Britons see Bush as more dangerous than N. Korean leader.

[Phlegm]

From Reuters:

LONDON - The United States is seen as a threat to world peace by its closest neighbors and allies, with Britons saying President Bush poses a greater danger than North Korea’s Kim Jong Il, a survey found Friday.

A majority of people quizzed in three out of four countries polled also rejected the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

The findings came just days before the U.S. midterm congressional elections, with a growing number of U.S. voters wanting their troops in Iraq to be brought home.

Britain’s Guardian newspaper said it carried out the survey along with Israel’s Haaretz, La Presse and Toronto Star in Canada and Mexico’s Reforma.

In Britain, which alongside Israel is traditionally a close Washington ally, 69 percent of those questioned said they felt U.S. policy had made the world less safe since 2001.

A majority of Canadians and Mexicans agreed, with 62 percent of those polled in Canada and 57 percent in Mexico saying their neighbor’s policy had made the world more dangerous.

As for Israel, just 25 percent of people asked said Bush had made the world safer, while 36 percent felt he had upped the risk of conflict and a further 30 percent said at best he had made no difference.

Israelis alone were in favor of Bush’s decision to invade Iraq, with 59 percent for the war and 34 percent against.

The ratio was starkly different in the three other nations.

Some 89 percent of Mexicans felt the invasion to topple Saddam Hussein was unjustified, as did 73 percent of Canadians and 71 percent of Britons, the survey said.

The perceived failings of American foreign policy placed Bush alongside al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, North Korean leader Kim Jong Il and Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a cause of global anxiety, it said.

North Korea’s nuclear test last month drew worldwide condemnation, while Western powers are trying to force Iran to scale back atomic work they fear may be used to make bombs. Iran says its aims are purely peaceful.

Asked whether they thought the U.S. leader was a great or moderate danger to peace, 75 percent of British people said yes. Some 87 percent felt the same about bin Laden, while Kim scored 69 percent and Ahmadinejad clocked 62 percent.

Just 23 percent of Israelis said Bush he represented a serious danger, with 61 percent disagreeing.

ICM interviewed 1,010 adults from October 27-30 in Britain. Professional local opinion polling was used in the other three countries, the Guardian said. In Israel, 1,078 people were asked, 1,007 were quizzed in Canada and 1,010 in Mexico.

[Tikker]

quick hide the news from the bushites

[Spazz]

Well in a way they are right. What country has a rep for attacking other countries when it suits they fancy ?

[Diekan]

It's not so much the rep of attacking... it's his complete lack of willingness to deal, or participate in other means to deal with adversarial situations. In other words - his quick "fuck you's" to the world is what makes him dangerous - that and his stupidity.

[Lueyen]

Imagine that, fighting a war causes global anxiety. I guess terrorism causes less global anxiety, perhaps we should just accept a certain level of global anxiety due to terrorism and for go the increased levels that conflict and fighting will cause.

At least Mexico and Canda have an excuse for not realizing pacifistic attitudes do not work when dealing with extremists who want to rule the world, England however found it's self in a situation with very few local allies and an imminent threat of domination by a power seeking world domination less then a century ago, how quickly people forget.

It is a matter of perspective. Yes, in actively combating an enemy you are threatening peace. By this same perspective any country not rolling over and submitting to Nazi control in WWII was a threat to "peace".

[Narrock]

Don't forget that Bush went to the U.N. first before he deployed troops to Iraq. Hans Blix and the other U.N. retards basically told Bush to go pound sand. The U.N. is a total joke and is basically useless.

[Lueyen]

Don't forget that Bush went to the U.N. first before he deployed troops to Iraq. Hans Blix and the other U.N. retards basically told Bush to go pound sand. The U.N. is a total joke and is basically useless.

Ah yes the original basis for dubbing Iraq and illegal war, and worries that world opinion of the U.S. would take a hit due to us acting without U.N. approval. The argument that things were being handled by U.N. sanctions, the French and Russians chastising America for it's actions.

