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
mike_golf    RE:Srbrnica and EuroEthics   3/30/2004 9:47:54 PM
bsl, while talking about things that we learned from the Europeans let's not forget pogroms, let's not forget how the criminal dictators their use one murderous gang of thugs to kill another murderous gang of thugs that supports the dictator because otherwise they won't have the support of their military-industrial complex (night of the long knives). Let's not forget that war criminals in Europe get to run for elected office while being tried by the ICC (and we should join the ICC because of that?). Let's remember how two gangs of mass murdering thugs decided to divide a country up between them because it was convenient. And then, after dividing Poland up, the USSR, that wonderful nation that was just a bunch of peace loving communists, murdered the Polish Army officer cadets and academy cadre, some as young as fourteen, in the Katyn Forest. Oh, did I mention the Poles murdered by the peace loving Soviets had to dig their own graves before they were shot in the head with a .32 calibre pistol. A few years later the Red Army was halted short of Warsaw during the Ghetto uprising just long enough to ensure that the Nazi's wiped out all of the underground leadership and resistance, then the Soviets grandly liberated Warsaw. Then our oh so moral European pals turned around and did business with the USSR, although they won't do business with Israel because of their "atrocities". What's really interesting is that the countries that spent 50 years ground under the heels of first the Nazi's and then the Communists are the ones who are supporting the fight in Afghanistan and Iraq, like Poland. Maybe they understand that no price is too high to pay for freedom, liberty and the opportunity to choose your own government. Once upon a time Patrick Henry said "Give me Liberty or give me death". Benjamin Franklin said "Those who give up essential liberty, to preserve a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." America is founded on the belief that liberty is the most desirable of all social conditions. Americans are willing to pay their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor to secure liberty. Europeans desire peace, security and safety and will forfeit their liberty and that of other peoples to gain it. Not all Europeans, obviously. But a substantial portion and their governments. It's simply amazing to me that countries that fought WW2 to overthrow the Nazi's and stop the Holocaust would then turn around and do business with the USSR, murderers worse than Hitler and the Nazi's, would turn a blind eye to ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, would do business with Saddam Hussein, who was as bad as Hitler or Stalin. And, even though the US has opposed the Ba'athists for longer than we supported them during the Iran-Iraq war we are somehow culpable and morally bankrupt because we chose the lesser of two evils during that war, much like we felt that the USSR was the lesser evil when choosing between Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. Moral bankruptcy has the gall to lecture us. The same people who lectured us on how bad we were for supporting the Polish resistance to their Russian slave masters during the Solidarity movement. At least most Brits have a sense of ethics and honor, more than I can say for what I can see on the other side of the Channel.
 
Quote    Reply

Worcester    RE:Hiroshima - Get back world respect   3/31/2004 5:42:58 PM
Excuse me for jumping into this debate but:- "the only condition the Japanese wanted for peace was that they could keep their Emperor" I'm afraid this statement is at variance with the known facts. First, the Japanese army absolutely refused to permit talk of surrender. Second, the Emperor himself was so constrained by the army that he had to send his own secret envoy to the Russians to find out what any terms might be. Answer, unconditional surrender, disarmament and occupation as agreed at Potsdam. Third, even AFTER Hiroshima and Nagasaki the army staged a coup to kidnap the Emperor and prevent him from being "dishonored"; when it failed the Chief of Staff killed himself (before a firing squad did). In conclusion, the idea that the Japanese army, government (which was the army) or Emperor were willing to contemplate surrender before Hiroshima and Nagasaki is simply not true. And after the 7 millions killed by the Japanese no one was willing to repeat 1918 and agree to an armistice which left Japan holding any part of her newly conquered Empire. As to the casualties, here we must be clear. At the time of Hiroshima, the Japanese army were holding Malaya (2 armies), Singapore (2 divisions), Indonesia/Dutch East Indies (1 army); and we were planning the invasion of the Home Islands (2 home armies plus armed civilians) - think of the Battle for Berlin but worse. The largest defeat the Japanese suffered was the destruction of the 17th and 23rd armies in Burma from 1943-45; their troops refused to surrender, 90% casualties were not unusual. These guys were committed. Even after the surrender, the Japanese commanders in Malaya and Indonesia refused to surrender until they received personal commands from the Emperor. Leaving aside for the moment the thousands of allied lives saved from another year of war, it is very easy to prove that more JAPANESE soldiers were saved in Malaya, Indonesia and the Home Islands than the civilian deaths at Hiroshima. And to address the "racial" issue, the British fire-bombing of Hamburg caused greater casualties than Hiroshima. It saved hundreds of thousands of lives - Japanese and allied.
 
