really late reply, but i'd like to point out that first Libya and now this have been America jumping in with the UK (and France).   Not vice versa.

Maybe so, but that wasn't the case with Iraq or Afghanistan was it? In fact, 1 million people protested in London against the UK joining America to go to Iraq and we were ignored. And Americans, wonder why ordinary people across much of the world hate them. 

Its weird that the public worships the government despite the mass poverty it puts them through.

That's what propaganda and brainwashing does unfortunately. The North Korean government somehow perfected it. 

A large part of it (though how large is always impossible to tell) is the phenomenon of Preference Falsification, whereby people both deceive others and deceive themselves about how much they approve of the government due to perceived mass approval for the government. A Marxist-Leninist government or any other system sufficiently brutal in imposing the will of the state will lead to widespread preference falsification that will make the reality of public opinion impossible to derive.

Though the stream of refugees, literally risking everything, perhaps paints a clearer picture.

Sounds like this site sometimes!!

I went there...

Once again, your somewhat misinformed.  A Majority of UK citizens supported Military action.  Mass disaproval now only exists because the war sucked.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/events/public_opinion_about_the_afghan_war_changes

Really, in general europe.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2001/1007/19430-worldreax/

If people are going to hate America for their countries joining in on something the majority of said country wanted to do... well ok then.  That's pretty much just how people work, critisize then hate those who made the decision when they turn out wrong, even though they supported it at the time.

It's like how Democrats are pissed about the bailout of Wallstreet even though they were the ones who bailed out wallstreet.  Or how Republicans are pissed off about the NSA scandal and wiretaps of reproterse even though THEY were the ones who pushed hardest for FISA.

"Lets hate the guy who did what we wanted him to, it's easier then having to admit we were wrong!"  Is the general rallying cry of the public and regular people.

I don't know about Afghanistan, but people really were against going to Iraq. Maybe those who were for it just remained quiet but many didn't want war and why would they? Personally, i think both wars were a huge waste of time and money achieving little good and also started on false beliefs. Iraq started on bogus accusations of nuclear weapon posession, none were ever found because it was bullshit to start with. Afghanistan, really started on 9/11 despite the fact the country had nothing to do with it. Just shows how ignorant bush was to go there, knowing the British empire in the 1840's and the Soviet Union in the 1980's lost there.

This just shows how popular Iraq intervention was~http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/15/iraq-war-mass-protest. This hardly shows people wanted it and so is not comparable to Wall Street. 

But anyway, you would think people would be against any war by now with all the devastating conflict over the years, some may never learn. Especially, when they weren't justified like the last two wars. War should only happen when your own borders are threatened. 

I actually missed Iraq in there earlier.   No, people in the UK supproted the Iraq war at first too. 

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/newsevents/ca/180/Iraq-Public-Support-Maintained-8212-The-State-Of-Public-Opinion-On-The-War.aspx

Considering they don't cite the poll at all not even being able to give it a name!   They probably are just misremembering it.  Since you can see multiple polls show otherwise.

To claim otherwise, that most people were against it only does a great disservice to those smart enough to be against it in the first place.  As someone who was against the wars in the first place, the backtracking condemnations annoy me greatly.  It's why people never do learn, and why we keep invading other countries for little tangible gain.

It really should have been clear that invading Iraq was an unnecessary boondoggle, although it cause the Jihadis (esp. Al Qaeda themselves) to waste a lot of their own blood and treasure in trying to make headway in the aftermath. Every foreign Jihadi we (effectively) lured over to Iraq and killed was one more Jihadi that the Great Powers wouldn't have to waste time hunting down somewhere else...

But considered in the narrow sense, it was tertiary, or even detrimental, to the fight against radical Islam, because Saddam was a bulwark against such, not a sponsor of it.