People across the world overwhelmingly believe the war in Iraq has increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks worldwide, a poll for the BBC reveals.
Some 60% of people in 35 countries surveyed believe this is the case, against just 12% who think terrorist attacks have become less likely.

In most countries, more people think removing Saddam Hussein was a mistake than think it was the right decision.

Some 41,856 people were questioned in the poll for the BBC's World Service.

In 20 countries, there is overall support for US-led forces to withdraw from Iraq in the next few months.

more - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4755706.stm

nm

In the very same way that Tito kept the factions in Yugoslavia together - and when he went it all fell to pieces too.

just remember a survey only shows the views of the people asked (which is usually under 1% of the population, hardly enough to speak for everyone). One of the most important polls is the political elections and as Bush and Blair both got re-elected by huge wins, that could be used to argue that most people in their countries prefer them to lead, even if they didn't agree with all their decisions, it nevertheless would still show that the war was not important enough issue to stop enough people wanting them to stay in power and run their country. Also, I found it amusing that the Tories also said they would go to war and John Kerry, while he tip toed around the subject, never once said he wouldn't go to war in the American election. Maybe an "anti-war" message to the public was not a good enough move to get into power.

nm

Do you think people would vote the same again now?

Why are Bush's current ratings the lowest ever recorded by any US President?

... and as for B-Liar - even his own party want to see the back of him !!!

The anti-war movement was proved right on every single count.

In The Know wrote:
Do you think people would vote the same again now?

Why are Bush's current ratings the lowest ever recorded by any US President?

... and as for B-Liar - even his own party want to see the back of him !!!

The anti-war movement was proved right on every single count.

Yes i do think the result of the elections would have been the same if it was held today. People in the Labour party wanted to see the back of Blair back then, at least that's what all the anti-blair brigade were saying back then, just like they are now. Some view polls even showed a swing in the favour of the Tories, yet that didn't stop Labour getting into power with more than 100 seats than them. A lot of Americans still support George Bush (i was out there recently and spoke to many who do). History will judge Bush and Blair, just like it has past Presidents and Prime Ministers, not current opinion polls that ask a minor fraction of the public.

The Observer front page this morning reports that Bush's standing has hit rock bottom - the lowest ever recorded for any President !

At the last election Labour's majority was slashed (from 165 down to 63) - if the election were run again today it would decline further and they would lose (they have been slaughtered in every bye-election since the election itself).

The public may take a long time to wake-up -- but they do eventually !

and second I agree with Stan... I fear that whilst the vast majority now HATE what Bush and Blair have done to Iraq, in the event of a vote they will go for the familiar and for the economy and probably allow them back in again because their prime concern (the votes) is SELFISH and the pound (or dollar) in their pocket.
The PUBLIC have no morals whatsoever. That's why they love the tabloids which give them easy slogans to salve their consciences.

Sorry - see so many papers got them mixed up !

We'll have to disagree about the public - whilest I agree with you that the public are selfish, they have, I believe, started to wake-up.

The economy is starting to decline noticeably, and the tide has turned for B-Liar.

Shall we have this discussion again, in say 2 weeks time (after the Education Bill!!!) ?

.

In The Know wrote:
The Observer front page this morning reports that Bush's standing has hit rock bottom - the lowest ever recorded for any President !

At the last election Labour's majority was slashed (from 165 down to 63) - if the election were run again today it would decline further and they would lose (they have been slaughtered in every bye-election since the election itself).

The public may take a long time to wake-up -- but they do eventually !

This is all hearsay and estimates, this is not a correct view which takes the opinion of everyone. Labour may have slashed down their majority, but many a party in the past would love to have got in with a 63 seat majorty. We wouldn't know if Blair or Bush would loose their elections today, or in 2 weeks times, because of these polls, or anything else, the only way we would know for sure is if an election was held today, which it will not be, therefore the only judge will be history.

I think history has already judged (and so has the rest of the world - including the Iraqis) !

You only have to look at recent bye-election results (like the one in Scotland, which Gordon Brown campainged hard for) which Labour lost after holding the seat for 40 years - to get a strong flavour of which way the wind is blowing !