Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Dirty Little Secrets Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Shocking Results of Iraqi Public Opinion Poll
James Dunnigan    3/19/2004 7:32:16 AM

A large scale opinion survey in Iraq, sponsored by several foreign media networks, found that 70 percent of Iraqis thought they were doing well, and 56 percent believed life was better than before the war. Some 70 percent were optimistic about the future.

Iraqis are glad to see Saddam gone, but upset that foreigners had to do it. Thus 49 percent thought the coalition invasion was justified, while 39 percent think it was wrong. While 41.8 percent said the war liberated Iraq, 41.2 percent said Iraq was humiliated. Only 39 percent wanted foreign troops to remain in the country. As for the attacks on foreign troops, 17 percent approved (21 percent of Iraqi Arabs approved of this, but only two percent of Iraqi Kurds.) Overall, 78 percent said the attacks on coalition troops were unacceptable, although that went up to 96.6 percent for attacks on Iraqi police. Understandably, lack of law and order is seen as the most pressing need (22.1 percent of respondents), followed by unemployment (11.8 percent), inflation (9.5 percent), electricity shortages (4.2 percent), housing problems (4.1 percent) and the quality of infrastructure (water supply, road repair and so on, 3.7 percent). The events that make headlines outside of Iraq mean little to the average Iraqi, as only 1.8 percent thought terrorist attacks were the most important issue in their lives, and only .2 percent were concerned about religious and ethnic strife inside Iraq.

Only 20 percent of Iraqis wanted an Islamic state, and 75 percent wanted a strong, unified state, without special privileges for Kurds or anyone else. Religious leaders are trusted the most (by 42.4 percent), and coalition forces the least (4.3 percent). Iraqis now want democratically elected leaders (55.3 percent), but even more they want a strong leader. Saddam Hussein is still respected for his "power" by many Iraqis. While 15.1 percent of Iraqis want coalition forces to leave immediately, 53.3 percent want them to stay until a functioning Iraqi government is in place, or peace is restored to the country.

The survey was conducted by Iraqis, who were hired and trained by the polling organization, Oxford Research International. One thing the survey makes very clear is that most foreign media reporting on Iraq are reporting what they want to see the Iraqi people thinking, not what the Iraqis are actually thinking. This, however, is not unique to Iraq, although European and Arab media tend to be even more distorted in their reporting than is usually the case.

 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12   NEXT
American Kafir    About those war protests...   3/20/2004 3:33:28 PM
March Marching By Lowell Ponte FrontPageMagazine.com | March 19, 2004 EACH MID-MARCH THE BUZZARDS RETURN to Hinckley, Ohio, and radical Leftists return to the streets for their militant spring offensive to protest, spread propaganda and seduce new prey. In this election year, the Left has redoubled its efforts to mobilize anti-war protests as a way to help their Democratic comrades defeat incumbent President George W. Bush. This Saturday, March 20, anti-American marches and rallies were scheduled for dozens of cities in 50 countries around the world, and in the U.S. from Manhattan to Los Angeles. (In picking this date for antiwar protest, did they notice that the month of March was named for the Roman god of War?) Purportedly chosen to mark the one-year anniversary of America?s incursion into Iraq, March 20 this year also happens to be the Spring Equinox (one of two annual days when day and night are equal), the day when spring officially begins. Millions of pagans, as their forebears did at Stonehenge, go to parks to celebrate the Equinox as Mother Nature?s own ?Earth Day.? (The first unnatural Earth Day, April 22, 1970, was deliberately set for Soviet Union founder Vladimir Lenin?s 100th Birthday and has been gleefully celebrated as Earth Day by Marxists and their red-green fellow travelers on this mass murderer?s birthday ever since.) These pagan nature lovers, brought out by spring fever instead of feverish anti-Bush activism, will doubtless be used to falsely inflate media tallies of rallying Leftist protesters. Foremost among the groups planning and coordinating this March 20 hatefest is International A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism). Even hyper-Lefty economist Robert Kuttner, co-editor of The American Prospect, admits that this organization ?can be described fairly as Marxist.? To trace ANSWER?s ancestry, first came the Communist Party USA, puppet front group of the Soviet Union. From it schismed the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). But the SWP itself then split because hardcore members declared it not sufficiently loyal to the Soviet Union when Russian tanks crushed the 1956 uprising in the Soviet colony of occupied Hungary. These chauvinists for Soviet colonialism broke away from SWP and formed the Workers World Party (WWP), which embraced North Korea?s totalitarian dictator Kim Il Sung (and thereafter his son Kim Jong Il) as the Marxist messiah. International ANSWER is the chief front group, the mask used to disguise its real motives, concocted by the Workers World Party. Such details can be tedious, but they are where the devil hides. And these seasonal protests, like baseball, are more fun to watch when you know the rules, tactics, strategies and secret agendas behind the game. Recognizing International ANSWER?s puppet-masters behind the March 20 anti-war protests also helps us to understand why FBI Director Louis J. Freeh warned Congress that ?Anarchists and extreme socialist groups ? many of which, such as the Workers? World Party?have an international presence and, at times, also represent a potential threat in the United States.? Among these eye-opening details, consider what can be gleaned from ANSWER?s own published list of endorsers for its March 20, 2004, ?Global Day of Action.? Most of the listed organizations, we can assume from nearly a century of Communist Party front group activity, are little more than a handful of radicals who printed their own letterhead to create several noble-sounding organizations. But even so, look at what is scheduled to march Saturday under ANSWER?s red banner. More than any other cause, 22 nominally pro-Muslim and/or anti-Israel groups sit prominently near the top of this endorser list. These include the San Francisco group QUIT! (Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism), the Palestine Right to Return Coalition (Al Awda), the Palestinian Solidarity Committee and the Free Palestine Alliance. Every computer-downloadable flyer that ANSWER?s website offers to promote the March 20 protest in different cities includes some clear photo of Palestinian protest ? except, oddly, the flyer for Los Angeles. ANSWER also offers these flyers in Spanish to tell those in Washington, D.C. how to catch buses to the big march in New York City, where Leftists can also get flyers in Spanish. But, again oddly, in San Francisco, Sacramento and Los Angeles, ANSWER offers no downloadable flyers in Spanish but all are available in Arabic! One might logically infer that secret Muslim oil money provides a large share of ANSWER?s funding ? or, to paraphrase their rhetoric, that this anti-war campaign is being fought for oil bloodmoney. But even without money, ANSWER has become a dirt magnet for every sort of Israel-hating anti-Semitic kookery. Ultra-Leftist Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun magazine and onetime spiritual advisor to Senator Hillary Clinton, found this out when ANSWER banned h
 
