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:Hiroshima Bull$shit and Euro-trash revisionism   3/31/2004 9:33:11 PM
>>So now you rewrite US military aid to the Soviets into US participation in the war altogether, interesting. I fully agree with you that the US would have resigned after Pearlo Harbour had they not had that sunk cost with the Russians << Would it be possible to get this statement repeated in a coherent manner? If there is logic in there, I'm not seeing it.
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    Lend-Lease statistics   3/31/2004 9:35:07 PM
Here's some statistics on Lend-Lease to the USSR. Over 400,000 trucks, more than half of which were medium and heavy trucks. 60% of the Soviet wheeled vehicles in 1945 were Lend-Lease trucks. 22,800 armored vehicles (tanks, half tracks, etc.), including more than 12,000 tanks. 40% of these arrived in 1941 when the USSR most needed them. 11,000 freight cars and 540,000 tons of rail -14,798 aircraft -4,111 20mm and 40mm AA guns -434,000 trucks -28,000 jeeps -5,500 artillery tractors -330,000 field telephones -2,670,000 tons of petroleum products including 476,000 tons of aviation fuel -5,500,000 pairs of boots -25,000,000 yards of uniform cloth -1,045 locomotives -8,260 wagons -1,200,000 tons of steel -26,000 machine-tools Soviet explosive production - 600,000 tons explosives via LL - 317,000 tons Soviet toluene (key ingredient in TNT) production - 116,000 tons Toluene via LL - 103,000 tons I would say that increasing Soviet explosives production by roughly 40% is significant. I would say that is pretty obvious that the USSR could not have sustained their military effort in 1941 and 1942 without Lend-Lease. I'm pretty sure that 8,000 armored vehicles arriving in 1941 made a huge difference at a critical moment. So, gBWR, the fact is that American, and British, aid to the USSR is one of the most significant factors in the USSR not being defeated by the end of 1942. If Germany had been able to defeat Russia and cause them to sue for peace Europe would be a completely different place dominated by Nazi's and Fascists since it would have been nearly impossible for the US and UK to invade France and fight a ground war against Germany when the entire resources of Europe could be brought to bear against the invasion. In rough terms Europe was about equal to the US economically and militarily. The reason that the western allies could defeat Germany in WW1 without the Russians is that they were already on the continent. Had France collapsed before the entry of the US Germany would have won WW1. The fact that the US fielded a 12 million man military, the second largest of the war right behind the USSR, fought major naval and ground campaigns in Asia, Africa and Europe, the Pacific and Atlantic and still sent more than $50 billion in war material, over and above spending $340 billion on its own military, to the UK and USSR is incredible. One out of every eight dollars the US spent on munitions and war materials was given freely to American allies, primarily Russia, Britain and China. America was truly the main factor to winning WW2 and Lend-Lease was one of the greatest things ever done for civilization and the defeat of the Nazi's. Without it the history of the world would be dramatically different and not for the better.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:Hiroshima - Get back world respect   3/31/2004 9:37:42 PM
>>Interesting, mike_golf, once they are fired once honourable men all just make up lies about their former employer. O'Neill, Clarke, and now MacArthur. Strange country you live in. Agreed, terms like "Anal Orifice" express your state of mind << McArthur was an honorable man? He was a gifted commander with a god complex, and Truman fired him because he was advocating the use of nuclear weapons against communist China and otherwise generally carrying on in an off-the-leash manner. In our 'strange country' we tend to look dimly on military leaders acting in defiance of the political leadership. I know this is a fairly unnatural concept for certain European nations -- Germany comes to mind -- that was only forced on them by the victorious powers in WW2, but it is not less valid for all that. As for Clarke, the man is conflating himself with terrorism -- as in believing that the White House not considering him important is indicative of a belief that terrorism is not important. Suspiciously reminiscent of the god complex noted above, only in this case waved about by a much smaller man with much less proof of his divinity.
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:Hiroshima - Get back world respect   3/31/2004 9:46:50 PM
gWBR wrote: "Interesting, mike_golf, once they are fired once honourable men all just make up lies about their former employer. O'Neill, Clarke, and now MacArthur. Strange country you live in" MacArthur has been called an American Caesar because of his megalomania and god-complex. He challenged civilian authority and got fired because of it. Although a gifted military commander he distorted and twisted facts to put himself in the best possible light at every turn. MacArthur's motivation to say the atomic bomb wasn't necessary against Japan is that otherwise it lessened his own achievements which would interfere with him being worshipped as a great war hero. Once fired by Truman MacArthur felt no restrictions on what he said and did. His public statements and writings after that slipped farther and farther away from reality. Using the "facts" of a megalomaniac is not a good way to get sound historical facts. As far as Clarke goes, he's a pompous, self-serving politician who's only goal in the things he said was to gain political office, preferably the Presidency. If you want sound input from an American General on the Balkans go read Barry McCaffrey's testimony to Congress, including his near indictments of the European "peace keeping efforts".
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    Horsesoldier   3/31/2004 9:47:56 PM
Nice series of posts!
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    getBackWorldRespect   3/31/2004 9:53:49 PM
What's the point of your name, just out of curiousity?
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:Lend-Lease statistics   4/1/2004 12:06:22 AM
Oh yeah, one more thing about Lend-Lease. Every single thing we gave our allies was given without ever asking for a single dollar back.
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:What happened? Is there a full moon out tonight?   4/1/2004 9:17:56 AM
the person formerly known as gBWR wrote: "Nor do they allow weapons inspections as Iraq did, although they also signed UN rules that would allow inspections" Is there a UN resolution requiring the US to allow weapons inspections? More to the point, the reason the 5 major powers have Security Council veto is that none of them was willing to give up their sovereignty to the UN and allow the UN to decide what actions they, as a sovereign nation, may or may not do nor how they must behave. If you got banned it was because of your nonsense, nothing to do with BSL, SWhitebull, Horsesoldier or myself.
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:getBackWorldRespect   4/1/2004 9:18:43 AM
What did I find out? That you will just change your name after the Sysops boot you for your behavior?
 
