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: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12   NEXT
American Kafir    RE:Shocking Results of Iraqi Public Opinion Poll   3/26/2004 8:10:39 PM
"if the US public at large supports it and we live in a democracy that's good enough." >>Wow, great, I will call my president, for sure the large part of the public in my country would support overthrowing George W. Bush. As would the people in Brazil, Spain, France, Switzerland, just to name a few. You preach the law of the jungle, are you a monkey<< No, silly. We're evil conspirators hell-bent on ruling the world. Here's how we'd deal with your "coalition": Brazil - we stop drinking coffee. Brazilian economy wrecked. Spain - we bomb a mailbox, send a tape claiming Osama Bin Laden wants them to wear socks on their ears. Spanish troops refuse to march barefoot. France - CIA secretly inserts laxatives in dog food supply. Paris drowns in bureaucratic response. Switzerland - Hundreds of normally neutral Swiss soldiers run from their homes to blow up bridges, cut phone lines, block roads, and head for the mountains in anticipation of an American invasion that never comes. Years later, Alpine expeditions find piles of open food cans, empty wine bottles, lots of Erector set toys and screws lying around, and evidence of campfires, surrounded by frozen, starved corpses with well-groomed hair and watches showing the precise time.
 
Quote    Reply

American Kafir    RE:What happened? Is there a full moon out tonight?   3/26/2004 8:19:31 PM
Full moon might be right. It is, after all, FREAKY FRIDAY! Salaam alizzle, my nizzle.
 
Quote    Reply

American Kafir    RE:About those war protests...   3/26/2004 8:25:42 PM
>>Sure, everyone who has a flag on the car supports the Iraq war and will vote for Bush, and everyone who did not show up on the street still thinks that Hussein was the real Bin Laden and has WMD under his footnails. Dream on<< I'm not sure how I'll vote. The promise of candy chews falling down from rainbows in the sky if I vote for Kerry is awful tempting.
 
Quote    Reply

swhitebull    RE:What happened? Is there a full moon out tonight?   3/26/2004 8:28:13 PM
..I never heard that the US and the Soviets worked very well together, I only heard about the race they had in Germany to get bigger chunks of the interesting parts of the country. But maybe you know more than I do.. Actually, it appears I do, as do most of the people here who remember their history. I sugget you pick up a non-German version of the US contribution to the US war effort- or pick up Strategy7 Tactics magazine #23, which discussed this in detail. The US contribution to the Soviet Union in terms of DIRECT military and indirect industrial aid enabled the Soviets to increase their logistical tail, motorize the bulk of their infantry in the latter stages of the war thru Lend-Lease trucks, and provide the edge that the Soviets needed to beat the Germans and KEEP on beating them. The Teheran agreement between Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin in late 1943 laid the groundwork for cooperation between the three countries, and strategicall planned the conduct of the rest of the war. Here's an outline of just how paltry an aid effort we gave to a human-rights violating, repressive, horrible regime, whom we joined in an ALLIANCE OF CONVENIENCE to beat the Nazis: Despite deep-seated mistrust and hostility between the Soviet Union and the Western democracies, Nazi Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941 created an instant alliance between the Soviets and the two greatest powers in what the Soviet leaders had long called the "imperialist camp": Britain and the United States. Three months after the invasion, the United States extended assistance to the Soviet Union through its Lend-Lease Act of March 1941. Before September 1941, trade between the United States and the Soviet Union had been conducted primarily through the Soviet Buying Commission in the United States. Lend-Lease was the most visible sign of wartime cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union. About $11 billion in war material was sent to the Soviet Union under that program. Additional assistance came from U.S. Russian War Relief (a private, nonprofit organization) and the Red Cross. About seventy percent of the aid reached the Soviet Union via the Persian Gulf through Iran; the remainder went across the Pacific to Vladivostok and across the North Atlantic to Murmansk. Lend- Lease to the Soviet Union officially ended in September 1945. Joseph Stalin never revealed to his own people the full contributions of Lend-Lease to their country's survival, but he referred to the program at the 1945 Yalta Conference saying, "Lend-Lease is one of Franklin Roosevelt's most remarkable and vital achievements in the formation of the anti-Hitler alliance." Lend-Lease material was welcomed by the Soviet Union, and President Roosevelt attached the highest priority to using it to keep the Soviet Union in the war against Germany. Nevertheless, the program did not prevent friction from developing between the Soviet Union and the other members of the anti-Hitler alliance. The Soviet Union was annoyed at what seemed to it to be a long delay by the allies in opening a "second front" of the Allied offensive against Germany. As the war in the east turned in favor of the Soviet Union, and despite the successful Allied landings in Normandy in 1944, the earlier friction intensified over irreconcilable differences about postwar aims within the anti-Axis coalition. Lend-Lease helped the Soviet Union push the Germans out of its territory and Eastern Europe, thus accelerating the end of the war. With Stalin's takeover of Eastern Europe, the wartime alliance ended, and the Cold War began. swhitebull - times change, conditions dont. The Bush Doctrine says that different conditions require different mixes of allies. Iraq was no different, as was the Alliance with the Soviets in WW2, or with Ho Chi Minh of Vietnam also during WW2. A suggestion - study Politics Among Nations - by Hans Morgenthau - it is one of the CLASSIC books on international politics. It's all there.
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:What happened? Is there a full moon out tonight?   3/26/2004 8:42:31 PM
"But maybe you know more than I do" Set the bar higher. And, it was the US, USSR, and UK. My, my. A mere half century since the greatest war in human history and already a staggering level of ignorance....
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:Shocking Results of Iraqi Public Opinion Poll   3/26/2004 9:08:54 PM
WorldRespect wrote: "Wow, great, I will call my president, for sure the large part of the public in my country would support overthrowing George W. Bush." So, you say that the majority of your country (Germany I think) would support overthrowing Bush. I think they might support him being out of office. I highly doubt they support overthrowing him militarily. But, let's suppose they do. Well then, if so, and you are in Germany, which is a democracy, go for it. If you have the strength to carry out your desires. You may not like it, but the fact is that international relations is ruled by the law of the jungle. That's how it is, deal with it.
 
Quote    Reply

appleciderus    Ignorance   3/27/2004 5:48:16 AM
I seldom disagree with bsl, but when he says: "My, my. A mere half century since the greatest war in human history and already a staggering level of ignorance... ",,, I must point out that this is not a lack of information (ignorance), but 3 generations of biased education.
 
Quote    Reply

swhitebull    RE:What happened? Is there a full moon out tonight?   3/27/2004 12:03:22 PM
.. And breaking of international law is breaking international law, no matter how many lackeys you find to support it .. Hmm - This is a most perplexing problem. You seem to feel that "international law" was broken. COuld you be a little more specific, if you could. I'm curious as to just WHAT laws were broken? My specialty, as are many others on this board, happens to be in international economics, business AND law, so if the United States BROKE any laws in their pursuit of enforcing 17 United Nations BINDING ARTICLE 7 Resolutions, I'm curious where YOU find them in non-compliance, and would be curious if you could cite specific "International Laws" broken. Was it the 17 Article 7 Security Council resolutions that automatically authorize any means available, up to and including the use of force, to force a member nation to comply? Perhaps you think that Article 6 Resolutions should have applied instead? NAh, there weren't any of those passed against Iraq. Maybe it was the UNANIMOUS 15-Member UN Security Council Article 7 Resolution that gave Iraq one final chance to comply with the previous 16 Article Resolutions to declare, among many other conditions, what was his current stockpile of WMDS, or if he didnt have any anymore, to show proof of their destruction? You know, the Article 7 Resolutions that grant enforcement capabilities to member nations, up to and INCLUDING the use of military force to force compliance with the UN Resolution that Iraq, as a signatory of the United Nations, HAS to subjugate its compliance to? Nope, that one seems legal as well. Maybe it was that many German firms were illegally selling military hardware, goods and other equipment to the Iraqis, in contravention of the embargo? Nope, can't be that, could it? Was it the 1991 Armistice Agreement between the Iraqi government and the United Coalition Forces, as embodied in the United States, the UK, and the UK that fought it to push Iraq out of illegal from their ILLEGAL aggression against Kuwait? What, could it be? YES!@!! WE FOUND ONE ILLEGAL ACTION. BUT, it was ON THE PART OF IRAQ!!!! Iraq broke the ARMISTICE on innumerable occasions. Casus belli, again. How does firing on UK AND US aircraft, in violation of the UN Authorized no-fly zones, hit you as an international law being broken? Was that legal on the part of the Iraqis? SInce it violated many of the 16 BINDING ARTICLE 7 Resolutions that permitted the imposition of the non-Fly Zone, in order to enforce the armistice, and to protect the Kurds, the Marsh arabs and the Shiites from Iraqi govt attacks. Sounds like ANOTHER resolution or so broken there.Hm maybe another casus belli? I could go on, but your attempt to highjack a thread that is specifically geared towards the IRAQI opinion of their liberation is the point is pretty pathetic, NOT all the card catalog sh*T of what this administration or that administration did or did not do to muster support. swhitebull - so again, WHAT SPECIFIC LAWS DID THE UNITED STATES break in enforcing the United Nations binding Article 7 Resolutions? Ive got an enquiring mind, and I'd like to know.
 
Quote    Reply

swhitebull    RE:Ignorance   3/27/2004 12:17:59 PM
Man, I didnt know that so many people were showing support for a tyrant that murdered over 1,000,000 people, between Iranians, Kurds, Shiites, and other Iraqis, ILLEGALLY attacked Israel in 1991, gave support to a LONG laundry list of terrorists, etc etc etc. swhitebull - so, mister I-dont-get-no-respect. What, your first name is Rodney? What is more morally repugnant to YOU? Removing one of the most hideous tyrants in the world's history, and liberating 25 million peoploe from his repression, or the fact that the UNITED STATES has the power, the will, and the morality to act on its own accord - with or without the figleaf of Eurotrash approval? THAT is what really scares the crap out of you, isnt it? THAT WE COULD act as we did. Can you spell B-O-S-N-I-A Holocaust? You cant even act in your own precious backyard without having the United States SHAME you into action. SO much for European morality. That EUROPEAN morality, you know, the kind that sticks its head in the ground, closes its eyes to antiSemitism and atrocities constantly perpetrated on Jews in Israel, perpetrated the Holocaust (which YOU seem to feel that TOO MUCH TIME IS WASTED ON - whats the matter - do you wish to forget what the NAZIS of GERMANY did? - doesnt fit in nicely with your EUROPEAN SENSIBILITIES?) Feel free to whine- you're doing a great job of it. I just hope when, NOT if, the time comes when Germany is hit hard - and it WILL be in time - that the response of the United States is NOT the same as that of the vaunted German Chancellor. Thank goodness that your military still has the balls to act when it must, and NOT count on your leadership - which has all the spine of a jellyfish.
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:What happened? Is there a full moon out tonight?   3/27/2004 12:50:07 PM
WorldRespect wrote: "as everyone knows the rules are set such that only the United Nations Security Council has the power to legitimize a war" That's not true. Declaring and waging war is the right of every sovereign nation. If, by legitimizing, you mean making it okay in your eyes, then war will never be legitimized because someone will always think it wrong even when done for the best reasons.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  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