Poll reveals Iraqis still think the war was worth it

by ... Sun Sep 28, 2003 02:42

my iraqi friend tells me otherwise.

by Conor Sun Sep 28, 2003 03:17 japanfour at eircom dot net

Does your one iraqi friend speak for his entire country? What exactly did he say?

by berniebird Sun Sep 28, 2003 05:20

you people should know better by now to trust anything out of the Washington Times, or Gallup spin...
... sort it out and think for yourselves...

by wasi'chu Sun Sep 28, 2003 05:27 USA

the major problem with this story is that the the "poll" was taken in a country under foreign occupation by an entity of the foreign occupiers--that is just for beginners.

And you can cut the bullshit about "anti-americanism."

I dont need shitheads in Ireland telling me how to be American.

by bb Sun Sep 28, 2003 07:19

excuse me? who has the attitude and who's trying to tell you how to be an American you ignorant fuck...? go away! we're not listening to you either...

by Justin Morahan - Peace People Sun Sep 28, 2003 11:14

The info in this posting is false. The related website tells of a poll taken, not of Iraqis but of people in Baghdad only.
The Washington Post article says: "Despite continued violence and few basic amenities, 62 percent of Baghdad residents believe the ousting of Saddam Hussein justified "any hardships they might have personally suffered," according to a Gallup poll released yesterday."
Baghdad isn't Iraq.
Questions must be asked as to how Gallup were able to have a poll conducted fairly and scientifically in a place as ungovernable as Baghdad is now.
I also wonder how there were 1000 "eager respondents", why they were so eager, how unslanted were the questions, how fair the sample - given particularly the comment of Gallup International poll director Richard Burkholder who is quoted in the article as having said:"American effort is only going to work if Iraqis buy into it. That's why the good faith and optimism of the citizens are so important."
I look forward to a more objective, reliable survey and poll of opinion both in Baghdad and Iraq as a whole.

by David Sun Sep 28, 2003 12:40

Excludes those who's homes got blown up.

I would really like to know where they got the names for the sample?
Is it not a strong possibility that the people who took the survey were trying to please the occupiers in anticipation of the carrot or in fear of a stick.

by Cian Sun Sep 28, 2003 14:52

I wonder what the view of those Iraqis massacred in the conflict would be?

by random input Sun Sep 28, 2003 15:18

given the state of iraq's communications infrastructure.

Therefore we must assume that this 'survey' was caaried out by journalists either calling door-to-door (doubtful) or by simply stopping people on the street. Would these (american) journalists have armed guards? Would random iraqi's feel severely intimidated in such circumstances? would they give 100% truthful answers, or the answers they think the occupiers want to hear?

Polls are never black and white, but it is especially so in this case.

Don't, don't, don't believe the hype!

by email-less Sun Sep 28, 2003 15:33

someone rich paid someone else to talk to someone in Bagdad and someone else said it was face to face and seventy minutes long, and someone else wrote a page on the internet, and someone else wen to work and picked up the phone and said go Bush go, and someone else said no way no way, and some one else said isn't 70 minutes a long time? and someone else said oh yes that's qualitative market research not quantitive, and someone else said lets open a supermarket, and someone else said some day when the phones work properly we'll be able to pay english speakers in third world countries pittance to phone up these people again and do quantitive market research, and someone else said oh this stuff is on record now for eight years, and someone else said this is the first scientific research of publin opinion ever ever, and physiognomy is more than just about bumps, and red sky at night and all that, and someone else said are we paying the telephone interviewers too much? and someone else suggested adding the psychometric tricky questions, and someone else suggested in thier own free time that the results could be used for positive spin on the end of month figures for that pitch for the campaign next year, and someone else thought why the fuck did I do that degree in statistics, and some one else said oh dear things are looking very bleak, and someone else said, oh I never liked Saddam Hussein not even a little bit, and loads of them said, though the general conditions justified the bit of war they were spared from, they really weren't sure if they could say honestly and forthrightly that they wanted the USA to rule Iraq or have Iraqi Oil.

or else the poll results would have been different.
on a scale of 5.

by MRB Aye Sun Sep 28, 2003 18:05

If you read carefully, I wrote that "two-thirds of Iraqis polled..."