Quote    Reply

swhitebull    RE:Shocking Results of Iraqi Public Opinion Poll   4/1/2004 10:32:25 AM
Our latest incarnation wrote: ..Nor is there a right to construct settlements on a territory that does not belong to Israel... Hmm - are you suggesting that the Israelis are illegally occupying the West Bank? This should be good one, cant wait for a learned response on this issue from our learned scholar on Israeli-Palestinian affairs. To make a long story short, the West BANK does not belong in any legal sense to any people calling themselves "Palestinians", or whatever name emigre Arabs to Judah And Samaria choose to call themselves these days. Resolution 242 - as has been discussed many times - clearly laid out a plan for all interested parties to negotiate a "land for peace" arrangement, where Israel would give back land taken from a country that attacked Israel in 1967 (Jordan beginning the shelling of terrirtory in Israel after repeated attempted by the Israelis begging Jordan not to get involved). Considering that the UN Sec resolutions advocating Partition were COMPLETELY rejected by the Arab bloc of nations, setting a pattern of 55 years of intransigence, bluster, and bloc voting against ANYTHING ever to do with Israel, and then, upon invasion, getting their clocks cleaned by the nascent Israeli armed forces, Israel was able to expand the territories allotted to it under the partition resolutions. This became the so-called "Green Line". However, the territories occupied prior to 1967 were the armistice lines, and were never formalized. Since the Arabs never acknowledged Israel's right to exist in the first place, and never recognized ANY borders held by the Israelis. If Israel had conquered additional territory during the 1947-49 war of independence, then THOSE armistice lines, rather than the ones currently known as the Green Line, would have been designated the "green Line" instead, becoming the de facto borders of Israel. So would you claim that THAT territory (hypothetically) would not have belonged to Israel as well, prior to new land acquisitions in a new 1967 war? SO either ALL the lands or potential lands in the Mandate conquered by Israel in 48-49 and absorbed into Israel proper have to be illegal, or, if you admit that the lands - both real and hypothetically conquered potential lands are legal as part of the borders of Israel, then lands taken after 1967 are up for grabs as well, negotiable, and subject to the terms set out according to resolution 242. You can't have it both ways. At best, the lands of Judah and Samaria (aka as the West Bank) are DISPUTED Territories, NOT OWNED lands "illegally "occupied" by Israel (which is a political term, NOT a legal term - even Kofi Annan backed off of that assertion), by the Palestinian arabs, who didnt come into "existence" until it was convenient for the ARABS to "create" them after 1967, since BEFORE 1967, even the ARAB coutries of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan denied the existence of Palestinian people. swhitebull - so which is it? You cant have it both ways, sonny. Your argument just falls apart. The language used in resolution 242 uses the term "territories" NOT the use ofteh term "THE territories", so that lands conquered by the ISraelis from the ILLEGAL JORDANIAN occupation of the West Bank, in contravention of the Sec Council Resolutions regarding the partition of the British Mandate west of the Jordan river. As has been discussed many times before on the Israel board, ther is
 
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