Australians fear terrorist attack more likely because of Iraq: poll

Yahoo ^ | Mon, Mar 22, 2004 | AFP

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Australians fear terrorist attack more likely because of Iraq: poll

5 minutes ago

SYDNEY, (AFP) - Almost two-thirds of voters here fear Australia's decision to join the US-led war in Iraq (news - web sites) has increased the chances of terrorist attack, according to a new poll which shows the opposition has boosted its lead over the government.

AFP/File Photo

As national security continues to dominate political debate here, The Australian said its Newspoll findings were the clearest sign yet that voters are dubious about government assurances involvement in the Iraq war would not increase the terrorist threat.

The poll put the opposition well ahead of Prime Minister John Howard's conservative government in the run up to an election late this year and showed Labor leader Mark Latham almost level-pegging Howard as preferred prime minister.

It was conducted as Howard fended off charges of trying to muzzle Federal Police commissioner Mick Keelty, who last week linked the Madrid bombings to Spain's support for the invasion of Iraq.

Australia, like Spain, was a strong supporter of US President George W Bush's decision to attack Iraq, despite strong domestic opposition.

The poll showed 65 percent of voters thought terrorist attack on Australia was more likely because of its involvement in the war, while 30 percent thought it made no difference.

Just four months after he was elected leader, Latham's personal approval rating for his performance as opposition leader is at a record 66 percent, with his performance appearing to lift Labor's support to three-year highs.

It also showed Latham's support up three percentage points in a fortnight to 42 percent, just one point behind Howard's 43 percent as preferred prime minister.

"More importantly, Mr Latham has broken the dominance Mr Howard has had as the preferred prime minister in the past two years -- drawing virtually level," the newspaper said.

The survey, conducted last weekend and based on 1,150 interviews, puts Labor's primary vote at 46 percent after a two-percentage-point rise in the past two weeks, while the conservative Liberal-National coalition's primary vote stayed at 41 percent.

After distribution of second preference votes under Australia's preferential voting system, Labor stood at 55 percent to the coalition's 45 percent -- enough to give Labor a landslide win if the election had been held at the weekend.

Latham said Tuesday that despite the latest poll, winning the election would still be a challenge.

"Let's not get carried away here, Mr Howard is a tough and wily competitor. He has gone on a spending spree," Latham told ABC radio.

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said the election was still months away.

"We have done a lot better in the Newspolls than we are doing now and we have done a lot worse in the Newspolls than we are doing now," he said.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Can you believe this!

[sinkspur]

More gutlessness. What the hell is the matter with these weenies?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

The whole world is going wobbly if this poll is believable!

[Texasforever]

Terroism works.

[RepubMommy]

I don't know, it's unnerving isn't it? I can't get over Spain, "you bomb us and we pull out with our tails between our legs." Cowards.

[Betaille]

Have these people no testosterone? Aren't they tired of being slaves to Islamic threats?

[eddie willers]

?

[Betaille]

Was anybody on this thread in the military in the 80's?

[Shethink13]

But, but, but....there's no Iraq/Al Qaeda link....

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Our allies are of concern.

OR the media is at it again!

[raloxk]

What will happen next year of Bush, Blair and Howard lose?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Item of interest:

A Strategy's Cautious Evolution (Bush worked on plan to eradicate Al Qaeda pre-9-11)

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Terror attacks will increase.

[raloxk]

that's a given, but will we lose the war? I think it is possible.

[FairOpinion]

It's the media - it all depends on how you phrase the questions.

At least two high level Australian officials came out stating that they are not about to buckle under for the terrorists, the way Spain did, or words to that effect.

[Cap Huff]

It is a matter of how it is read and spun.

"Almost two-thirds of voters here FEAR Australia's decision to join the US-led war in Iraq has increased the chances of terrorist attack, according to a new poll . . . "

"The poll showed 65 percent of voters thought terrorist attack on Australia was more likely because of its involvement in the war, while 30 percent thought it made no difference."

This is ridiculous. The 65% may or may not be right in their opinion, but it is a perfectly reasonable idea to suppose that when you are at war, and when you hit the enemy they are more likely to hit you back. But expressing that opinion does not necessarily mean that you prefer to "bury your head in the sand and paint a burka on your butt."

Scads and scads of us here on FR who supported the decision to take out Saddam thought the action would increase the probability that AQ or some manifestation of it would strike us. Apparently the U.S. government thought so too since, as I recall they upped the threat level and issued stronger State Dept warnings to U.S. citizens abroad.

This article is spinning.

[AF68]

Do these people actually believe that their lives will somehow return to normal if they shrink from the evil thich is stalking free nations? I guess they didn't get the 9-11 or the Bali message.

[Alia]

Wait a minute: First off, I know I haven't seen the actual polling questions. However, it is so patently obvious to anyone who reads the news, that A Qaeda and allied terrorists, even unallied terrorists-but-general-s-disturbers, are using any and all opportunities to strike fear into everyone through these many different attacks.

Case in point?

Pollster: Alia, Do you think the war in Iraq has increased attacks on WOT and NON-WOT nations?

Alia: Yes, I do.

Alia: Additional comments. And I'm so glad we went to war on Terrorism when we did, because although these attacks are horrific, they would have not only been larger and taken out more people with time, it would have possibly been too late to stop the terrorists before they began using nukes.

Alia: Why didn't we start the WOT earlier? Intelligence WORLDWIDE had to know it was coming on. It's not like the information wasn't out there and available to people who were looking for the data via alternate media sources.

As Paul Harvey would say.. "And now for the other side of the story.."

The above polling data includes nothing except what it wishes to use in the headlines.

[Texasforever]

Yes.

[sadimgnik]

More gutlessness. What the hell is the matter with these weenies?

---

I am trying, desperately, to hold my temper and not (metaphorically) rip your head off and **** down your neck.

How dare you accuse us of being 'weenies'?

_We_ didn't turn up two years late to two world wars.

And since the middle of the 20th century, there has not been a single case where we haven't answered your call to arms .. in Korea, in Vietnam, in Laos, in Panama, in Grenada, in Afghanistan and in Iraq .. Aussie Diggers have been there, fighting shoulder to shoulder with your military.

And that doesn't even mention the local-region battles we've fought - on the Malayan peninsula, in East Timor ...

And you accuse us of gutlessness?

Perhaps, before you start attacking your allies, you might like to ask some questions ... like "what does the survey _actually_ mean?"

It means that even though we, as a people, thought President Bush was wrong to divert the war against terror into the side-issue of Iraq, we would send troops anyway.

It means that even though we, as a people, believed the Frum/Perle/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz policy of attacking Iraq was likely to ADD to the Islamist power-base (by making this a religious war) we were still willing to send our young men into harms way.

It means that even though _we knew it would make us a target_, we were willing to join the Coalition of the Willing, anyway.

Gee - this must be a new definition of gutless!

You may be interested to hear what the opposition leader here has to say: he wants Australian troops home by year's end ... but before you go off again, let me say there are conditions.

From a radio story aired this afternoon ... "Mr Latham has also put a timetable on when Australian troops would return from Iraq if Labor wins the federal election. _If_ Iraq is handed over to a new sovereign government _and_ a democratic election is held this year, _then_ Mr Latham says he'd bring the troops home by the end of the year."

We are not about to turn tail and run ... bu we ARE looking for an exit strategy, once we have achieved the stated aims of the war against Saddam.


Sadim
(Disclaimer - I supported the removal of Saddam Hussein, but have been saying since day one that we are fighting the right war, but for the wrong reason - and that a study of ethics suggest the net result was always going to be bad)