belgium and Germany) were right in opposing the war.

Bush was wrong.

All the rest is crap and spin.

Wreckless give me a break. The French didn’t help in Iraq cause they were worried about their pocketbooks instead of admiting their connections. And it was damn good the Israelis bombed the reactor. Saddam+nuclear wepons= WWIII. Aparrently Iranian presdent is coming to speak at the UN. In which case I actively promote a HIT operation be carried out on him and top ranking officials.

[quote]blck1jack wrote:
Wreckless give me a break. The French didn’t help in Iraq cause they were worried about their pocketbooks instead of admiting their connections.[/quote]

Absolutely.

Wreckless, I’m interested in hearing your response to this statement. But I suspect that your response will be loaded with nothing but spin.

Maybe you’ll suprise me.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

Maybe you’ll suprise me.[/quote]

While we wait, let’s read about Belgian foreign policy, which includes getting steamrolled by whoever is nearby, collaborating with nazis, and this:

"Overview:
Time Location Perpetrators Victims Number of victims
1885 to 1912 Congo Free State, now renamed The Democratic Republic of the Congo King Leopold II of Belgium and his colonial administration Most of the Congolese population Unknown. Estimates range from 3 million for part of the genocide to 30 million.

Quotations:
“Our only program, I am anxious to repeat, is the work of moral and material regeneration, and we must do this among a population whose degeneration in its inherited conditions it is difficult to measure. The many horrors and atrocities which disgrace humanity give way little by little before our intervention.” King L?opold II of Belgium. 1
“…his early dreams faded away to be replaced by unscrupulous cupidity, and step by step he was led downwards until he, the man of holy aspirations in 1885, stands now in 1909 with such a cloud of terrible direct personal responsibility resting upon him as no man in modern European history has had to bear.” Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, commenting on King L?opold II’s crimes against humanity. 1
“There are times, young fellah, when every one of us must make a stand for human right and justice, or you never feel clean again.” Lord John Roxton, a character in The Lost World by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Roxton was based on the life of Roger Casement, a leader of the Congo Free State reform campaign. 2

L?opold II’s personal kingdom:
King L?opold II (1835 - 1909) occupied the Belgium throne from 1865 until his death in 1909. Outside of Belgium, however, he is chiefly remembered as the personal owner of the Congo Free State. This was a private project undertaken by the King to extract rubber and ivory from his personal colony, relying on slavery. He was ultimately responsible for the death of possibly tens of millions of Africans. 3

L?opold fervently believed that overseas colonies were the key to a country’s greatness, and worked tirelessly to acquire colonial territory for Belgium. However, neither the Belgian people nor the Belgian government were interested, and L?opold eventually began trying to acquire a colony in his private capacity as an ordinary citizen.

After a number of unsuccessful schemes for colonies in Africa or Asia, in 1876 he organized a private holding company, Association Internationale Africaine, which was disguised as an international scientific and philanthropic association. In 1879, under the auspices of the holding company, he hired the famous explorer Henry Morton Stanley to establish a colony in the Congo region. Stanley gained control of the area from local chiefs through “cloth and trinket” treaties. The chiefs thought that they were signing friendship treaties; in fact, they were selling their land. Much diplomatic and economic maneuvering resulted in the Berlin Conference of 1884-5, at which representatives of 14 European countries and the United States recognized L?opold as sovereign of most of the area he and Stanley had laid claim to. On 1885-FEB-05, the result was the Congo Free State (later the Belgian Congo, then Zaire, and now the Democratic Republic of Congo). At 905,000 square miles, (2.344 million km2), it was an area 76 times larger than Belgium, which L?opold was free to rule as a personal domain. He became sole ruler of a population that Stanley had estimated at 30 million people, without constitution, without international supervision, without ever having been to the Congo, and without more than a tiny handful of his new subjects having heard of him.

The genocide, mutilations and other crimes against humanity:
Under L?opold II’s administration, the Congo Free State was subject to a terror regime, including atrocities such as mass killings and maimings which were used to subjugate the indigenous tribes of the Congo region and to procure slave labor.

