Are you kidding? At the last cup alone Nigeria, Algeria, North Korea, Honduras, Cameroon, New Zeland (though they did put up a good fight, but lost their own regional cup recently to Fiji!)... Even in terms of qualifying European teams there were the likes of Slovenia, Switzerland and Serbia none of who managed to qualify for the Euros.
So a team doesn't qualify so you say they suck? That's now how it works. FIFA's ranking system is so messed up that they get the seedings wrong and you'll get really weird seeds or strong teams in the same group. Just look at group A for the World Cup qualifiers. You have Belgium as the third seed, but they're ranked second lowest in the group, whereas Wales are ranked third highest but are the 6th seed.
Also, keep in mind that there are less spaces that there are less European spots in the World Cup than the Euros.
Sweden and Ireland are ranked higher than any Oceanic or Asian teams and only bested by the Ivory Coast in African teams. Ukraine are definitely on the up too, but then judging a competition by one of it's hosts is a bit harsh anyway, certainly not much worse a team than South Africa?
Are you seriously using FIFA's ranking as an argument? That ranking had England as 6th before the Euros, and they won't even drop out the top 10 with the way it works after it, and Netherlands couldn't even get a single point. You also seem to be forgetting Ghana did pretty well and only went out because Uruguay cheated.
You also forgot Japan in your little "all Asian teams suck" generalisation.
There is far more quality to the teams in a Euro than a world cup, at least in the group stages.
No there isn't.
To summarise, your argument hinges on FIFA's rankings which have proven to be incredibly flawed. Those rankings mean shit if you look beyond them and look at actual performances. Score lines don't tell you anything, and neither do rankings.
Blah blah blah
Are you making a point or just throwing Wikipedia at me?