Quote    Reply

Worcester    RE:Hiroshima - Get back world respect   3/31/2004 6:11:50 PM
You miss the essential point. Neither the Emperor nor anyone else could control the army until after Hiroshima. In September 1945 MacArthur and the State Department were fighting a campaign to rehabilitate the Emperor against many of our allies who did not understand why he was still there. These "leaked" documents may well be true and are certainly convenient for rehabilitation and revisionism but they remain so much irrelevant paper. Hirohito, couldn't deliver. "The Emperor is in the clutches of his generals...I cannot imagine the response if the American people discovered that you had the power to end this war now, and did not do so, and this hesitation cost the lives of more young men." Winston Churchill. Ain't reality a bitch?
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:Hiroshima - Get back world respect   3/31/2004 6:18:06 PM
That's it, get your head out of your anal orifice. Here's what you said: "but I think that the fact that the bombs were used at two major cities without warning or previous demonstration speaks poorly of the humanity of those responsible" Bullsh*t. It was wartime. War against an enemy that had committed atrocities only eclipsed by those of the Nazi German government. War with an enemy who's army was planning to fight to the death in accordance with their concept of honor. We had been bombing their cities for years now, causing massive levels of casualties and destroying their industry and infrastructure. The Japanese had been given very clear details on what sort of surrender would be acceptable, one with no negotiations whatsoever in accordance with the Potsdam declaration and it was made clear that their entire country and military was at risk every day they didn't comply. They chose not to comply. Sending "feelers" to a neutral party during wartime, especially when no negotiations would be acceptable, is not trying to end the war on the terms of the Potsdam declaration. This isn't a police officer trying to negotiate with a bank robber holding a hostage. I'll say it again, get your head out of your anal orifice and come live in the real world. The action by the United States doesn't speak poorly of the humanity involved. It ended the war before an invasion of the home islands was necessary and it probably ensured that no one else would drop a nuke, at least no rational government. It is extremely likely that if the atomic bomb hadn't been used in anger in Japan that an atomic war would have been fought later on because no one saw just how devestating the damn thing really is. Go demonstrate in front of an embassy or something.
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:Hiroshima Bull$shit and Euro-trash revisionism   3/31/2004 6:35:13 PM
I know I said I was done responding to you, but I'm not. Listen, you really have no clue what you're talking about, do you? First, on Russia, Germany and WW2. If the Americans weren't providing lend-lease to Russia it probably means they weren't participating in the European war militarily. If it's just Britain and the USSR, and the USSR doesn't have lend-lease to increase their military stocks by 25 to 30 percent in 1941 and 1942 then the USSR most likely collapses. Hitler's operational stupidity never gets to play a part because the setbacks of late 1942 don't happen. Russia collapses and sues for peace. Germany takes control of the Ukraine and the Caucasus, the Baltic states, etc. The rest of Russia is forced to become a puppet of Germany. Germany transfers 60 percent of their military to Western Europe and attacks through the Caucasus into the Middle East with the remainder. Britain can hang on, but they cannot possibly reverse the German conquest without American assistance. An American invasion of the European mainland would not have been possible in 1944 under those conditions. Without the US under FDR being dragged willy nilly into WW2 most likely the European continent would have been dominated by Hitler and the Nazi's for a long long time and ALL the jews would have been killed instead of just half of them. That's why American Lend-Lease is a major historical fact. Get your facts straight. Without the United States it is very likely that Germany would have won WW2 at what cost to humanity and the people of Europe? I notice you conveniently avoid most of the other issues raised about Old Europe's willingness to deal with mass murderers and criminals and then turn around and call America and her government criminals and mass murderers. I personally think we should go back to George Washington's advice and avoid entanglements with Europe. If it was up to me we'd wash our hands and be rid of the lot of you and your moral expediency.
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:Hiroshima - Get back world respect   3/31/2004 6:36:32 PM
gBWR asked: "Why do you think MacArthur said the bomb was not needed?" Because he was fired by Truman and upset with him. No, terms like "Anal Orifice" express my opinion of your ideas.
 
Quote    Reply

Worcester    RE:Hiroshima - Get back world respect   3/31/2004 6:47:44 PM
"I never said Hirohito could have surrendered." Fair enough. The army coup occured after Nagasaki and only with the army divided could Hirohito attempt a surrender. "Hirohito was kept anyway" Much against the wishes of all our allies. "I do not see why one mass murder should be justified by another." Ah, the switch from the factual to the moral. Of course I understand your belief that the whole of World War Two was a conspiracy by the military industrial complex and the warmonger Churchill to destabilize the entirely peaceful intentions of the Third Reich and the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. Perhaps you want to hold a demonstration at a torch light parade? You are either very right wing or very deluded. Hamburg came after Nanking, Guernica, Warsaw, Rotterdam, London (of course, you think this was Fatty Goerring's mistake!) and Coventry, Sheffield, Southampton, etc., etc. This was a war to prevent the extinction of civilization. And you can tell the good guys won because we didn't put the Germans in gas ovens and murder 2/3rds of the Japanese POW's. No doubt you will maintain the moral equivalency of the Axis and democracies. It's called appeasement.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:Shocking Results of Iraqi Public Opinion Poll   3/31/2004 7:58:53 PM
>>When the Secretary-General of the United Nations expressed his concern about the life of innocent civilians in Iraq, the Washington Post, a newspaper whose journalists had just won three Pulitzer prizes, called Kofi Annan?s statements an ?offense?.<< Kofi Annan's concern about the possibility of civilian casaulties is, if not insulting, then at least indicative of how utterly daft many UN member nations and officals are. There may be civilian casaulties . . . so by all means we should leave the Iraqi people subject to a genocidal despot? That makes perfect sense. >>The Wall Street Journal ?called French president Jacques Chirac "A balding Joan of Arc in drag" ("The Rat that Roared": Christopher Hitchens, February 6, 2003)<< The Wallstreet Journal did not, then, Christopher Hitchens did. If you have any familiarity with his writing at all you will know that he is both scathing and acidic with most everyone he wrote about. And, more to the point, Hitchens (who is British by birth, parenthetically) is absolutely spot on in his assessment. The only thing more galling than French moral bankruptcy these days is their belief that the US, or anyone else, should indulge them. To quote Ralph Peters, "Rome never asked Gaul's permission in the past, there is no need to start now." >>When protests took place all over the world, coverage in US media was extremely limited. While the fall of Basra was reported again and again, hardly any photos were shown of demonstrators in about 500 US cities<< Quite possibly it was little reported because no one cared. >>How come a majority of US citizens believed Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11 and had weapons of mass destruction?<< In regards to the first part -- who said Americans think Iraq was responsible for 9/11? Saddam was certainly a fellow traveler in the same sewer, but I regard his termination as part of America's general attention to neglected house cleaning. Welcome to the new world order. As for the WMD portion of the question -- Iraqi obfuscation to weapons inspectors and official in-house communications about the need to further development of such and the like were that particular nail in the coffin. Saddam engaged in what may have been the mostly costly bluff in history. The US and UK called it. There may be a very valuable lesson there for other nations -- Libya certainly learned it without prompting.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:About those war protests...   3/31/2004 8:12:10 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.<< Why's that? Democracies have a tendency to debate, and you'd have a hard time getting all Americans to agree on anything, no matter how banal or crucial. Add in a little enthusiastic privelleged left-wing self-loathing projected outward onto the country as a whole and voila, there you go.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:Shocking Results of Iraqi Public Opinion Poll   3/31/2004 8:15:47 PM
>>Those you call anti-American warned you in your own best interest.<< Drivel. Those you say were sooooo concerned about our well being were motivated by cowardly self-interest and, in the case of France, wholly unearned and unjustified arrogance (how many wars does one have to lose before realizing they've been shuffled off the world stage?).
 
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