Even the british which had quite good support in the south of iraq are now losing support.
Ummm... it's far from clear both that we ever had quite good support and that we are now losing such support. The British casualty rate has stayed pretty steady over time, and the Basrah governor has in the last couple of days restarted cooperation with British forces. The whole of the south is one almighty mess, and has been for centuries. The best we can hope to do is keep a lid on the worst of the violence while people make up their minds under what sort of government they wish to live, form that government, and form the security apparatus needed to protect that government. None of this existed in the south at the time of the invasion, and building it completely from scratch in a region that has been governed from elsewhere for centuries with no local participation takes a long time.

Please dont make me post links from american news sites, it will only make you look more stupid.
Try doing some really basic maths instead. There are approximately 20 million Iraqis and 200,000 coalition troops in Iraq. Thus the Iraqis outnumber the coalition 100:1 (in fact rather more so considering the number of logistics types, etc. in the Allied armies). The Iraqis have had conscription for a long time, so in terms of trained soldiers the Allied armies are outnumbered perhaps 30:1 (weaponry isn't an issue - Iraq is awash in the stuff). Now, if the Iraqis outnumber the Coalition troops by such a margin and all hate the coalition/want them out as you are claiming, why are the coalition casualties so tiny? Something stinks here, and I think it's your assumptions.
Romanes Eunt Domus