On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 09:11:54 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:




Which is ironic given the opinion poll published by the BBC which
shows that more IRAQI's are in favor of the invasion than
opposed it and 70% thought things would be better as a result.

Keith

I doubt anything less than a completely howling anarchy woudl be
worse than Hussein...
But-
Much of Europe including the spanish electorate is very leery of
"it turned out well" arguements for invasions. The U.S. sold it to
them, (or tried to) on the arguement of imminent threat, which didn't
appear to exist. If we'd found warehouses of chemical weapons, I
think the dynamic would have been far different.
The election appeared to be influenced by several factors:
1. Anger at the government for trying to pin it on ETA, which was,
rightly or wrongly, seen as a purely political move.
2. A feeling that the attack had come because the government, in
defiance of its own electorate, joined up with the U.S. for an
invasion that many still consider illegal.
3. A feeling that the U.S. doesn't value their alliance, which from
the U.S., I have to agree with. We've treated our allies *very*
poorly. The U.S. attacks on "old europe", the UN, and anyone who dared
disagree with us have come back to haunt us. The Neo-con disdain for
alliances was rather misplaced and definately destroyed some (not all)
of the good will existing between the U.S. and its allies.

One very interesting point however, is that this bombing didn't
change very many peoples votes, according to some exit polls, what it
did was get more people out TO vote. That's encouraging in one
respect-- in nations with a solid majority one way or the other, such
a bombing probably won't have the effect of shifting things. That
means even more so then before, the U.S. has GOT to do everything ti
can to get the people, not simply the government, on board.