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
swhitebull    What happened? Is there a full moon out tonight? Pardon me boys, is the way to Great Cthulhu?   4/1/2004 10:41:10 AM
..Since you show us you do not know anything about international law you may want to be informed that the international legal rules governing the use of force take as their starting point Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter, which prohibits any nation from using force against another. The charter allows for only two exceptions to this rule: when force is required in self-defense (Article 51) or when the Security Council authorizes the use of force to protect international peace and security (Chapter VII). As a member of the United Nations the United States signed they would follow those rules. But they do not. Nor do they allow weapons inspections as Iraq did, although they also signed UN rules that would allow inspections ... What? Once wasnt' enough to show how fallacious your argument is? You have to repeat it again, thinking it will hold any more validity that the first time you were shown to be wrong? . link What again is the definition of insanity? repeating the same action over and over again, expecting to achieve different results. swhitebull - gentleman , it appears that Great Cthulhu has made his presence known in the mind of our friendly returning pfennig. The gods drive mad first those they wish to destroy. And Cthulhu has done his job all too well.
 
Quote    Reply

swhitebull    RE:Shocking Results of Iraqi Public Opinion Poll   4/1/2004 12:08:23 PM
.. ..Nor is there a right to construct settlements on a territory that does not belong to Israel... Uh, you miss you own point. YOUR point was not that Israeli settlements are illegal, but by your own words, that the territory does not belong to Israel. I see you havent addressed the core of my post, which is to say that the people who today call themselves Palestinian have no more and no less a legal claim to land they settled on - and lost - than do the Israelis. So do you think that the Israels are holding land illegally in the former mandate or not? DO they have any LESS a legal claim to land that they hold hold within the Mandate than do Arab residents on the west bank portion of the former Mandate. By what authority - ie - legally binding and definable authority is their a lesser claim for Israel to hold Mandate land than did Jordan or Egypt after 1949? Was the Jordanian or Egyptian occupation of the West Bank and of Gaza legal under under authority? If not, why were they NEVER condemned for that, or labeled as illegal occupiers? Is Israel's adminstration of the West Bank and Gaza legal under any United Nations authority? If it IS legal, how can be labeled an "illegal occupation"? What percent of the West Bank and the Gaza strip is currently under physical or political occupation by the Israeli Administrative forces, be they military or civilian? If the amount of territory in the above question is less than 5%, how can that be labeled an occupation, let alone an illegal occupation? What percent of the territory in the West Bank and in Gaza is in direct control - both poitcally and physically - by the Palestinian Authority? If the PA IS in adminstrative control of most of "their" territory, without any Israeli day-to-day interference , why are they unable or unwilling to exert control over terrorist forces who use the PA controlled territories as bases inwhich to launch attacks and murder as many Israeli citizenry as possible. Why is it - in all of the context of your questions and answers - that NOT ONCE have you ever mentioned the Genocidal crimes of the Palestinians against the ISraelis, not ONCE charge the PALIS with war crimes, not ONCE even suggest that the PA security forces are a major source of the murders of Israeli civilians on a daily basis? Why the double standard applied to Israel, and NOT to the Palestinians? What "CRIMES" have the Israelis committed against the Palestinians - I mean - actual provable War Crimes? DO you mean the Massacre of Jenin? Or the 70+% of Palestinian deaths DIRECTLY attributed to those of the PALIS that have been classified as enemy combattants, who died in attacks upon Israelis? Or the deaths of non-combattants whose responsibility lies squarely, according to ARticle 4 of the Geneva Protocols, with the terrorists who live among them and use them as shields? swhitebull - you brought up the crimes charge of Israel, I'd like to see you back those charges up with actual evidence and law, and I'll get Alan Dershowitz as my lawyer to knock down each and everyone. As a matter of fact, I'd get Dershie, as much as I dont like his politics, to try the WAR CRIMES case against the Palestinian people, starting with the Genocide Convention of 1951, and the Myriad violations to which Arafat and his thugs - and the people he has created thru the schooling system - have perpetrated KNOWINGLY against the ISraeli people fopr their destruction, in contravention of the Genocide Conventions. BRING IT ON! Is the term occupation as used by the PALIS a legal term or is a political term?
 
Quote    Reply

swhitebull    RE:What happened? Is there a full moon out tonight? Pardon me boys, is the way to Great Cthulhu?   4/1/2004 12:20:35 PM
..swhitebull, you never showed me my argument was fallacious, you only showed you did not understand international law.. Really? All you have shown me is that you know how to cut and paste an article that you use to support your contention that the war was illegal. It shows nothing about how well YOU understand or can analyze its contents. My 14 year old daughter on her school debate time can muster better arguments than you have shown, and do it on her own, without having to cut and paste. As have I, in my analysis of Resolution 678. Maybe I should stop writing and publishing about the law then. YOU showed my an OPINION, I refuted it with MY evidence. You dont like that, that's YOUR problem, not mine. Seeing as international law and the Middle Eastern Studies were my areas of study years ago in graduate school. swhitebull - My goodness, what a difference a few decades have made! The times they be a changing, but the law is the law. As are European immoralistic pedants who think they know what is legal or not - stick to what you know, or be shown for the fool that you have shown us to be. Again I'd take MY stance before a court anytime, argued on the merits, and then see how an IMPARTIAL court would rule.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:What happened? Is there a full moon out tonight?   4/1/2004 2:03:59 PM
>>Since you show us you do not know anything about international law you may want to be informed that the international legal rules governing the use of force take as their starting point Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter, which prohibits any nation from using force against another. << Right. Now what signatory nations have rewritten their constitutions to establish that they will be bound by the UN Charter and the UN Security Council in determining when they have a right to use military force to defend themselves or their interests?
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:Shocking Results of Iraqi Public Opinion Poll   4/1/2004 3:26:14 PM
>>I did not speak of illegal occupation, I said the territory does not belong to Israel. And as I also wrote, even Sharon let destroy some of the illegal settlements. << So there is no illegal occupation, only illegal settlements? What, pray tell, makes a settlement illegal? >>I share your view that the Palestinians have not yet constructed a decent government. It is unlikely a people will vote for a decent government while so many of them live in refugee camps, they are denied the right of a state, caged in with a fence, lack a proper education system, and rockets are dropped on the most radicals among them, killing innocent bystanders.<< Sorry, but that argument is untenable. The Palestinians opted to declare war on their Jewish neighbors in 1948, demonstrating an inability to govern themselves responsibly that predates the refugee camps. I would assume, parenthetically, that you would consider this Palestinian war of aggression to be illegal and the Jewish inhabitants of the region that would soon become Israel were within their rights, under the UN Charter, to defend themselves. Since Palestinian terrorism is a continuation of the war they, themselves, started -- and then lost -- it stands to reason that the Israelis are still exercising their right, under the UN Charter, to defend themselves. You may disagree with the tactics -- but then I imagine you do not have to concern yourself with whether you, your friends, or your relatives will be killed by a Palestinian bomber on a day to day basis. >>I however do not see the reason why crimes like the recent assassinations without trial, that also cost the life of innocent civilians, remain without condemnation because a single country, the United States, veto a resolution the rest of the represented world agrees on. Some are just more equal << Possibly because the responsibility for the deaths of civilians rests on the combatants who use them as a shield -- that's more of that international law you like so much. Possibly also because I am unclear on what law -- national or international -- requires Israel to try enemy combatants for crimes, rather than just killing them. Being a command and control node, rather than a shooter, does not make one any less of a combatant.
 
Quote    Reply

Worcester    SYSOP - RE:GBWR/ULDS - why does one person need two handles?   4/1/2004 8:46:26 PM
P;ease check if these guys are one and the same. If so please take appropriate action. These flamers have a similar style/manner. The arguments are shallow and selective, while there is a failure to address other points or answer questions. Just a slippery slide into moralistic mumbling.
 
Quote    Reply

SYSOP1    To Our Posters from SysOps   4/1/2004 9:26:53 PM
..Please check if these guys are one and the same. If so please take appropriate action. ... Yes,we have been aware since earlier this day that gBWR and ULDS are one and the same person. gBWR had been blocked from posting for acting in violation of our Rules of Use as a troll, then had the temerity to return a second time, repeating his same posts as before, then feeling aggrieved because he was blocked in his previous incarnation. He forgets that he has NO right to post on these boards, merely a Privilege extended to him thru the management of this website. He has abused the privilege, and it is now revoked. We DO keep his posts, but should he return, we will DELETE each and every one of his posts, and all the effort that went into posting them. Please let us know if he returns in any another form or guise, by posting a message to the SysOps on this board, or thru contacting the management directly, and he will be banned again as soon as practical. To repeat: For the sake of completeness, we are leaving most of his prior posts intact, but any and all future postings of his will be deleted as they are noted. SysOps
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    Summary to gWBR/uLDS   4/1/2004 9:41:35 PM
Okay, I'm just going to roll this all up into one post. I doubt if I will get anything across to you, but it is worth a try. First off I think I should point out that I am a 20 year veteran of the US Army, including service in Desert Storm and Somalia. Second, I should also point out that my first university degree is in History with a concentration in the 20th century. I'm currently pursuing a Master's in Business Administration. The majority of my political science and history professors held similar ideas to you about the US involvement in the world so you can't blame my viewpoints on the professors. Unlike you, however, they could accept facts that were presented to them and if I backed my position with facts they found that acceptable, even if they didn't agree with my viewpoints politically. Okay, on to your positions. The morality of the US invasion of Iraq. This is a fairly simple argument actually. Was the United States morally justified to make war on Nazi Germany given that no direct threat was posed to the United States by Nazi Germany? Most people will say the answer is yes because of the absolutely evil behavior of the Nazi's. If the answer is yes, given those conditions, then the US was morally justified to make war on Ba'athist Iraq for the same reasons, the genocide campaign against the Kurds, the killing of political prisoners, the torture and murder of tens of thousands of Iraqi's. Just substitute Jew for Kurd, German for Iraqi and the reasons are the same. On top of that, the best intelligence available, that the UN security council agreed with, indicated that Iraq still possessed chemical weapons and the means to attempt to build nuclear weapons. Plenty of justification under multiple UN Security Council Resolutions, not to mention the moral justification that the Ba'athists were mass murders. Was American Lend-Lease to the USSR historically significant and a significant factor in defeating Nazi Germany. I provided the statistics for you when you continually refused to accept general commentary. The most telling fact is that without Lend-Lease the USSR would only have produced 60% as much explosives as they actually did. All their weapons would be useless without explosives for the bombs, shells and bullets. In 1944 the USSR had about 10,000 combat aircraft in use. Throughout the war Lend-Lease supplied the USSR with more than 14,000 aircraft. No country has won a war since 1900 without command of the air. It would have been much more difficult, at best, for the USSR to achieve command of the air on the Eastern Front without Lend-Lease. Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Japanese government, under the control of military warlords, had no intention of surrendering in July, 1945. All the "feelers" from Japan to MacArthur and the USSR were from the Emperor, who had no power, or from opposition elements in Japan, who also had no power. These are historical facts, you can find the references if only you try a little bit, too substantiate this. The Allies had provided conditions for ending the war to Japan in the Potsdam Declaration. No representative of the Japanese government empowered to meet those conditions responded to any of the Allied powers. War planners of Nimitz AND MacArthur's headquarters estimated 1 million Allied and 4 million Japanese casualties (killed, wounded and missing) and the near complete destruction of Japanese infrastructure. Based on the experience fighting all out ground war in Europe and the casualty levels there these numbers were probably fairly accurate. They are also approximately 5 times higher than the total direct and indirect casualties of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Finally, Japan was led by an evil, criminal government that perpetrated the massacres in China and the Bataan Death March. You don't negotiate with such people, you use all available means to defeat them. MacArthur and my so-called defamation of him. If you read historical accounts of MacArthur by respected historical scholars like William Manchester and Stanley Weintraub you will find that my assessment of him is pretty well on target. He was a gifted military leader who challenged the legal civilian leadership of his country, misrepresented reality to make himself look better and spoke critically of Roosevelt, Truman and Marshall because of his bitterness over being fired in Korea. MacArthur is not considered by WW2 scholars to be a valid source to show that the atomic bombing of Japan wasn't necessary. The UN and nation's sovereign rights. No nation in the world, including the United States, has agreed to surrender their sovereign right to make war and defend themselves to the UN, regardless of what you think the UN charter says. Further, although nations agreed to inspections under the UN charter, specific inspections were not required by the charter. They are only required by specific UN resolutions, none of which have been put in place requiring the US to submit to
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:Summary to gWBR/uLDS   4/1/2004 9:42:39 PM
damn, and I put so much effort and care into this and he'll never see it.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:Summary to gWBR/uLDS   4/2/2004 4:55:27 AM
>>damn, and I put so much effort and care into this and he'll never see it. << Which is a shame, because I was just dusting off my "US foreign policy is the way it is, because of the fact that Europe cannot function without adult supervision" argument. I figured he would really like that one.
 
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