Doug, and others:
Can I suggest an interesting parallel? The poll in question is certainly of interest, but not because it should tell us what our opinions ought to be. If anyone at all has the idea that because the majority of people in a country appear to approve of the invasion and subsequent occupation of their country, we ought to do so as well, what about Grenada?
Obviously, the invasion was nothing more than standard Pax Americana practise in the US's own back-yard. Nevertheless, the people of Grenada appeared to approve of the ousting of the revolutionary clique which had deposed their own socialist leader, and demonstrated this by voting for the party supported by the United States.
Does that mean we should have no words of condemnation for such a savage act - notwithstanding that the number of deaths was comparatively small, and the consequences comparatively benign? Surely, we are concerned with motive, and with the way in which an aggressive power feeds from its victories?
Moreover, if a majority of Iraqis thought the US was wonderful, the occupation a dream-boat, and the invasion a smooth cruise from despotism to liberation, would it not still be possible for the minority to be correct? Isn't it a sign of intellectual subterfuge to leap behind the nearest Iraqi who agrees with you and say "well, I'm for what he wants?" (The argument cuts both ways, but remains valid in my view).
I've written about it here: http://leninology.blogspot.com/2003_09_01_leninology_archive.html#106487170252633362
_________________________________________________________________ Express yourself with cool new emoticons http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo