As I'm sure you are aware @fluxo, I'm usually very dubious about the reliability of polls .But I agree that is an interesting finding.
I would 100% agree with that poll. Today, it is quite apparent there was only one person in the whole of Britain that wanted to go to war! And he should be tried for war crimes.
But I have seen this view that 'most people' were against the war on forums. We are always reminded of the demos.In practice most people including the BBC and 'in' programs like HIGNFY were in favour. Not that many believed all of Blairs reasons, but they wanted Saddam, the bad guy to be deposed. Many Papers like the Telegraph supported war.
Only the Libdems opposed the war.
Amongst my friends in the UK, I was the only one that thought it was a mad idea, not because I wasa 'Jeremy C ' peacenik,but because of my Middle East/ Arab experience. How anyone could link the Twin Towers ( sunni attack ) with Saddam, a dictator who suppressed any fanaticism and a Ba'athist was incomprehensible.
But there we are.......
Plus it meant those behind it would be more likely to get away.
A lot of people were in favour due to sexed up dossiers etc. I think there was an effort at the time to get the public on board with a lot of dodgy data.
I also don't know why our involvement had to be at the level it was. I don't think the US needed that commitment from us.
Our involvement helped legitimise the action with the US public.The more countries coerced into Bush's ridiculous "Coalition of the Willing", the more it would appear despite lack of UN support, that they were doing the right thing.Militarily, we were not needed.Our soldiers died in the very simplest terms as the worst kind of political pawns.
This wasn't a niche view even at the time.Everybody I knew thought the same thing.You had bad thing A and bad person B with no relationship between the two and yet this imaginary relationship was given as the reason for war.
Unless you and your mates were well informed or Muslims, I am honestly surprised. Most people in Britain would not have know about the various Islamic flavours. In 2003 the difference between Sunni and Shia' was not widely known. In fact it was usually spelt shiite .
It was also not understood that all Muslim countries under dictators like Saddam, Gadaffi kept a lid on extremist activities as they were a threat.
I think in 2016 the general public are becoming more aware of Islamic intricacies as it affects all ofour lives, no matter who you are.
No, we weren't talking Sunni / Shia nor knew which country has which group, but we knew the 9/11 attackers were Saudi not Iraqi and than Al-Qaeda were not affiliated with Saddam.
I am always amazed when people say that Saddam didnt have WMD´s. What is the qualifier for WMD´s? and what does chemical warfare qualify as?
Chemical weapons counts but the UN inspectors never found any before the war and the military never found any after the war.Just because he had used them in the past did not mean he still had them or the means to threaten the UK when the decision was made to go to war.