Most intelligent Australians and Britons now support the war. - Page 2

Odin · March 24, 2003, 23:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
But rabbits are defeating the Aussies on the home front!

Alexander's Horse · March 24, 2003, 23:10

Hey! we have a pet rabbit.

ravagon · March 24, 2003, 23:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Are you Aussies/Kiwis more concerned about Cricket, Rugby or Soccer ?

This depends strictly on whom exactly you ask and upon which sport they happen to ascendency at the time.

ie: Kiwi's are more concerned about rugby, Australians about cricket and neither about soccer because teams from both countries are pretty much cr*p.

Lincoln · March 25, 2003, 00:08

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

And I'm banning people for trolling, nationalist insults, provacations and general incivility.

What? Does this mean the end of Apolyton as we know it? I wouldn't know what to do with my evenings if I wasn't insulted by my generally uncivil fellow Apolytons.

Asher · March 25, 2003, 00:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
Is Australias population now 1,200?

Somebody should explain to you that 1,200 is considered a very healthy sample size for such polls.

It's a sad "last resort" argument when people start questioning the accuracy of polls by saying "Are there 1,200 people only in Australia?"

Agathon · March 25, 2003, 00:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
You did well in Australia last year.

There's no consistency. Many of our cricketers are spoiled brats who bring the game into disrepute. It's been a steady decline since Hadlee retired. I suppose I grew up when we had a stack of excellent cricketers who made a good team. We've had the odd good one since then but nothing to match Hadlee, Coney, Cairns, the Crowes, Smith and Wright.

I think the Australian success is all down to that Sports Academy you have. We have a tin shed, I think.

Agathon · March 25, 2003, 00:28

Quote:

Originally posted by ravagon

ie: Kiwi's are more concerned about rugby, Australians about cricket and neither about soccer because teams from both countries are pretty much cr*p.

You missed rugby league, man. And we used to be good Olympians before it went pro.

Immigrants in Australia and New Zealand are soccer fans and satellite TV has made it more popular - the Asian immigrants love it. New Zealand's team has vastly improved over the last eight or so years, though it's not a world class team and still not up to the World Cup team of 1982 (the best team Australasia has yet produced).

Australia has what is becoming a seriously good team - they have had a bit of bad luck the last two times out but they will turn heads in 2006 - no doubt about it. I'll be cheering for them as they cheered for us in 82.

Spiffor · March 25, 2003, 00:31

BTW, do you call this beautiful game "football" righteously, or do you call it "soccer" like the infidels ?

Agathon · March 25, 2003, 00:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
BTW, do you call this beautiful game "football" righteously, or do you call it "soccer" like the infidels ?

I call it "football" because my parents were English immigrants and that's what they called it. Increasing numbers of NZers call it football.

ravagon · March 25, 2003, 00:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
BTW, do you call this beautiful game "football" righteously, or do you call it "soccer" like the infidels ?

Soccer, but only, I hasten to add, because rugby has already (rather oddly if one thinks about it) taken the name "football".

Alexander's Horse · March 25, 2003, 00:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon

Hadlee

Agathon · March 25, 2003, 00:43

Lillee -- Border -- Marsh

Still my fave all time team has to be the West Indies of the early 80s. They were gods.

[edit] Is Richie Benaud still on the TV. When I think of cricket I always think of "Over to you, Richie."

ravagon · March 25, 2003, 00:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon
Australia has what is becoming a seriously good team - they have had a bit of bad luck the last two times out but they will turn heads in 2006 - no doubt about it. I'll be cheering for them as they cheered for us in 82.

Australia has a barely adequate team IMO, admittedly because of the poor funding and organization, not to mention that it has to compete with rugby (

), rugby league (bleauch!) and Australian rules (

).
The only reason they'll (in all probability) make it to the next world cup is that they don't have to face any serious opposition anymore (Basically, whoever wins the Aus-NZ game will go through).

I seriously hope Fifa removes the auto-qualification for Oceania after the next WC. It just doesn't sit right with me that a team like Australia could go through when other, far better, teams (Norway and the Netherlands missed out last time

) don't.

Agathon · March 25, 2003, 00:58

That's as may be, Ravagon, but I think anyone would jump at the chance to get Harry Kewell on their team.

As for that transvestite Bosnich, well that's a different story.

Spiffor · March 25, 2003, 01:22

I just love how this thread turned out

Alexander's Horse · March 25, 2003, 01:28

Yes, the Americans should take note of the way we disarm our critics.

Its soooo hard not to love us

Lincoln · March 25, 2003, 08:19

Yes, I'm even thinking about buying a pet kangaroo.

TheStinger · March 25, 2003, 08:24

West Indies in the 80's V Aussies of the present. Now thats a game i would like to see

March 25, 2003, 10:34

Quote:

Originally posted by ravagon

This depends strictly on whom exactly you ask and upon which sport they happen to ascendency at the time.

ie: Kiwi's are more concerned about rugby, Australians about cricket and neither about soccer because teams from both countries are pretty much cr*p.

Well, we roundly thrashed that minow of soccer England.

March 25, 2003, 10:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon
Lillee -- Border -- Marsh

Still my fave all time team has to be the West Indies of the early 80s. They were gods.

[edit] Is Richie Benaud still on the TV. When I think of cricket I always think of "Over to you, Richie."

Yes Richie Benaud is still commentating.

CerberusIV · March 25, 2003, 11:22

Quote:

Originally posted by CICSMaster

Well, we roundly thrashed that minow of soccer England.

Don't imagine that means you are any good at the sport.

There is a long english tradition of inventing sports then giving up on them when the foreigners and emigrants get the hang of them. The first time an Aussie gets to be world extreme ironing champion you will know the english have moved on again.

Agathon · March 25, 2003, 12:14

Quote:

Originally posted by CICSMaster

Yes Richie Benaud is still commentating.

At least there is still some good in the world.

Alexander's Horse · March 31, 2003, 21:58

A more detailed poll of Australians has just been taken:

Quote:

Support for the war in Iraq has grown substantially more than a week after the bombing began, but the largest proportion of Australians still oppose the conflict, a new poll has found.

A national Herald-ACNielsen survey conducted at the weekend found that 44 per cent of people now supported the war without United Nations backing.

However, the Prime Minister, John Howard, warned last night that the most difficult part of the campaign lay ahead.

"A street campaign in Baghdad could well be very costly, just how costly and precisely what might precede that I am not going to speculate," he said.

The 44 per cent of people surveyed who said they supported the war has climbed sharply from just 6 per cent in January. At the same time, opposition to the war without UN backing has almost halved from 92 per cent in January to 48 per cent this week.

advertisement

advertisement

Of those against the war, 27per cent said they were opposed because it did not have UN backing and 21 per cent said Australia should not be involved at all.

Of the 1431 people surveyed, 8per cent said they remained undecided.

The poll found support for the war was weakest in the cities, particularly in Sydney and Melbourne, and highest in non-metropolitan areas. It is also in the cities where opposition to the war has been most visible on the streets, in large protest marches.

The United States-led forces launched the invasion of Iraq 12 days ago without winning specific backing from the UN Security Council.

The poll retained the aspect of UN support in its questioning to ensure consistency with earlier surveys. It found that Australia's involvement in the war remained most unpopular with women. Of the women surveyed, 50 per cent were opposed and only 40 per cent in favour. A further 10 per cent remained undecided.

Of the men contacted, 49 per cent supported the war and 46per cent were against, with 5per cent undecided.

The only category of respondents which produced majority support for war were "upper blue collar workers", of whom 51 per cent agreed with Australia's involvement in the campaign.

Support for the war generally increased with the age of those surveyed. It was lowest among 18- to 24-year-olds at 41 per cent, highest among 40- to 54-year-olds at 46 per cent, and was at 45per cent among those 55 and older.

Speaking on ABCTV's The 7.30 Report last night, Mr Howard conceded that the US's belief going into the war - that the show of overwhelming coalition force would inspire a popular uprising against Saddam Hussein - was misguided.

"The reality is that in 1991 many of these people were encouraged to rebel against Saddam Hussein and they were left in the lurch, and they remember that," he said. "And they suffered horrendous reprisals - horrendous reprisals - as a result."

Also yesterday, defence and intelligence specialist Des Ball, of the Australian National University, said the US and its allies had lost the war in Iraq because the invasion had strengthened the hand of terrorism.

"The coalition faces defeat in the sense that it's likely to emerge from this war with its global interests more threatened, its strategic standing in the world more challenged and its security, the security of the US and its allies, ultimately diminished," he said.

Not quite as strong support as the poll Lincoln originally quoted.

Cyclotron · March 31, 2003, 22:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Not quite as strong support as the poll Lincoln originally quoted.

No, but that certainly is quite a change. Are Australians really that capricious?

ravagon · March 31, 2003, 22:29

There was another poll - results came out yesterday I think - it indicated that most Australians thought the UN should have approved military action.
Not quite the same thing but close...

Alexander's Horse · March 31, 2003, 22:31

Quote:

Originally posted by cyclotron7

No, but that certainly is quite a change. Are Australians really that capricious?

No more than anyone else. The point is support has probably peaked and it peaked at a very low level. 50/50 is not good.

Alexander's Horse · March 31, 2003, 22:34

Cyclotron · March 31, 2003, 22:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
No more than anyone else. The point is support has probably peaked and it peaked at a very low level. 50/50 is not good.

True, but 6 to 44 was pretty shocking to me when I first saw it. I've never known the approval rating of anything to go up that fast. Are we just doing a really good job or something?

Alexander's Horse · March 31, 2003, 22:55

Its support for the troops.

KrazyHorse · March 31, 2003, 23:02

Quote:

Originally posted by cyclotron7

True, but 6 to 44 was pretty shocking to me when I first saw it. I've never known the approval rating of anything to go up that fast. Are we just doing a really good job or something?

Think about it. Their troops are going to be in the line of fire. This doesn't mean anything as far as the justness or wisdom of going to war is concerned, but reason isn't the strongest suit of the average voter...

The problem for anybody who goes to war against the wishes of his people is that they're going to remember how they felt about him ignoring them...

And if and when Australia takes casualties they're going to remember that they didn't want to go in the first place. So you'll see the poll numbers stay comparatively high as long as the fighting continues (as long as it doesn't continue for years on end), but God help the leader afterward.