Most intelligent Australians and Britons now support the war. - Page 3

Skanky Burns · March 31, 2003, 23:05

Agreed. I would be completely surprised if the Liberals stayed in government come next election.

Alexander's Horse · March 31, 2003, 23:05

The "leader" does look very nervous at the moment.

Cyclotron · March 31, 2003, 23:07

I would be interested in knowing the actual question that they asked. Supporting the war to me seems quite different than supporting the troops; most anti-war Americans I know talk about how they support the troops but not the war, and our approval ratings did not change much before and after the war actually started.

Cyclotron · March 31, 2003, 23:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
The "leader" does look very nervous at the moment.

This leader?

KrazyHorse · March 31, 2003, 23:11

That's because the approval rate in the States had already reached 70%

The 30% that are left had probably pretty much made up their mind (it's the middle percentages that swing fairly easily, as you would expect)

KrazyHorse · March 31, 2003, 23:11

Quote:

Originally posted by cyclotron7

This leader?

No, HoWARd

Skanky Burns · March 31, 2003, 23:17

.

Cyclotron · March 31, 2003, 23:18

Ah, ok, thanks.

Jaguar · April 1, 2003, 01:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000

Is Australias population now 1,200?

Tassie, you know that a poll of over a thousand has at most 3% margin of error. Australia supports the war now. Get over it.

April 1, 2003, 10:54

As at this time:

Crean and Labor sink in poll

Quote:

Opposition Leader Simon Crean's approval rating has slumped to a record low as Labor's support also dwindles, the latest Newspoll has found.

Based on the survey, The Australian says the ALP would lose up to 18 seats if a federal election were called now.

Voter dissatisfaction has reached 60 per cent for the first time, "marking Mr Crean as one of the most unpopular opposition leaders in years", the newspaper said.

Prime Minister John Howard has meanwhile lifted his stakes as preferred national leader to 62 per cent compared to Mr Crean's 17 per cent.

and
Polls show war support growing

Quote:

April 01, 2003

TWO new polls today pointed to growing public support in Australia for the war on Iraq.

An ACNielsen poll in The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald found 44 per cent of people now supported the war even though it was not backed by the United Nations, up sharply from just six per cent in January.

The poll said opposition to the war had almost halved from 92 per cent in January to 48 per cent this week.

Of those opposed, 27 per cent said Australia should not be involved because there was no UN approval, while 21 per cent said Australia should not be involved at all.

A Newspoll, published in The Australian newspaper, found 51 per cent of respondents in favour of the war on Iraq, up six points since the conflict began.

Newspoll said the numbers opposed to the war had fallen to 38 per cent from 47 per cent a fortnight ago.

Skanky Burns:

Quote:

Agreed. I would be completely surprised if the Liberals stayed in government come next election.

Not likely!

Dauphin · April 1, 2003, 11:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior

Tassie, you know that a poll of over a thousand has at most 3% margin of error. Australia supports the war now. Get over it.

Assuming it was of a representative cross-section.

I remember seeing a poll that said that something like 900 out of 1,200 of people preferred Big Macs to Whoppers. Turns out the poll was taken at a McDonalds restaurant. I would expect the poll to be skewed by much more than 3% in such an instance

Always question polls.

(I'm not even going to mention internet polling, oh wait, too late)

GePap · April 1, 2003, 11:35

Such figures are trully wonderful for political leaders:

Hey, if you run a democracy, start a war! Even if people opposed going into war, once you start, people will follow! Your popularity will go through the roof! Just make sure that another state carries the main burden, and if you are the leader of that main state, just pick enemies you know you can easily beat!

It is at times like these mine sign's are trully vindicated..sadly.

Spiffor · April 1, 2003, 12:15

War has always been a political tool to gather support from the populace. It has backfired more than once (my favorite example is how gung-ho Alexander III was about WW1, in hope to avoid major unrest in Petrograd)

TheBirdMan · April 1, 2003, 12:22

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
Such figures are trully wonderful for political leaders:

Hey, if you run a democracy, start a war! Even if people opposed going into war, once you start, people will follow! Your popularity will go through the roof! Just make sure that another state carries the main burden, and if you are the leader of that main state, just pick enemies you know you can easily beat!

It is at times like these mine sign's are trully vindicated..sadly.

Why comes Falkland and a certain "lady" Thatcher into my mind when reading this (yes - I know the Brits fought the war themself)????????

Dauphin · April 1, 2003, 12:31

The UK and Thatcher did not start the Falklands War. That was Galtieri.

TheBirdMan · April 1, 2003, 12:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Big Crunch
The UK and Thatcher did not start the Falklands War. That was Galtieri.

Correct - but if I do remember right, the Argentinas was about to pull back when one of their battleships (the only one??) was hit by a torpedo.

And that should be the reason why that conflict escalated to a real war.

Conspiracy theori yes (who gave the order to sink the Argentin battleship and why) - but Thatcher won an election, she was (nearly) sure to loose.

That is how I remember that "story".