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
appleciderus    Hiroshima Bull$shit and Euro-trash revisionism   3/29/2004 6:16:33 PM
This will not agree with your ideology, and may be ?uninteresting?. Scholars call it history. No opinions, just dates and events. ***American Intelligence figured that to invade Japan would cost a very minimum of 100,000 Americans killed and wounded? ?On July 26, the United States, the United Kingdom and the Republic of China issued the Potsdam Declaration. It promised that the Japanese people would not be enslaved, but it insisted that Japan be disarmed and occupied, and its war-making power be destroyed. TWO DAYS LATTER, (July 28) PRIME MINISTER SUZUKI ANNOUNCED THAT JAPAN WOULD CONTINUE TO FIGHT.? (Caps by me) August 6, Hiroshima. August 8, Soviet Union declares war on Japan. August 9, Nagasaki. ?August 10, Japan asked for peace on the terms of the Potsdam Declaration, with the sole condition that the Emperor retain his throne. Three days of discussion followed, and then Truman announced that the Emperor could stay, subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers.? (MacArthur) August 14, Hirohito surrenders. Appleciderus: You see, you have the intellect of a hockey puck. The Japanese knew the war was lost, but willingly continued to fight, with the purpose of inflicting so many casualties as to make the Allies back off the Potsdam Declaration. I will not be surprised if your superior European viewpoint declares 100,000 or more US casualties acceptable. I will quote another American in response: NUTS! You are intellectually corrupt, and I suspect, intellectually dishonest.
 
Quote    Reply

Condor Legion    RE:Hiroshima Bull$shit and Euro-trash revisionism   3/29/2004 7:23:16 PM
...and perhaps the worst educated "German" I've ever seen on the web... === M3A1 Stuart - 1,676 shipped between Jan 1942 - Dec 1943. Most of which were the (Mark) IV type with diesel engines. The Soviets disliked the Stuarts high silhouette and it's fixed BMG (which they, like the British, often removed). M3 Lee - 1,386 shipped between late 1941 and August 1942. Their high silhouette and bow mounted main gun rendered them unpopular with Soviet tankers. One known use of Stuarts and Lees in Russia was during the unsuccessful amphibious operation at Ozereyka Bay in Feb 1943, where afterwards the Germans counted 31 knocked-out Lees and Stuarts. M4A2 Sherman - 1,993 shipped between Sep 1942 and Dec 1944. The Soviets not surprisingly regarded the Sherman as inferior to the T-34, but could not have failed to be impressed by its durability - since a Sherman could be expected to run at least three times as long as a T-34 before suffering a mechanical breakdown. M4A2(76w) - 2,095 between May 1944 and the end of the war. The Russians used more Shermans than any other Lend-Leased tank during the last two years of the war. Some tank and mechanized corps were entirely equipped with Shermans; the 1st Guards Mechanized Corps in 1945 was one such. === Matilda - 1,084 shipped between 1941 and 1943. The Matilda was the second most common Lend-Lease British tank used by the Soviets. They did not like it however, and criticized both its slow speed and its poor performance in winter. It was used mainly for infantry support. Valentine - 3,700+ shipped between 1941 and 1944. The Soviets recieved more Valentines than any other British tank. They also prefered it over the others because of its higher speed and greater reliability - but they still (justifiably) considered it manifestly inferior to their own T-34. Churchill - 301 shipped in 1943. Due to the weight, Churchills were considered heavy tanks by the Russians, who regarded them as inferior to their own KV heavy tanks. The only heavy tanks available to the 5th Guards Tank Army at Kursk were 35 Churchills in an independent heavy tank regiment. The US supplied the Soviet Union with some $11 billion worth of goods and materials during WW2. Included in this were some 7,200 tanks (of which 6,300 arrived), over 432,000 trucks, and just over 14,000 aircraft. Great Britian and Canada supplied the USSR with about 5,200 tanks (of which some 4,600 arrived), 4,000 planes, and over 2,500 Bren Carriers. The Soviets generally belittled the AFV's of the Western Allies and relegated many to secondary fronts, thus releasing their own AFV for use in more important areas at a time when Soviet AFV production was still recovering from the setbacks of 1941. More recent reports of Soviet tactical doctrine indicates that Russian policy was to operate Western tanks on their southern fronts where winter conditions were not so harsh. On the other hand, the great influx of trucks and other transport vehicles gave Soviet units a degree of mobility that could not have been attained had they been solely dependent on their own domestic truck production, which out of necessity had to be greatly curtailed to allow increased AFV production. In sum, while the Soviets have minimized the effects of Lend-Lease on their ability to defeat Germany, it is fair to say that in this regard it was not decisive but was certainly significant. === With apologies to Mr. Dunnigan for quoting from a former competiter - The ASL rulebook 2nd edition. WHO'S YER, CL.
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:What happened? Is there a full moon out tonight?   3/29/2004 8:26:07 PM
"The war in Serbia was justified later on by a UN resolution," More Euro-tripe. The same glorious internationalist attitude which led, directly, to the massacre at Srbrnica. Another instance of applied euroethics....
 
Quote    Reply

Green Dragon    RE:Hiroshima Bull$shit and Euro-trash revisionism   3/30/2004 4:40:17 AM
'?On July 26, the United States, the United Kingdom and the Republic of China issued the Potsdam Declaration. It promised that the Japanese people would not be enslaved, but it insisted that Japan be disarmed and occupied, and its war-making power be destroyed.' So that is not a warning? Where I come from, we share our drugs. The US killed several hundred innocent civilians, right. So what exactly did the IJA do in Nanking nine years earlier that is so horrific the Chinese are still dirty about it (as if they needed an excuse). Whatever your opinion is of your own intelligence, I can say with a reasonable degree of confidence that it is not shared by the majority of posters and readers of these discussion boards..
 
Quote    Reply

Green Dragon    RE:Hiroshima Bull$shit and Euro-trash revisionism   3/30/2004 4:42:21 AM
*Blush* Not several hundred, but several hundred thousand! "A few billion here, a few billion there, all of a sudden, we're talking serious money."
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:Hiroshima Bull$shit and Euro-trash revisionism   3/30/2004 9:43:31 AM
gBWR, your revising of the reality of World War 2 is so far off the mark that it is simply incredible. The fact is that the USSR would most likely have been defeated without American Lend-Lease. Once the USSR was defeated in 1941 or 1942 Germany would have enough resources and industry to hold off the Western Allies, potentially indefinitely. One or two atomic bombs at that point would not have defeated Germany. The scenario that is likely to play out is that Germany also acquires atomic weapons, builds medium range ballistic missiles (can you say V-2?) and levels British cities in retaliation. We end up with a true atomic war. As far as Japan, yes they had begun making peace overtures. However, the Allied position had been unconditional surrender was the only surrender acceptable. The Japanese government was trying to negotiate a peace settlement, not what the Allies had demanded. It was not negotiable. The Potsdam Declaration made that clear. The Japanese chose to not abide by that declaration. An invasion of the Japanese home islands is estimated to have resulted in more than 5 million Allied and Japanese casualties. More people were killed in the bombing raids on Tokyo than died at Hiroshima. These are all facts. Are you suggesting that Japan should have been able to negotiate a peace that would not lead to their unconditional surrender, complete disarmament and occupation by the Allies? We should negotiate with one of the worst criminal governments in the world's history? Oh yeah, I forgot, that's what Europeans do, they negotiate with criminal governments and let them remain in power to continue their criminal activity. It was the French and British solution to Hitler when he wanted to illegally occupy Austria and Czechoslovakia and Memel. Look at how well that worked out. If the British hadn't managed to find their backbone the French would have rolled over on Poland too. Our French buddies on these boards made that clear and made it clear that they blame Britain for World War II and their defeat by the Germans because the British did what was right and honorable for Poland. I guess it would be okay to negotiate with the butchers of Nanking, the men who led the Bataan Death March? Is that what you are saying? You are a typical European left winger who can't reality because of your ideology. I really wonder what you and your buddies would do if the UK and the US left Europe out to dry the next time you are faced with someone like Hitler. We won't, of course, but some days that's what we feel like doing. Your lack of gratitude and rewriting of history is simply amazing. This is my last response to you.
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:Hiroshima Bull$shit and Euro-trash revisionism   3/30/2004 10:02:11 AM
Oh yeah gBWR, before I forget. I'm pretty sure you are German. Remember the intelligence that the US presented to the world and the UN on Iraqi mobile weapons labs? An intelligence estimate that the UK, France, Germany and Russia agreed with, by the way? Guess who provided the US with that intelligence information? If you guessed Germany, you guessed right. So, if we are guilty of presenting false information to the UN so is Germany. Have a nice day.
 
Quote    Reply

appleciderus    Whatever your name is today   3/30/2004 7:15:32 PM
As you can see, the initial respect posters here afford newcomers has been exhausted. Why? Because you offer only imbecilic allegations. I feel no need to elaborate GD's or MG's refutation of your adolescent claims. However, I do not wish you a nice day. Be gone with you!!
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:Srbrnica and EuroEthics   3/30/2004 9:00:17 PM
In the grand, modern European tradition, an international force was sent to "protect" the local muslim population. And, in the grand modern European tradition, the force sent was inadequate to any real use of force. It looked like a military detachement, but, what it really was was a small group of lightly armed men, who lacked the will, orders, backing, equipment, to do much more than conduct photo-ops. Ecstatic in their righteousness - after all, European peacekeepers were present -, the Eurostatesmen responsible announced to the world, and their local electorates, that the Muslims were protected. Indeed, the word was sent out to the people in the vicinity of Srbrnica that the Europeans were present, the Europeans would protect them, and they needed to come in from the country to the protected city of Srbrnica so that the Europeacekers could protect them. And, so, muslims who were hiding in the countryside came out, and Muslims who could have fled the Serbs, came to the protection of the peacekeepers. After all, the Europeans had given their word, and what are the Europeans but honest, civilized folk? And, when the Serb death squads arrived, the glorious European peacekeepers, being refused any help or support by the civilized governments of the civilized countries of Europe, stuck their tails between their legs and ran away,while the Serbs took a short time off to taunt them before they began their massecre. And, this all happened, not in some distant corner of the planet, not in some dark, primitive continent, but right in Europe, a short train ride from Paris and Rome and Bonn. Uncivilized, backwards folk, such as me, see this as one of the darkest episodes in the last 50 years of European "civilization". The primitive way to look at a military force whose mission is to protect helpless civilians from massecre, who actually GATHER those civilians in one place, then, when the murderers show up, run away, is to consider them unworthy to share a country or culture with. Those are bad circumstances, but that's the point where you mentally kiss your family goodbye, make your peace with the divine, and do your best. That's the point where political leaders worthy of office decide that their careers are not worth the bodies of thousands of murdered civilians. You explain why protecting them is worth doing to your electorates, but you give the orders to fight and send the forces you need. And, the enlightened masses of truly civilized countries understand this, without need of convincing, and support the whole effort. But, it's difficult to think of Europe as "civilized". The home of the holocaust. The home of communism. The peoples whose gut reactions to an ongoing effort to FINISH the holocaust is a permanent campaign against Israel and anything they do to prevent being massacred. I guess I just don't understand this "civilization" thing. But, whatever it involves, I'm pretty sure the Europeans don't have much to teach the rest of us about it.
 
Quote    Reply

swhitebull    RE:Srbrnica and EuroEthics - bsl Two WORDS for you    3/30/2004 9:09:59 PM
Tou and Che' Excellent swhitebull - to paraphrase what Walsh said- Have they no shame?
 
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