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
Horsesoldier    RE:Shocking Results of Iraqi Public Opinion Poll   3/31/2004 8:16:43 PM
>>Ever thought that people might not want to publicly announce they support terrorism << Or might want to say they think terrorism is justified against foreign troops just in case the terrorists are listening?
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:Shocking Results of Iraqi Public Opinion Poll   3/31/2004 8:19:01 PM
>>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.<< Yes, but do any nations that matter appear on your list?
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:What happened? Is there a full moon out tonight?   3/31/2004 8:22:03 PM
>>So again my question, why rely on despots without need when overturning a tyrant? Does history repeat itself? Is it like with Saddam, who once was paid friendly visits by Donald Rumsfeld when he served to fight Iran? Or is it more comparable to financing the taliban movement that was built up to fight the Soviets? I am no Bush-basher, I just repeat what is well known << I believe the term you are looking for is "realpolitik." I suspect it was coined rather closer to where you reside than where I reside. It is a timelessly distasteful, but necessary, aspect of politics, even if it took Bismarck to grace it with a name.
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:Hiroshima Bull$shit and Euro-trash revisionism   3/31/2004 8:25:12 PM
gBWR wrote: "So now you rewrite US military aid to the Soviets into US participation in the war altogether, interesting." No, I ask myself under what conditions would the US not have provided Lend-Lease to the USSR? In the case that America had decided to stay neutral altogether is the only reasonable answer I come up with. Even if the US was not neutral in the European piece of WW2, without American Lend-Lease the USSR very likely would have collapsed. In now way, shape or form can it be construed that once Hitler had the Ukraine and Caucasus in his hands and the USSR eliminated as a belligerent the war could have ended by May, 1945 even if the US was involved in the war from Dec, 1941 onwards, militarily. Once Germany had conquered Western Europe in by June of 1940 the only hope of rolling back his conquests was the entrance of American industry, aid to the UK and USSR and American military entrance into the war. Any other view is to not have a good grasp of the economics, military capabilities and correlation of forces in Europe in 1940 and 1941. Next gBWR wrote: "I fully agree with you that the US would have resigned after Pearlo Harbour had they not had that sunk cost with the Russians" Huh? First, where did I say anything about the US resigning after Pearl Harbor? I didn't, you are putting words in my mouth. The only two major powers in World War 2 that can claim the moral high ground are the US and UK. Every other major power is tainted to some degree or another, some less than others. And the last part of this sentence makes no sense, although it seems that you are saying that the only reason the US entered the war is a secret conspiracy between the US and USSR? What revisionist hole did you pull that one out of? The only reason the European continent isn't living under the Nazi jackboot is the US, thank your lucky stars that we put morality ahead of expediency. We certainly had no imminent threat that compelled us to fight Germany. We fought Germany because Germany under the Nazi's was the single most vile, despicable and immoral nation the world has ever seen. Even the USSR, the PRC, North Korea and Cambodia are not in the same league as Nazi Germany, although they come close.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:What happened? Is there a full moon out tonight?   3/31/2004 8:29:41 PM
>>I call it "a staggering level of ignorance" to justify a war by showing that a "coalition of the willing" supported it although as everyone knows the rules are set such that only the United Nations Security Council has the power to legitimize a war << Do they now? When was this determined? UN sanction for conflict is the exception, not the rule. The UN not ponying up and giving you the go ahead has absolutely nothing to do with legitimacy. I believe that a number of Israel's wars waged for national survival demonstrate the point. More to the point, any nation worthy of the name is not going to allow such a crucial point of sovereignty to devolve to an outside source. Show me where any nation with any claim to being a major military power has signed into law legislation giving the right to declare war to the UN.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:Shocking Results of Iraqi Public Opinion Poll   3/31/2004 8:44:28 PM
>>Mike_golf, honest of you to admit that the Iraq war can only be legitimized in law of the jungle terms. I just wonder why the UN then still serves blocking all resolutions against Israel?<< I always find it ever so rich that European nations flock to condemn Israel's right to protect itself from thugs who murder civilians. >>And why don't you just go with your gun and kill Kerry to stop the world from wondering whether a decent leader will rule the US next year?<< Because that would spoil the fun of watching the fool destroy himself? If Kerry strikes you as good leadership . . . well, I really can't grace that premise with a written expression of contempt for lack of adjectives of suitable enormity to convey just how dim your idea is. >>Ever wondered if there was a better solution for the Palestine conflict than the law of the jungle one we have seen now for so many years killing so many << Personally, I have. The main problem I see to the Palestinian problem is the Palestinians. They're the ones who declared war on their Jewish neighbors in 1948 after rejecting generous offers from the British and then the UN to partition the country reflecting settlement lines. They're the ones who hit upon a cowardly campaign of violence against civilians that started after the first war and continues to this day. Personally, I feel Israel is rather more restrained than I would be if I had to face the carnage of another bombing and another dozen dead and maimed civilians. The Palestinian terrorists -- who seem to be the only coherent political voice in their community -- by their tactics, deserve no respect. Actually they deserve no quarter, and any civilized nation has a right to kill rabid animals who wish its citizens harm.
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    Horsesoldier: The UN and sovereign rights   3/31/2004 8:45:08 PM
Yeah, I pointed the same thing out to our buddy a couple days ago and he told me to stop talking about things I know nothing about. Apparently he believes that the US has surrendered its sovereignty to the cesspool at the UN building.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:IGNORANCE SHOWN BY THIS POST - Why Waste Time on Teaching the Holocaust   3/31/2004 8:58:41 PM
>>I was commenting on my alleged ignorance of not knowing the extent of military US aid for the Soviets in WWII. I am still not impressed by the amount of such aid. << Consider that one of the last sounds Herr Hitler heard in this world was Soviet artillery falling on Berlin. Now consider that that ammunition was delivered from the Soviet Union to the outskirts of Berlin by trucks made in Detroit. The soldiers driving those trucks most likely lived at least partly on food raised in the American Midwest, and looked forward to a chocolate ration that was produced in Hershey, Pennsylvania.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:So Bosnia is justified...   3/31/2004 9:12:19 PM
>>Kerry does not say the war was justified, he says they lied to him, so why should he not ask for a resolution justifying the war? He says he want to cooperate with the international community.<< What a precious and tender darling he is! I suspect he may even be on the cover of the German edition of Tiger Beat and planning to tour with David Hasselhof. As has been pointed out elsewhere, your objection is to European irrelevance and American ability and will to act as it sees fit to protect itself and make the world a better place. I can only hope more European pundits will since Kerry's emasculated praises, to help insure he is not elected.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:Hiroshima Bull$shit and Euro-trash revisionism   3/31/2004 9:20:11 PM
>>appleciderus, you will have to agree that your post does not answer my questions why the bomb was used in two highly populated areas without previous demonstration to the Japanese or at least a warning and although there was a willingness to surrender on the condition that they could keep their Emperor. No ideology needed to know that. Hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians were wilfully assassinated << Read a smidge more on your history. Factions within the Japanese government were interested in surrendering. Other factions were not, to include the faction that attempted to take the emperor hostage so he could not surrender the nation *after* the atomic bombs. The expected loss to invading allied forces has been touched on as a reason why the atomic bombs were used. Another dimension that is not considered is the possible apocalypse that would have befallen the Japanese people, as the plan for defending the home islands called for the liberal sacrifice of every able bodied man in the nation, as well as women and children -- not to defeat the attackers, but to die gloriously as a nation.
 
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