You know, I'm afraid of your answer to this question, but ask it I shall. Naninho, what form of government are you for if democracies and dictatorships won't do? Very curious to know.

No. I was just smoking weed with my friend pariz...

Oh, don't be! If you had read my first post, you'd know where I stand. I said that we lost the war and now we need to integrate the islands, taking advantage of our geographical location to strengthen relations with a world power like the UK.

So, of course that I think democracy is the way to go. Actually, there's no other choice. I began to talk about it to highlight its shortcomings, answering what Lenny Leonard asked me.

this is a nice graph. even few years after the start of iraq war bushs approval wasn't less than before the war. it just dropped to the % he had before but not less. ok a liitle bit less but if there wouldn't have been the war it would have dropped to a weaker approval as well. it dropped very fast before the war.

crazy how many people liked him.

Hmm.  Very good answer.  My opinion of you has changed now that I actually got off my lazy ass and read this entire thread.  

The U.K. should keep the islands. The citizens want to be under British rule. Plus if Argentina gets the islands and the Oil they could follow Venezula and be anti-western and not sell us that oil.

Thats not what that graph shows... the graph shows his popularity dropping below pre iraq levels pretty quickly. (Then rising again, then dropping)

Outside which, it is oddly confusing considering that most people were still against the war without UN approval when he launched it.

So why people suddenly started backing him.... i'm not sure.

Something about that seems geniunely off and makes me wish I had the source data to look at rather then a VERY cluttered poll.

To me it always seemed more like the Wallstreet journal poll.

Showing his approval rating generally lower on everything,  and the WSJ not being known to be a liberal source.

Something feels confounding there... perhaps that the "14-day average" mark seems to suggest that it's treating every poll as the same source of data.  Rather then treating each poll as it's own source of data.

Problem being, your expected to be biased polls like Fox News will create a bit of an exagerration as they will poll more often, when the president does something popular, and less often when they do something less popular. (Well the opposite now.)

During the drum up to war people always get more patriotic (in general, not everyone) and support the president as a measure of patriotism. When the Libya campaign started, I would have approved of Obama that week, and I think he is the worst thing to happen to America since the Twilight books.

hmm i thought that i said exactly that. the graph was at~55%, then huge increase because of 9/11. then it was dropping very fast pre iraq (between 9/11 and iraq war ~30% drop) so if there wouldn't be the iraq war the graph would have dropped more as well, i don't believe that the drop would have stopped exactly there. before iraq it fell from 87% or so to ~55% (which was the same number pre 9/11) and falling very fast, then iraq war with a huge increase and then dropping very fast to ~53%, then they got saddam wich gave a small boost and then next drop to ~48% at election.

but the drop before iraq was constant so i think, iraq or not, he would have dropped below 50% if you watch the line between 9/11 and iraq in the first graph. he was at 50% two year after iraq war start and at 55% short before iraq war with a fast falling popularity maybe even below 50%.

Nah, wouldn't of happened.  The drop was consistant because he was losing his "9/11 bump".

It would of leveled off right around where it was before Iraq.

That's just how bumps work.  It looks like Bush is facing a drastic decline in popularity, but in reality it's just a return to normalcy as people adjust to 9/11 and stop being freaked out by it.