PDA

View Full Version : Americans Rally Around President Bush On War With Iraq



BaronLaw
Mar 19, 2003, 05:33 AM
The President has the domestic support he needs for conducting the war against the Baathist regime in Iraq. European attitudes, however, haven't changed much. Read on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

washingtonpost.com

71% of Americans Support War, Poll Shows
But Overseas, Attitudes About Invading Iraq Continue to Be Overwhelmingly Negative

By Richard Morin and Claudia Deane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, March 19, 2003; Page A14


Americans have rallied strongly behind President Bush and his policy of disarming Iraq by force, while most Europeans remain sharply critical of Bush and his foreign policy, according to surveys released yesterday.

Overwhelming majorities of Americans have accepted their president's call for war with Iraq as the only practical way to remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and end the threat posed by his weapons of mass destruction, according to a poll conducted Monday night by The Washington Post and ABC News.

Support for going to war with Iraq surged to 71 percent after Bush's nationally televised speech, up from 59 percent a week ago, according to the poll. Nearly two in three -- 64 percent -- approve of the way Bush is handling the confrontation with Iraq, an increase of 9 percentage points in the past eight days.

Across the Atlantic, attitudes continue to be broadly negative toward Bush and his policies toward Iraq, even in several nations that Bush counts among his "coalition of the willing." In France and Germany, countries that oppose the war but would be counted on by the United States to help rebuild Iraq, more than two in three reject a U.S.-led attack, according to surveys conducted last week by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.

"Looming war with Iraq has taken a further toll on the image of America -- not only in countries highly critical of our Iraq policy, such as France and Germany, but also in coalition countries such as Britain, Poland, Italy and Spain," wrote Andrew Kohut, the center's director.

Even in Britain, only 39 percent of citizens favor going to war , down from 47 percent in November, though other surveys suggest that support may have rebounded in recent weeks. In Spain, which joined with Britain and the United States in a recent unsuccessful effort to win U.N. Security Council support for war, eight in 10 oppose military action against Iraq.

Still, some experts say that these differences, which can be expected to widen even further once the war begins, could largely heal if the war is quick, relatively bloodless and does not spread beyond Iraq.

"Once the war is over, I think both sides will wake up and realize, whether they like it or not, it's in our common interest to work together, and people will want to do that," said Philip H. Gordon, head of the Brookings Institution's Center on the United States and France, citing past international experiences in the Balkans. Before that military intervention, he said, "the U.S. and Europe were deeply divided. Once we finally got up the will to go in militarily and moved on to the reconstruction phase, cooperation was excellent because we all had a common interest."

Partial support for that view came from the Pew survey, which found that residents in most countries surveyed thought that "in the long run the Iraqi people will be better off, and the region more stable, if Iraq is disarmed and Hussein is removed from power by the U.S. and its allies," Kohut wrote. "Only the Russians and the Turks, who see this as a war by the U.S. against an unfriendly Muslim country, disagree."

Souring European views of Bush and U.S. policies contrast strongly with the surge in backing for the president and his war policies that followed Bush's speech to the nation Monday. Seven in 10 said they supported Bush's televised call to go to war without the blessing of the United Nations unless Hussein and his sons leave Iraq within 48 hours, according to the Post-ABC poll. An equally large majority believes that Bush has done enough to win support from other nations. More than two in three said his policies on Iraq are the right ones, although less than half are strongly convinced.

The poll suggests that the increased support for war is largely because more Democrats have come around to the president's view. About six in 10 Democrats said they support an attack on Iraq, compared with about four in 10 in an early March poll. At the same time, however, nearly half said they disapproved of the way Bush has handled the conflict with Iraq.

The public's preference for a U.N.-endorsed war also has faded following the collapse of efforts by the United States and its allies to win support for a second war resolution in the Security Council. Three in four in the Post-ABC poll disapproved of the way the United Nations has handled the crisis, up from slightly more than half three weeks ago.

But the anger shown in these poll numbers does not reflect a desire to withdraw from the international community or to punish France for derailing a second U.N. resolution backing war. Only a third said they believe that the United States should withhold support and be less cooperative with the French government, and even fewer (one in five) say the United States should change its relationship with the United Nations.

The Pew survey, which included a separate poll in the United States, also found broad international support for the United Nations. "There is more consensus on both sides of the Atlantic about the U.N. It is still important, say majorities or pluralities in most countries polled," Kohut found.

The Post and ABC interviewed 510 randomly selected adults after Bush's speech. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 5 percentage points. The practical difficulties of doing a survey in a single night represent other potential sources of error in this poll. Approximately 5,500 adults were interviewed for the Pew project, including 500 each in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Poland, Russia and Turkey, and about 1,000 each in Britain and the United States.



2003 The Washington Post Company

eXo
Mar 19, 2003, 06:32 PM
Im with the brittish no need to read *LOL*

dj_dan
Mar 19, 2003, 10:28 PM
I can tell you... here in Canada we definitely do not support any of this shit.

It's one big fucking joke.

Here in Vancouver BC, we've had rallies with 40,000+ people on saturdays for the past 8 weeks.

But this isn't about Saddam and his *threat*...

Sasarai
Mar 19, 2003, 11:04 PM
Not to offend anyone, but calling any war a "joke" is plain ignorant dj_dan.

The U.S. government is obviously more privy to information than Canada and the public (meaning all civilians; myself included), so anti-war protests can continue, but the simple fact is none of us truly know half of the truth or motives.

Frankly, when people begin to protest illicitly by any form of civil disobedience, they are a threat to the public safety of any country. Protesting does nothing but fuel the fire to further separate the unity and resolve needed to accomplish the task at hand. Whether you agree with it morally or not, the fact is it has started and nothing can stop it.

Not only does protesting cause moral divides; but it can create a greater problem (more in the U.S. and Britain) because our law enforcement, which should be defending our sensitive sites and people, is bust arresting buffoons who have nothing better to do than blindly brandish banners and signs.

dj_dan
Mar 20, 2003, 07:47 PM
I'm glad my post prompted you to respond, but sorry, your words are falling on deaf ears.

Little W is doing many things, but he is definitely not trying to "liberate" the Iraqi people. Nor is he trying to "eliminate" any threat.

What he is trying to do is;
make daddy proud
show the world how great the US is
GAIN CONTROL OF OIL
boost his approval rating

and these are just the things off the top of my head.

And yes, it is one big fucking joke.
The US says that some guy in another country does things differently. They say he has weapons of mass destruction. Meanwhile, you've left him alone for 10 years.
So now, all of a sudden, it's time to go "liberate".
How will you go about "liberating"? By blowing the shit out of civilians, and using many many many bombs, and guns and anything else you can think of.
That's just a tad ironic (if I'm using that word correctly).


The rest of the world has made it VERY CLEAR that they do not want this war to happen, but the brave and valiant W remains headstrong and continues without the UN's support.
I mean, how crazy is that? If any other country tried to pull that, the US would be the first to say "Whoa whoa whoa, hold on a minute there partner. You'll need the UN's approval for that you know? Disobeying us? Well maybe we should bomb the shit out of you too!"

Who is a bigger threat to the security of this planet at the moment? I think you know my answer to that, just in case you don't, it's not that wacky man from Iraq.

This is not an attack on you, and I don't mind you calling me ignorant in your post. I just get really worked up about this subject.

Two things that are best not talked about if you want to avoid conflict are religion... and politics..

I have many many reasons for my opinions, but it could take a long time to explain them all.
Oh well, you know where I stand.

Bloodberry
Mar 20, 2003, 08:15 PM
I agree with dj_dan on a lot of that, but saying protesting peacefully is bad? So everyone should just shut up and agree with their government? What? If people are taking to the streets then the problem is not with them but in the leadership that roused it's own citizens to cry foul about the direction the country is going. I'm not commenting on the situation in hand but on any situation. There is nothing wrong with peaceful protest, it is the only viable option, unless you think sitting quietly and blindly obeying a president or taking to rioting is the way to do it..

Para
Mar 20, 2003, 08:36 PM
mmm it is wrong because it is for an unjust cause.
even if the US didnt attack, iraq is surrounded by troops all around and if iraq attacked, the UN will strike back.
saddam is probably smarter than that..

my theory is that saddam actually aggravated the US intentionally. seeming that bush has no patience to wait a few more weeks for any compromise or peaceful deal to come, saddam taunted at the US by saying " no we dont have weapons of mass destruction"
by doing this, the US will rush into war and only a handful of countries will follow US into war but the majority of the troops will be american. by making US taking the initiative to attack, saddam has a legitimate reason to defend himself by attacking their troops. saddam gains territorial advantage because saddam couldve prepared for this by planting bombs everywhere to blow up incase in an emergancy. saddam also creates the urban warfare scence in his own country and trained soldiers probably know that urban warfare is a very tricky battle. another idea i thought of was that those satilite images everyone keep raving about... maybe saddam intentionally did that by making the US even persuaded for war.

but then again this is all theory.. >.>;;