He set in train a brutal colonial regime to maximize profitability. The first change was the introduction of the concept of terres vacantes ? “vacant” land, which was anything that no European was living on. This was deemed to belong to the state, and servants of the state (i.e., any white men in L?opold’s employ) were encouraged to exploit it.

Next, the Free State was divided into two economic zones: the Free Trade Zone was open to entrepreneurs of any European nation, who were allowed to buy 10 and 15-year monopoly leases on anything of value: ivory from a particular district, or the rubber concession, for example. The other zone ? almost two-thirds of the Congo ? became the Domaine Priv?: the exclusive private property of the State, which was in turn the personal property of King L?opold.

Natives were required to provide State officials with set quotas of rubber and ivory at a fixed, government-mandated price, to provide food to the local post, and to provide 10% of their number as full-time forced laborers ? slaves in all but name ? and another 25% part-time.

To enforce the rubber quotas, the Force Publique (FP) was called in. The FP was an army whose purpose was to terrorize the local population. The officers were white agents of the State. Of the black soldiers, many were cannibals from the most fierce tribes from upper Congo. Others had been kidnapped during the raids on villages in their childhood and brought to Catholic missions, when they received a military training in conditions close to slavery. Armed with modern weapons and the chicotte ? a bull whip made of hippopotamus hide ? the Force Publique routinely took and tortured hostages (mostly women), flogged, and raped the natives. They also burned recalcitrant villages, and above all, took human hands as trophies on the orders of white officers to show that bullets hadn’t been wasted.

One junior white officer described a raid to punish a village that had protested. The white officer in command: “ordered us to cut off the heads of the men and hang them on the village palisades, also their sexual members, and to hang the women and the children on the palisade in the form of a cross.” After seeing a native killed for the first time, a Danish missionary wrote: “The soldier said ‘Don’t take this to heart so much. They kill us if we don’t bring the rubber. The Commissioner has promised us if we have plenty of hands he will shorten our service’.” In the words of author Peter Forbath’s: “The baskets of severed hands, set down at the feet of the European post commanders, became the symbol of the Congo Free State. … The collection of hands became an end in itself. Force Publique soldiers brought them to the stations in place of rubber; they even went out to harvest them instead of rubber… They became a sort of currency. They came to be used to make up for shortfalls in rubber quotas, to replace… the people who were demanded for the forced labour gangs; and the Force Publique soldiers were paid their bonuses on the basis of how many hands they collected.”

In theory, each right hand proved a judicial murder. In practice, soldiers sometimes “cheated” by simply cutting off the hand and leaving the victim to live or die. More than a few survivors later said that they had lived through a massacre by acting dead, not moving even when their hand was severed, and waiting till the soldiers left before seeking help.

To visit the country was difficult. Missionaries were allowed only on sufferance, and mostly only if they were Belgian Catholics who L?opold could keep quiet. White employees were forbidden to leave the country. Nevertheless, rumors circulated and L?opold ran an enormous publicity campaign to discredit them, even creating a bogus Commission for the Protection of the Natives to root out the “few isolated instances” of abuse. Publishers were bribed, critics accused of running secret campaigns to further other nations’ colonial ambitions, eyewitness reports from missionaries dismissed as attempts by Protestants to smear honest Catholic priests. And for a decade or more, L?opold was successful. The secret was out, but few believed it.

Eventually, the most telling blows came from a most unexpected source. Edmund Dene Morel, a clerk in a major Liverpool shipping office and a part-time journalist began to wonder why the ships that brought vast loads of rubber from the Congo returned full of guns and ammunition for the Force Publique. He left his job and became a full-time investigative journalist, and then (aided by merchants who wanted to break into L?opold’s monopoly or, as chocolate millionaire William Cadbury who joined his campaign later, used their money to support humanitarian causes), a publisher. In 1902 Joseph Conrad’s novel Heart of Darkness was released: based on his brief experience as a steamer captain on the Congo ten years before, it encapsulated the public’s growing concerns about what was happening in the Congo. In 1903 Morel and those who agreed with him in the House of Commons succeeded in passing a resolution which called on the British government to conduct an inquiry into alleged violations of the Berlin Agreement. In 1904, Sir Roger Casement, then the British Consul, delivered a long, detailed eyewitness report which was made public. The British Congo Reform Association, founded by Morel with Casement’s support, demanded action. The United States and many European nations followed suit. The British Parliament demanded a meeting of the 14 signatory powers to review the 1885 Berlin Agreement. The Belgian Parliament, pushed by socialist leader Emile Vandervelde and other critics of the King’s Congolese policy, forced L?opold to set up an independent commission of enquiry, and despite the King’s efforts, in 1905 it confirmed Casement’s report in every damning detail.

L?opold offered to reform his regime, but few took him seriously. All nations were now agreed that the King’s rule must be ended as soon as possible. No nation was willing to take on the responsibility, and it was not seriously considered to return control of the land back to the native population. Belgium was the obvious European candidate to run the Congo, but the Belgians were still unwilling. For two years Belgium debated the question and held fresh elections on the issue; meanwhile L?opold opportunistically enlarged the Domaine de la Couronne so as to milk the last possible ounce of personal profit while he could.

Finally, on 1908-NOV-15, four years after the Casement Report and six years after Heart of Darkness was first printed, the Parliament of Belgium annexed the Congo Free State and took over its administration. However, the international scrutiny was no major loss to L?opold or the concessionary companies in the Belgian Congo. By then, Southeast Asia and Latin America had become lower-cost producers of rubber. Along with the effects of resource depletion in the Congo, international commodity prices had fallen to a level that rendered Congolese extraction unprofitable. The state took over L?opold’s private dominion and bailed out the company, but the rubber boom was already over.

Author Conan Doyle met Morel in 1909 and was inspired to write The Crime of the Congo – a book which he finished in eight days. It is “filled with graphic descriptions of violence and illustrated with photos of mutilated people, dealt with the atrocities committed in the Belgian Congo on behalf of King Leopold II.” He later campaigned for and end to the atrocities in the Congo.

The situation in the Congo finally improved. However, the territory given the ironic title of Congo Free State is now ironically titled The Democratic Republic of the Congo. Much of the instability of the present country can be traced to the atrocities of L?opold II.

The death toll:
Estimates of the total death toll vary considerably. The massive reduction of the population of the Congo was noted by all who have compared the country at the beginning of the colonial rule and the beginning of the 20th century . Estimates of observers of the time, as well as modern scholars (most authoritatively Jan Vansina, professor emeritus of history and anthropology at the University of Wisconsin), show that the population halved during this period. According to Roger Casement’s report, this depopulation was caused mainly by four causes: indiscriminate “war”, starvation, reduction of births and diseases. Sleeping sickness ravaged the country and was used by the regime to justify demographic decrease. Opponents of King L?opold’s rule concluded that the administration itself was to be considered responsible for the spreading of this dreadful epidemic. One of the greatest specialists of sleeping sickness, P.G.Janssens, Professeur ?m?rite de l?Universit? de Gand, blamed “…the brutal change of ancestral conditions and ways of life that has accompanied the accelerated occupation of the territories.”

In the absence of a census (the first was made in 1924), it’s even more difficult to quantify the population loss of the period.

British diplomat Roger Casement’s famous 1904 report estimated the death toll at 3 million for just twelve of the twenty years history of L?opold’s regime.
Investigative reporter and author Peter Forbath estimated at least 5 million deaths.
Adam Hochschild, estimated 10 million.
The Encyclop?dia Britannica gives a total population decline of 8 million to 30 million.

L?opold II’s reputation today:
In the Democratic Republic of Congo: L?opold II is still a controversial figure. In 2005 his statue was taken down just hours after it was re-erected in the capital, Kinshasa. The Congolese culture minister, Christoph Muzungu decided to reinstate the statue, arguing people should see the positive aspects of the king as well as the negative. But just hours after the six-metre (20 ft.) statue was erected in the middle of a circle near Kinshasa’s central station, it was taken down again, without explanation.
In Belgium: L?opold II is perceived by many Belgians as the “King-Builder” (“le Roi-B?tisseur” in French, “Koning-Bouwer” in Dutch) because he commissioned a great number of buildings and urban projects in Antwerp, Brussels, Ostend and elsewhere in Belgium. The buildings include the Royal Glasshouses at Laeken, the Japanese tower, the Chinese pavilion, the Mus?e du Congo (now called the Royal Museum for Central Africa) and their surrounding park in Tervuren, the Jubilee Triple Arch in Brussels and the Antwerp train station hall. He funded these buildings with the wealth generated by the exploitation of the Congo.

There has been a “Great Forgetting”, as Adam Hochschild describes in his book King Leopold’s Ghost: “The Congo offer a striking example of the politics of forgetting. Leopold and the Belgian colonial officials who followed him went to extraordinary lengths to try to erase potentially incriminating evidence from the historical records.”

Remarkably the colonial Royal Museum for Central Africa (Tervuren Museum) does not mention anything at all about the atrocities committed in the Congo Free State. The Tervuren Museum has a large collection of colonial objects but of the largest injustice in Congo, Hochschild wrote: “there is no sign whatsoever.” Another example is to be found on the sea walk of Blankenberge, a popular coastal resort, where a monument shows a colonialist with a black child at his feet (supposedly bringing him “civilization”) without any comment. "

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
blck1jack wrote:
Wreckless give me a break. The French didn’t help in Iraq cause they were worried about their pocketbooks instead of admiting their connections.

Absolutely.

Wreckless, I’m interested in hearing your response to this statement. But I suspect that your response will be loaded with nothing but spin.

Maybe you’ll suprise me.[/quote]

He never surprises me.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
blck1jack wrote:
Wreckless give me a break. The French didn’t help in Iraq cause they were worried about their pocketbooks instead of admiting their connections.

Absolutely.

Wreckless, I’m interested in hearing your response to this statement. But I suspect that your response will be loaded with nothing but spin.

Maybe you’ll suprise me.[/quote]

He never surprises me.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
blck1jack wrote:
Wreckless give me a break. The French didn’t help in Iraq cause they were worried about their pocketbooks instead of admiting their connections.

Absolutely.

Wreckless, I’m interested in hearing your response to this statement. But I suspect that your response will be loaded with nothing but spin.

Maybe you’ll suprise me.

He never surprises me.

[/quote]

You can say that again!

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
blck1jack wrote:
Wreckless give me a break. The French didn’t help in Iraq cause they were worried about their pocketbooks instead of admiting their connections.

Absolutely.

Wreckless, I’m interested in hearing your response to this statement. But I suspect that your response will be loaded with nothing but spin.

Maybe you’ll suprise me.

He never surprises me.

[/quote]

You can say that…nevermind.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
The French built Saddam’s nuclear reactor that Isreal bombed before it was complete. Isreal did the right thing.

Either France wanted to keep doing business with Saddam and/or they knew invading Iraq would be a cluster F.

At the end of the day they were not in correct about what would happen but their intentions were/are more than questionable.

The facts show France (and Belgium and Germany) were right in opposing the war.

Bush was wrong.

All the rest is crap and spin.[/quote]

You need to crap and spin.

There’s an amusing poem or song somewhere about the severed hands of Leopolds victims haunting him in hell although I can never remember where I read it. That aside, what in the hell does Belgian colonial history have to do with anything? If we were talking about political and social conditions in the DRC then it could be relevant, but this?

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
blck1jack wrote:
Wreckless give me a break. The French didn’t help in Iraq cause they were worried about their pocketbooks instead of admiting their connections.
[/quote]

Thats typical right-wing bull. The idea that the semi-socialist French goverment has its foreign policy dictated by a few corporations, whose investments in Iraq were btw absolutely insignificant, is moronically.

After all the France and Germany were part of the 1991 coalition, with French troops taking part in first line combat.

The reason for not beeing part of the 03 Iraq war was because that war was wrong. And in every major country of the “coalition of the willing”, the majority of the population regrets getting into this adventure. Its the sole reason why Tony Blair will resign next year despite his successful domestic policy.

[quote]etaco wrote:
There’s an amusing poem or song somewhere about the severed hands of Leopolds victims haunting him in hell although I can never remember where I read it. That aside, what in the hell does Belgian colonial history have to do with anything? If we were talking about political and social conditions in the DRC then it could be relevant, but this?[/quote]

Exactly. You could just as easily toss our genocide against the Indians against us. What is the fucking point?