Quote    Reply

NewGuy    RE:Shocking Results of Iraqi Public Opinion Poll   3/20/2004 5:13:34 PM
Hey, GBWR - what's your point? That geography books are cheap?? That you can't debate Jim Dunnigans post on its merits or truthfullness so you bring up non-related issues as a diversion tactic??? Do it cause you great discomfort that Iraqis generally find themselves better off now that that Saddam is gone and the sanctions are removed???? Please, lets see you logically and rationally refute the poll results -- your completely unrelated claims of American media bias and lies are frankly inane, considering that the poll in question was done by IRAQIS, and was sponsored and directed by mostly NON-AMERICAN media institutions, like the BBC, German broadcasting network ARD, Japanese broadcasters NHK, and the independent British group Oxford Research International -- the only American media involved involved was ABC News, and ORI trained and directed the Iraqi pollsters themselves, not ABC. Are you capable of more than "cut-n-paste-and-run"? Let's see... NewGuy
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:Shocking Results of Iraqi Public Opinion Poll   3/20/2004 5:27:29 PM
You forgot Jonah Goldberg's Zetigeist Award Winning, "Cheese eating surrender monkeys" (which, as he's often pointed out, is actually a line from THE SIMPSONS). However, apart from providing a valuable reference to a number of useful articles, you're claim is in error. The various demonstrations, have, indeed, been covered in the American media. They were the leading story, tonight, in both NBC and ABC network news. (CBS preempted their news broadcast, this evening.) Stories appeared in the papers. NPR? But, of course. Perhaps your real complaint is that so many Americans care so little for the opinions of Europe, and so many agree, strongly, with the Bush policies?
 
Quote    Reply

Jay    RE:Shocking Results of Iraqi Public Opinion Poll   3/21/2004 2:00:41 PM
I think the poll results actually might also be under-reporting the positive opinions of the Iraqis. Seeing as everyone under the age of 35 was born under the Ba'ath party's brutal brand of pan-arab fascism, I'm sure quite a few people are still very hesitant about talking how much better life will be without Saddam. In truth I think the numbers are probably closer to 70%, but the Sunnis will take a long time before coming around, still getting used to their cake ride coming to an end.
 
