http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003101096,00.html 75% of Britons back war Backing ... Mr Blair By TREVOR KAVANAGH Political Editor BRITISH public opinion last night swung dramatically behind American and UK military action to disarm Iraq. In a major victory for Tony Blair, 75 per cent of voters said they back a war if the UN gives the all-clear. A poll by Mori shows a significant ten per cent swing behind Mr Blair since he launched his campaign for public hearts and minds last month. The change of mood emerged as the PM prepared to summon Parliament for an emergency debate on Saturday next week. That would almost certainly follow a decision to join America in the first air strikes against Saddam on Thursday or Friday, as revealed by The Sun. The poll shows support for war depends on evidence that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. Mori chief Bob Worcester said: “This latest research shows Blair has turned a corner. There has also been a fall in the number of people who would oppose military action without UN backing. “Opposition falls to two in five if the inspectors do find evidence that Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction — even if the UN still does not vote in favour of action. “If the inspectors report a smoking gun in Saddam’s hand and the UN second vote is passed the British, by three to one, think troops should be used alongside Americans.” The increasing tempo towards war was accompanied by a continuing build-up of military activity in the Gulf, despite Turkey’s reluctance to let American troops use its bases. And US President George Bush insisted it was America’s duty to help the UN protect the world from terror. He said in Washington: “The first law of the 21st century requires the United States to work with international bodies to deal with these threats and we will continue to do so.” But Mr Bush insisted the UN must support its own ultimatum ordering Saddam to scrap weapons of mass slaughter. He said: “I went to the United Nations to remind them that for 12 long years they said Saddam Hussein had to disarm because he was dangerous. “The choice is for Saddam to make. It is his choice whether there is war or peace.” Last night Foreign Secretary Jack Straw signalled America — and Britain — will go to war alone if the UN caves in. He warned war wobblers not to put the US in a position where it felt isolated. Mr Straw told MPs: “We will reap a whirlwind if we push the Americans into a unilateral position in which they are the centre of a unipolar world.” America’s stance and the growing pro-war mood piled pressure on French President Jacques “The Worm” Chirac and his threat to use the veto. A weekly paper in Paris said Chirac has virtually already ruled out using the device. Le Canard enchaine quoted him as telling a private gathering the move would be pointless because it would not stop military action. The news came as Ex-PM Alain Juppe, leader of Chirac’s UMP party, warned him not to torpedo the UN. Russia’s stance remained obscured despite the visit to Britain yesterday by foreign minister Igor Ivanov. But hopes were rising that China would not block a new UN resolution next week. In a bizarre twist Saddam blasted President Bush as the “despot of the century” — a label usually reserved for the Iraqi dictator himself. In London, Chancellor Gordon Brown said he will dig even deeper into the Treasury for any war effort. He has already earmarked £1.75billion to meet the costs of any new Gulf war. He said: “I make clear my resolve to ensure our Armed Forces are properly equipped for whatever lies ahead.”
That's probably the key phrase. It looks like France, Germany, and Russia our feeling strength in numbers.
juxtaposed to a german poll that said 86% of germans are against the use of force to disarm saddam...period, the end.
i'm asking in all seriousness...is the sun not a good source? i don't know much about it. this was a link off of drudgereport
The Sun is what made Samantha Fox famous. She was a Page 3 girl....meaning, the Sun showed nude pictures of her.
ok..i kinda gathered that from the website...but this is a report about a poll done by an entirely different group. so how is this story/poll less convincing? i know nothing about the group who conducted the poll, mind you.
I seem to recall there being a bit of a debate in one of glynch's threads regarding attacks on sources instead countering arguments, I guess what comes around goes around. Here's a link to the poll results: http://www.mori.com/polls/2003/iraq2.shtml
Turgidson, thanks for the substantive reply. Now I still think that it would be incredible that we would see such a turn around in a few days for no apparent reason. I strongly doubt the validity of this poll. But I guess we'll see.
The Sun is a red herring, yes they're a tabloid but that's not important here. The polling organization is, from everything I've read, on the up-and-up and well respected (I saw them compared to Gallup in one article). I could be wrong, but this looks legit. It basically echoes the longstanding mainstream sentiment in GB - that any effort should be authorized by the Security Council.
I agree that the Sun is hardly a legit source, but as BT said, the poll is. This is not an issue of credibility as I see it. Once the distinction between the poll and the paper is made, I feel strongly that Mad Max is entitiled to have his post argued on the merits of the information itself, not the credibility of the source. I do not see this as being a substantive shift. It has become increasingly obvious in the last few days that between the French, Germany, and now Russia saying that they will use vetoes to deny the U.S. the ability to dictate the terms of the Resolutions pro se, the UN will be forced to uphold a fairly high standard for the decision to support armed force in this case. As such the British are merely saying what they've said all along; given just cause/actual evidence of link between 9-11 and Iraq they will support armed conflict, but they have seen neither, and Blair is being portrayed as a toadie to the U.S. If the UN supports the war under these circumstances it would be assumed to be 'just' , and not just doing what the U.S. wants, which is the general view right now.
wow..this is really getting blown out of proportion....i think the credibility of a source is absolutely an issue...but i will post here nonetheless...i'll submit the article...the credibility of its source is part of the argument. i don't fact-check these articles...i don't know all there is to know about every news source in the world. admit the evidence and let the jury ascribe the weight with which to give it.