Then we find out the real motives behind the lack of support for our actions, the exploitation of the oil for food program involving not only powerful men within the governments of France and Russia, but also the U.N. director of the oil for food program. The results of these exploitations billions of dollars pouring into Sadam's government via foreign banks in yet another direct violation of the U.N. sanctions.

[Arlos]

The UN told us to pound sand because Blix reported that there was no evidence of WMDs, and thus our rationale for war was baseless. Guess what, they were fucking right. They were right to tell us that we were not within our rights to invade Iraq, because we weren't.

-Arlos

[Burgy99]

If we wanted to make a point about terrorism, why didn't we focus more on Afghanistan , the country that supposedly attacked us on 9/11, instead of starting a new war on Iraq. We can find Saddam hiding in an underground bunker, but we can't find Bin Laden, the "mastermind" behind 9/11. Iraq says they don't have WMDs. The UN says, Iraq does not have WMDs. Bush's regime PROMISES the American people, many times over, that they know for 100% sure that Iraq has WMDs. Ok, everything is said and done, Iraq does NOT, nor did they ever, have WMDs.

How can you people think Bush is such a holy man and godsend, when he lied about issues WAY worse than getting a blow job ?

How can you blindly follow some one that has their own personal agenda, and when facts are thrown your way proving they are lying or misleading, you continue to offer your support and praise, regardless of all the facts saying otherwise?

[Tikker]

Don't forget that Bush went to the U.N. first before he deployed troops to Iraq. Hans Blix and the other U.N. retards basically told Bush to go pound sand. The U.N. is a total joke and is basically useless.

Ah yes the original basis for dubbing Iraq and illegal war, and worries that world opinion of the U.S. would take a hit due to us acting without U.N. approval. The argument that things were being handled by U.N. sanctions, the French and Russians chastising America for it's actions.

Then we find out the real motives behind the lack of support for our actions, the exploitation of the oil for food program involving not only powerful men within the governments of France and Russia, but also the U.N. director of the oil for food program. The results of these exploitations billions of dollars pouring into Sadam's government via foreign banks in yet another direct violation of the U.N. sanctions.

you mean the US wanted the oil for themselves rather than let the french or russians have it

[Narrock]

Don't forget that Bush went to the U.N. first before he deployed troops to Iraq. Hans Blix and the other U.N. retards basically told Bush to go pound sand. The U.N. is a total joke and is basically useless.

Ah yes the original basis for dubbing Iraq and illegal war, and worries that world opinion of the U.S. would take a hit due to us acting without U.N. approval. The argument that things were being handled by U.N. sanctions, the French and Russians chastising America for it's actions.

Then we find out the real motives behind the lack of support for our actions, the exploitation of the oil for food program involving not only powerful men within the governments of France and Russia, but also the U.N. director of the oil for food program. The results of these exploitations billions of dollars pouring into Sadam's government via foreign banks in yet another direct violation of the U.N. sanctions.

you mean the US wanted the oil for themselves rather than let the french or russians have it

[Evermore]

If we wanted to make a point about terrorism, why didn't we focus more on Afghanistan , the country that supposedly attacked us on 9/11, instead of starting a new war on Iraq. We can find Saddam hiding in an underground bunker, but we can't find Bin Laden, the "mastermind" behind 9/11. Iraq says they don't have WMDs. The UN says, Iraq does not have WMDs. Bush's regime PROMISES the American people, many times over, that they know for 100% sure that Iraq has WMDs. Ok, everything is said and done, Iraq does NOT, nor did they ever, have WMDs.

How can you people think Bush is such a holy man and godsend, when he lied about issues WAY worse than getting a blow job ?

How can you blindly follow some one that has their own personal agenda, and when facts are thrown your way proving they are lying or misleading, you continue to offer your support and praise, regardless of all the facts saying otherwise?

I ask the same question