so you think the drop would have stopped exactly at the point where the iraq war started without that war? i don't say he would have dropped to 30% or so but exactly at that point? i think he could have lost 5% more to get maybe below the 50% (not exactly sure where the graph is there with all those dots^^). but few percent here or there, two years after that he was still at 51% and that's all i was talking about, not where he was in 2008 or so.

Within ~3-5 percentage points.

9-11 greatly imrpoved his popularity... which fell off as people got less freaked out.  However SOME bump should remain.

If you'll note, right before Iraq his poll numbers are slightly above where they were before 9/11.

At that point in his presidency he hadn't really done anything stupid to cost him popularity.

It's all polling 101.

If Argentina cares so much for sovereignty, why did it sell so many lands in Patagonia for much less than their true value to foreign investors, like my fellow Italian Benetton, and lets them trample on the rights of indigenous?

I wonder: Do the inhabitants of Falkland really want to be under british rule, or did they simply consider this the lesser of the two evils they were offered to choose between in some poll?

I mean, that the vast majority would choose british over argentinian rule seems obvious to me - the devil you know is better than the devil you don't. But if they had the choice, wouldn't they rather be independant?

My understanding is that they receive considerable funding from the British mainland taxpayers.

Why give it up?

Nah.  It's all about economics.

I mean hell.  Most arabs in East Jersualem if given the chance would actually want their neighborhoods owned and run by Israel... and mpre of them would move to Israel if given the chance if there neighberhoods weren't... then would if there neighberhoods were.

Being independent yourself is very overrated espiecally when your just a ridiculiously small area, because there is a lot of stuff that needs some requesite size, or a natural "big brother".

Do you have any stats to back up that Jerusalem claim?

I always got the impression that the Palestinian people (including those in Jerusalem) were not at all happy about the Israeli encroachment into Arab areas.

I think what he means is that ideologically, Arabs are 'required' to dislike Israel, and rebuff all of its social, political, economic and military overtones.

Having said that, within the boundaries of Israel, Palastinians have far more rights (politically and economically) than they do in practice when under Palestinian governance.

Its similar in the Golan Heights.  Overtly, residents loathe Israel for winning their region from Syria.  In reality, they far prefer their economic prosperity and freedom of speech to what Syria offered them.

So, you're both right, and both wrong, in a sense.

Wikipedia

British claim

John Byron
The British first landed on the Falklands in 1690, when Captain John Strong sailed through Falkland Sound, naming this passage of water after Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount of Falkland, the First Lord of the Admiralty at that time. The British were keen to settle the islands, as they had the potential to be a strategic naval base for passage around Cape Horn.[8] In 1765, Captain John Byron landed on Saunders Island. He then explored other islands' coasts and claimed the group for Britain. The following year, Captain John MacBride returned to Port Egmont, on Saunders, to construct a fort. The British later discovered the French colony at Port Saint Louis, and the first sovereignty dispute began.[4]
The Spanish expelled the British colony in 1770, but it was restored in 1771 following British threats of war over the islands.[4] However, in 1774, economic pressures leading up to the American Revolutionary War forced Great Britain to withdraw from many overseas settlements.[9] By 1776, the British had left their settlement, leaving behind a plaque asserting British sovereignty over the islands.[4] Although there was no British administration in the islands, British and American sealers routinely used them to hunt for seals, also taking on fresh water as well as feral cattle, pigs and even penguins for provisions. Whalers also used the islands to shelter from the South Atlantic weather and to take on fresh provisions.
Luis Vernet approached the British for permission to build a settlement at the former Spanish settlement of Puerto Soledad, initially in 1826 and again in 1828 following the failure of the earlier expedition. In addition, Vernet requested British protection for his settlement should the British choose to form a permanent presence on the islands. After receiving assurances from the British minister chargé d'affaires, Sir Woodbine Parish, Vernet provided regular reports to the British on the progress of his enterprise. Vernet's appointment as Governor in 1829 was protested against by the British Consul Parish, and in return the Government of the United Provinces of the River Plate merely acknowledged the protest. Britain protested again when Vernet announced his intentions to exercise exclusive rights over fishing and sealing in the islands. (Similar protests were received from the American representative, who protested at the curtailment of established rights and that the United States did not recognise the jurisdiction of the United Provinces over the islands.) Vernet continued to provide regular reports to Parish throughout this period.
The raid of the USS Lexington in December 1831 combined with the United Provinces assertions of sovereignty were the spur for the British to establish a military presence on the islands.
On 2 January 1833, Captain James Onslow, of the brig-sloop HMS Clio, arrived at the Spanish settlement at Port Louis to request that the Argentine flag be replaced with the British one, and for the Argentine administration to leave the islands. While Argentine Lt. Col. José María Pinedo, commander of the Argentine schooner Sarandí, wanted to resist, his numerical disadvantage was obvious, particularly as a large number of his crew were British mercenaries who were unwilling to fight their own countrymen. Such a situation was not unusual in the newly independent states in Latin America, where land forces were strong, but navies were frequently quite undermanned. As such he protested verbally, but departed without a fight on 5 January. The colony was set up and the islands continued under a British presence until the Falklands War.
After their return in 1833, the British began moves to begin a fully-fledged colony on the islands, initially based upon the settlers remaining in Port Louis. Vernet's deputy, Matthew Brisbane, returned later that year to take charge of the settlement and was encouraged to further Vernet's business interests provided he did not seek to assert Argentine Government authority.[10][11][12]
In 1841, General Rosas offered to relinquish any Argentine territorial claims in return for relief of debts owed to interests in the City of London. The British Government chose to ignore the offer.[13]

Do you think i'd make such a seemingly outlandish claim if I didn't?  Not the best article but a quickie one.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC06.php?CID=1719

It's all a matter of eceonomics really.  They might not be happy about Israeli encroachment, but they damn well know that if the Palestinians take over they're going to take a big hit in quality of life... and a lot of people, espeically those with kids don't want that.

I mean, is rank nationalism and (possibly) religious fervor worth giving up a good job, disability insurance, health insurance and even food security?