Europeans Support Bush?

Now this is an idea you wouldn't expect to hear these days. So what's going on?

President George W. Bush was in Vienna for an Annual Summit held with the European Union. Even though Europe has been consistently criticizing the United States about Iraq, it is kind of interested to see that President Bush was able to garner strong support regarding US policies on Iran and North Korea? At one point, President Bush snapped back at a reporter that made the claim that the US was the biggest threat to global security. According to the article, Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel stood up unexpectedly to argue against that same assertion:

"I think it's grotesque to say that America is a threat to the peace in the world compared with North Korea, Iran, a lot of countries," Schuessel said. Europe would not enjoy peace and prosperity if not for U.S. help after World War II, he said.

Before you start, I'll agree, the article makes it clear that there wasn't 100% support even from the Chancellor. Even he urged President Bush to remember that peace requires respecting personal rights, possibly referring to Guantanamo and other anti-terrorism activities.

So, why do I think the Europeans support President Bush and the United States' policies on Iran and North Korea? Proximity. Unlike Saddam Hussein in Iraq, who was under constant surveillance and was mostly contained, these two countries don't have a military presence from the United States right next door (i.e. Saudi Arabia) keeping a watch on things. Both of these countries are working toward full nuclear capabilities (don't tell me you believe Iran is only seeking to generate power) with at least one seeking to refine a delivery system.

Ok, so you have two countries with radical regimes developing their nuclear capabilities. The little tin horn dictator, Kim Jong II, in North Korea is just mad at the world. Events in the Middle East have taken what little focus there was on North Korea away. If NK refines a delivery system, he COULD lash out at the United States. I believe it would be more likely that NK will fire something off toward SK or somewhere in Western Europe because there is no missile defense in place to possibly (it still doesn't work well) thwart his one chance. Destabilization is what NK seeks. A single missile into a major European country would do that.

Iran on the other hand should be more concerning to Europeans. They have hundreds if not thousands of radical militant Muslims that would be willing to smuggle a nuclear weapon into Europe. As things stand now, we've had:

• Transit bombs in Spain
• Transit bombs in England
• Funding of terror in France
• Muslim riots in France

Could some of these be tests of the security measures currently in place? The attacks above killed roughly 250 people. How much worse would it be with a suitcase nuclear device? Even a nuclear suicide bomber? Dirty bomb?

Europe agrees with the US on Iran and North Korea because of proximity and vulnerability. Europe has huge populations of Muslims spread throughout the continent. Destruction could be imminent and horrible. Regardless of what European leaders say against the United States, I believe these same leaders recognize that a strong US military presence (like the one currently performing military exercises near Guam) is a good thing to keep the likes of Kim Jong II in check. Iraq wasn't an issue because Saddam and European countries like France were good business partners. But that's a topic for another post.

Now Playing: "Cry On My Shoulder" by Overflow

Technorati: Bush
Technorati: Iran
Technorati: North Korea