Quote    Reply

swami    RE:Shocking Results of Iraqi Public Opinion Poll   3/21/2004 7:33:35 PM
I am really glad that this poll was commissioned. And I am not surprised that the Iraqis are generally happy with the way things are going, but that they are also suspicious of the US military. I think that it generally shows that we are on the right track, but much needs to be done. I hope we have the discipline to not cut out too quickly. As a pro-war Democrat, I am appalled by how many so-called progressives are violently opposed to overthrowing a dictator and trying to establish a democracy. I remember when the left stood for overthrowing tyranny. Anyway I am glad that polls like this give us the information to cut through all the ideological BS of both the left and the right.
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran    RE:Shocking Results of Iraqi Public Opinion Poll   3/22/2004 4:02:27 PM
It's not so much that tossing saddam out was a bad thing. it's more the crock bush tried to sell the world to justify it. I mean do you think the american public would have fallen into line so fast and easy if the rationale had been "he's a lousy sob and it's time someone did something about him".
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:Shocking Results of Iraqi Public Opinion Poll   3/22/2004 4:25:30 PM
Ehran wrote: "he's a lousy sob and it's time someone did something about him" Actually, the US public probably would have supported that line of reasoning. The US public, as far as I can see, has wanted Saddam gone since 1991. The problem is that the wonderful media, opposition political party and european allies wouldn't have supported it. Now, as far as I'm concerned, if the US public at large supports it and we live in a democracy that's good enough. However, Colin Powell, among others, convinced Bush that he needed international support to the greatest extent possible, which is why we played out the charade at the UN. In fact there was ample UN authority for what Bush did and no need for any of the gyrations that he went through prior to the action taken. I think that what Bush and his govt are guilty of is primarily believing that they had to try and appear to be multi-lateral. They should have simply used the prior UN resolutions as authority and taken action. The US public would have supported it and the French, Germans and Russians, who have lost a great deal of money with the overthrow of Saddam, would not have.
 
Quote    Reply

Jay    RE:Shocking Results of Iraqi Public Opinion Poll   3/23/2004 9:02:15 AM
'It's not so much that tossing saddam out was a bad thing. it's more the crock bush tried to sell the world to justify it. I mean do you think the american public would have fallen into line so fast and easy if the rationale had been "he's a lousy sob and it's time someone did something about him" ' Actually, I'm not so sure it was a crock. The opponents of this war have used the Orwellian technique of "say it, say, say it enough and they'll believe it" to the point where many have seemed to forget we still don't know if those weapons were moved to Syria. They certainly had time. In any case there's no doubt that the Iraqis were busy hiding something in the months leading up to the war. I tend to think that he did have some WMD, maybe not as many as was thought, but still a substantial amount. And there's no doubt in my mind that it was only a matter of time before that lunatic got his hands on an ex-Sov or Pakistani nuke. But really, I do think the main reason Americans did support the war was because Saddam was such an sob. We Americans more than most people tend to think of things in terms of heroes and villians, it's part of our culture. Bush just couldn't say that, because then the inevitable question would arise as to why don't we get rid of all the other sob's too. Kind of like why jump in and save one drowning person when you can't save them all. I do think Bush honestly believed, with good reason, that Iraq had WMD. But I also think that a lot of the reason for this war was a final realization that the arab world was only going to continue to deteriorate into further violence. It would continue producing more terrorists and eventually descend into a large regional war which would suck in many other countries, including the US. Unless we got a significant foothold in the area and jumpstarted a real democracy. Saddam made Iraq the best place to get that foothold. But could Bush have "sold" the war that way? I don't know. But I still support everything he did. I think this invasion will prevent an exponentially worse war five or ten years in the future. One that my kids would have had to fight. So I guess in a nutshell my feeling is that WMD was a reason for the war, though not the only one. But it certainly wasn't for oil. Just my two cents :-).
 
Quote    Reply

American Kafir    RE:About those war protests...   3/26/2004 7:42:39 PM
>>Hi American Kefir, I am really sorry, but if you declare that anti-American marches and rallies were scheduled in the U.S. from Manhattan to Los Angeles I think you really have a problem. If those approximately 50% of democrats and Nader voters are all anti-American, I just wonder, how do you define America?<< By that logic, would the 199,950,000 of 2 million registered voters in America who didn't attend anti-war protests give you a clue as to how I define America? Or maybe the American flags flying on every other car on the highway? >>Why don't you just join the "freerepublic.com" and socialize with the friends of lies, propaganda and ignorance<< Because you were easier to find here?
 
Quote    Reply

swhitebull    What happened? Is there a full moon out tonight?   3/26/2004 7:51:41 PM
Looks like the Stars Might be Right - and the return of Grolth is Imminent. Seems in his litany of all the faults of the United States, our newist Bush admin basher forgot to mention the ALLIANCE OF CONVENIENCE with one of the biggest butchers of the last century- Josip Stalin and the Soviet Union- an alliance forged for the express purpose of defeating a greater perceived evil of the time - Adolph Hitler. You wouldnt happen to be German, would you - so convenient of you to forget this one. Are you suggesting that the Alliance with the Soviet Union- although a slight human rights abuser in its own right - was not the correct approach taken to defeat the German menace fueled by the hatred promulgated by Hitler? ALLIANCES OF CONVENIENCE are a standard operating procedure in the conduct of foreign policy -- has been for decades. I guess that bothers you, but then, it is obvious from the few postings that you have made that your agenda is NOT to discuss foreign policy, but to bash the Bush administration. So what is your point? swhitebull
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy