West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: Woodrow on November 17, 2003, 08:59:03 PM
-
Protests begin but majority backs Bush visit as support for war surges
Alan Travis and David Gow
Tuesday November 18, 2003
The Guardian
A majority of Labour voters welcome President George Bush's state visit to Britain which starts today, according to November's Guardian/ICM opinion poll.
The survey shows that public opinion in Britain is overwhelmingly pro-American with 62% of voters believing that the US is "generally speaking a force for good, not evil, in the world". It explodes the conventional political wisdom at Westminster that Mr Bush's visit will prove damaging to Tony Blair. Only 15% of British voters agree with the idea that America is the "evil empire" in the world.
Mr Blair insisted last night that he had made the right decision in inviting Mr Bush to Britain as an unprecedented security operation got under way to prepare for his arrival today. More than 14,000 police officers at a cost of £5m will be on duty during the four-day visit, with tens of thousands of anti-war protesters are expected to take to the streets.
The ICM poll also uncovers a surge in pro-war sentiment in the past two months as suicide bombers have stepped up their attacks on western targets and troops in Iraq. Opposition to the war has slumped by 12 points since September to only 41% of all voters. At the same time those who believe the war was justified has jumped 9 points to 47% of voters.
This swing in the mood of British voters is echoed in the poll's finding that two-thirds of voters believe British and American troops should not pull out of Iraq now but instead stay until the situation is "more stable".
It also may explain the beginnings of a recovery in Tony Blair's personal ratings in this month's Guardian poll. He still remains an unpopular prime minister with 52% unhappy with the job he is doing, compared with 40% who say they are satisfied with his performance. But the prime minister's net popularity rating of minus 12 points is a significant improvement over last month's net rating of minus 18 points.
The detailed results of the poll show that more people - 43% - say they welcome George Bush's arrival in Britain than the 36% who say they would prefer he did not come.
Labour voters are more enthusiastic about the visit than Tory voters. But it is only Liberal Democrats who are marginally more unhappy about his arrival, with 43% against and 39% willing to welcome him. A majority of "twentysomethings" welcome Mr Bush. Hostility is strongest amongst the over-65s. There is a clear gender gap in attitudes with a majority of men - 51% - welcoming the president's arrival, compared with only 35% of women.
Pro-Americanism, as might be expected, is strongest among Tory voters with 71% saying the US is a force for good. But it is nearly matched by the 66% of Labour voters who say the US is a force for good. Anti-Americanism is strongest among Liberal Democrat voters but is still only shared by 24% of them and the majority see the US as the "good guys".
Mr Blair told the CBI national conference in Birmingham yesterday of his support for the war on terrorism, saying: "Now is not the time to waver but see it through."
In unscripted remarks, he said the weekend terrorist bombings in Turkey, the recent attacks in Saudi Arabia and continuing bombings in Iraq, meant Britain should "stand firm with the United States of America in defeating terrorism wherever it is and delivering us safely from what I genuinely believe is the security threat of the 21st century".
But Mr Blair made plain he completely backed the EU's stance against the US over illegal tariffs on steel imports, insisting that Washington must now respond to the World Trade Organisation ruling: "There will be from time to time these disagreements on issues to do with trade and we must stick very firmly to our position."
The prime minister also reaffirmed his vision of Britain as a bridge between the US and Europe.
"I firmly believe we have two big foreign policy pillars, the US alliance and our position in the EU. There's absolutely no reason to yield up either and we will not," he said to loud applause.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1087545,00.html
-
Of course most people support Bush & the War. Truth wins out everytime. Just imagine if the people of the world had all the information the british and american governments have found out about the situation, but had to keep classified. The numbers would be more like 90%.
-
Of course most people support Bush & the War. Truth wins out everytime. Just imagine if the people of the world had all the information the british and american governments have found out about the situation, but had to keep classified. The numbers would be more like 90%.
Of course; maybe even 99%. It's not like the U.S. government ever lies or uses bullshit to cover up the truth. Of course we don't care about Iraqi oil. Kissinger's words were just a slip of the tongue. ::)
-
Of course most people support Bush & the War. Truth wins out everytime. Just imagine if the people of the world had all the information the british and american governments have found out about the situation, but had to keep classified. The numbers would be more like 90%.
Of course; maybe even 99%. It's not like the U.S. government ever lies or uses bullshit to cover up the truth. Of course we don't care about Iraqi oil. Kissinger's words were just a slip of the tongue. ::)
silly camel , tricks are for kids.
-
Of course most people support Bush & the War. Truth wins out everytime. Just imagine if the people of the world had all the information the british and american governments have found out about the situation, but had to keep classified. The numbers would be more like 90%.
Of course; maybe even 99%. It's not like the U.S. government ever lies or uses bullshit to cover up the truth. Of course we don't care about Iraqi oil. Kissinger's words were just a slip of the tongue. ::)
silly camel , tricks are for kids.
Silly beaner, school has more to it than just a cafeteria
-
interesting
"This swing in the mood of British voters is echoed in the poll's finding that two-thirds of voters believe British and American troops should not pull out of Iraq now but instead stay until the situation is "more stable". "
thatsa very true statement.. both sides of the argument agree that should be the case...
-
I saw this last night, that 62% welcome bush. But they also noted in the bulletin that the poll of 17th Nov, ONE day before, stated that over 60% opposed the war in iraq and bush. Im starting to think these polls aren't that reliable, i mean there was hardly such a swing overnight??? I believe from the continuing polls and reports that a small majority oppose bush and the war, but that is still a HUGE number of people. Most protests constitute a very small minority but this is obviously something much greater.
And trauma, your posts are becoming more and more like cwalker....the truth will win out?? The truth about what? Reasons for going to war?
-
i think the polls are misleading because of the follwing.
does everyone here agree with the war as a whle.. NO, we shouldnt have gone.
does every here agree that we should leave iraq? NO, we went and fucked it up so we should sort it out.
agreed?
-
interesting
"This swing in the mood of British voters is echoed in the poll's finding that two-thirds of voters believe British and American troops should not pull out of Iraq now but instead stay until the situation is "more stable". "
thatsa very true statement.. both sides of the argument agree that should be the case...
in America, no. We still have millions of people that still think we should leave Iraq. Why? Because their hatred for George Bush is so strong they won't agree with anything he does, so him being in Iraq means they automatically oppose it. It proves to me, that this subset of people (liberals) doesn't give a shit about common sense, they are only thinking politically, like always.
-
so how does that biased/hating opinion compare to what i said i think this country generally feels about the iraqi situation?
-
You asked if everybody agreed we should stay in Iraq. I answered, No, everybody does not agree that, and then gave my analysis of why. I, Like you, can not understand why people want to cut and run after we've bombed the shit out of some other country.
-
ok.. i dont think now we're there many brits want us to leave, if it means leaving iraq in a bad situation.. but many rather we hadnt gone in the first place. i think people would be ok with leaving if they knew the US or UN was going to handle the responsibility.
-
I can't see Bush turning our troops over to the U.N. anymore, we should pullout and let the place fall apart (the U.N.). They're inept, they passed 16 resolutions on Iraq violating the peace agreement they signed with us, and then refused to back us breaking the peace agreement. They're useless, they have no power, and I wish we would just ignore them.
-
i was really just mentionin the UN from the perspective of not wanting to leave the iraqi people high and dry after mashing on saddam..
-
Yeah, that's true, but the U.N. is afraid of violence, they have pulled all of their 'peace' workers out of Iraq until it calms down a little bit.
-
I reckon the states and england should stay in iraq to rebuild the mess, but I think there needs to be an independent organisation to oversee the awarding of contracts etc, to make sure bush's mates dont take over the oil and shit. I dont believe withdrawing will help at all however as the country is a complete mess and needs the us army because they fucked out the old police. If the us and britain want legitimacy doing this they need to un or some body to oversee it all, and in that situation, where there is a multilateral leadership, should extra troops be sent in to calm the situation. Would you agree this is the best way forward??
-
No. The reason we re-started this war (from 91) is that Saddam was becoming a threat to us, and had openly sympathized with Bin Ladin. He refused to comply with the U.N. resolutions, 16 different times. He also, according to reports from both the Clinton and Bush administration, was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, which were clearly in violation of the 16 U.N. Resolutions. The U.N. knew this, that's why they repeatedly passed resolutions warning Iraq of consequences. Unfortunately, the U.N. wouldn't enforce their own resolutions, so we had to take out the treat to our country on our own. (with England and Australia's help). The threat has been eradicated, but with thousands of troops still in the country, we can't subordinate our army to a governing body other than the United States. It's a security issue, the U.N. has spent 12 years proving they are inept, why would we let them govern our troops?
Moot point anyways: Bush has announced he will turn Iraq over to the Iraqi government by July of 2004.
-
Which I might add, is just in time for election. LOL Bush is gonna be unstoppable Nov. 2004.
-
Trauma did you also know that we could'v finished the job in 91 but Bush pulled out. The generals told him that with 2 more days, they could capture Baghdad and bring Saddam down. Bush said "no, pull out".
Did you also know that we put Saddam in power?
We supported him with weapons, financially,etc?
We kept supporting him until he places Iraqi oil under Iraqi control?
Then we say "he's a tyrant, he's evil, he's this and that" when he has been like that since he got there. Yet, we didn't say shit then. Why? Oh yea, the oil.
Did you also know that we secured the oil fields within the first week this time?
If you don't believe me, I'm sure you believe your trusting, honest US government; Kissinger: "OIL IS TOO IMPORTANT A COMMODITY TO BE IN THE HANDS OF THE ARABS". You want the reason of why we're always involved in Middle Eastern affairs... THERE IT IS BITCH
-
I dont want to delve back into the war argument again trauma, but I think had the UN wanted to intervene it could have done the job. The fact was it was america pushing for this war and america who ultimately undermined the UN. If there was a case for invasion it would be in places like the Congo where 4MILLION people have died in the recent wars. I agree Iraq had a brutal regime but there was no threat to america from such a regime, and iraq had not launched an attack so I dont agree with that argument.
I do however understand your argument that when having so many troops in iraq it would not be viable to hand them over to a foreign body to control. I think if this was to happen, it would have to be part of a package where more international troops were deployed.
The area I was talking about in terms of an "overseer" is the administration, awarding of contracts and rebuilding work, as I think this lacks legitimacy. While america perhaps controlls the troops, I think it would be more beneficial to have an open and transparent development programme. (BTW i would feel the same reservations about unilateralism if it involved france, or germany etc etc, not just america)
-
interesting
"This swing in the mood of British voters is echoed in the poll's finding that two-thirds of voters believe British and American troops should not pull out of Iraq now but instead stay until the situation is "more stable". "
thatsa very true statement.. both sides of the argument agree that should be the case...
in America, no. We still have millions of people that still think we should leave Iraq. Why? Because their hatred for George Bush is so strong they won't agree with anything he does, so him being in Iraq means they automatically oppose it. It proves to me, that this subset of people (liberals) doesn't give a shit about common sense, they are only thinking politically, like always.
*head explodes from the irony of Trauma's posts*
-
interesting
"This swing in the mood of British voters is echoed in the poll's finding that two-thirds of voters believe British and American troops should not pull out of Iraq now but instead stay until the situation is "more stable". "
thatsa very true statement.. both sides of the argument agree that should be the case...
in America, no. We still have millions of people that still think we should leave Iraq. Why? Because their hatred for George Bush is so strong they won't agree with anything he does, so him being in Iraq means they automatically oppose it. It proves to me, that this subset of people (liberals) doesn't give a shit about common sense, they are only thinking politically, like always.
*head explodes from the irony of Trauma's posts*
Heads cannot explode as a result of irony.