I did not write anything false or misleading.

Considering people in Baghdad are more likly to come into contact with US forces than elsewhere in Iraq I think these are remarkable approval ratings.

Of course, it's not the Vietnam quagmire that you lefties had hoped for but at least you can take solace from the fact that Saddam's freedom fighters are killing a few Americans every week.
With any luck, the Americans might leave and Saddam could get back in power. That's what you all wanted, isn't it?

An rud nach áil le duine, ní chloiseann sé é.

For the first time in decades, Iraqis are optimisitic about the future of their country. A future you middle class leftwing nitwits tried to deny to these people. I'll never forgive you fools for that.

by Noel Sun Sep 28, 2003 19:22

Ah yes "middle class leftwing nitwits" Mr WarIsGood would categorize everyone else as.
Most people here are just antiwar, and don't pretend to know if I'm leftwing / rightwing and working, middle or nobility class.
307 US military dead according to CNNs website, and 10,000 Iraqi civilian and 10-20,000 Iraqi military dead. Of course CNN don't give any estimates of Iraqi dead since US lives are so
much more important. And you're telling us we should be grateful for the US's > 300:1 killing efficiency ?
Do the world a favour, sell your SUV and buy a bike. You wouldn't need to kill for oil then.
I guess you believed all the WMD propaganda that your newspapers were happy to spread too ? Even though the UN inspectors, the actual people who knew said they were disarmed!
You shouldn't have trusted the US media then, and don't trust it now.
By the way Lockheed, McDonnell Douglas etc etc are building WMDs right now. You can find them in the phonebook.
Peace out.

by Conor Sun Sep 28, 2003 20:10

You criticize people for believing 'propoganda' from America about WMD but where do your figures for Iraqi dead and wounded come from? They look woefully inaccurate to me

by Interested Sun Sep 28, 2003 20:40

If Iraqis can be trusted to answer opinion polls and give these answers why can't they be trusted to have free elections?

by random input Sun Sep 28, 2003 22:24

sorry are you stupid?

the whole point of this 'opinion poll' is to place the suggestion in peoples minds that the Iraqi people actually LIKE being occupied. see 2/3rds are HAPPY! its bleeding heart liberal commie-lovers like you that lost us the Vietnam war.

"gone us the apprentice, arrived has the master"

All aboard the SS Rumsfeld.

by MRB Aye Mon Sep 29, 2003 02:22

I do wish you'd concentrate.

The poll does not ask people if they "like being occupied", this question is not addressed at all.

What the poll does reveal is that a clear majority of the Iraqis polled believe that the removal of Saddam was worth all the difficulties they have been through.

It also reveals that they are optimistic about the future. It further reveals surprisingly high levels of approval for the achievements of the US/UK forces.

Now do you understand?

by Joe Mon Sep 29, 2003 15:26

I'm not that impressed, after all Saddam used to do very well in the 'only poll that matters', didn't he get 99% or whatever in some sort of pre-war referendum.

Think about that for 5 seconds.

OK now lets agree that the general idea that voting against Saddam would have been bad for your health was probably in widespread circulation. I'm sure that influenced how many voted in what they were told was a secret ballot.

Fast forward to today. Some sort of nice strangers call into your home and ask you questions about the government. They note your answers down but assure you that this is all confidential. Meanwhile out in the streets occupation soldiers shoot down people and their puppet regime bans 'hostile' news media. And if you happen to read the Sunday Times your probably aware that the occupation forces are busily hiring back the secret police from the 'old' days.

Hey you love the government, you have always loved the government. And if the government changes of course you love the change just as if it changes back you will love that too.

Mind you on the 'safer' questions hints do slip through that all is not well. These of course are buried in the middle of the article "While one in three say postwar Iraq is better off now..."

The politics of the last opinion poll are pretty meaningless in the west where most people probably feel they can answer such questions without personal risk. To draw conclusions from one city (even if it is the capital) of a country under military occupation with a long history of vigorous 'suppression' of free speech suggests you have your head up your ass.

by Terry Mon Sep 29, 2003 16:00

Wow, so we were all wrong about the war. All that stuff about soldiers and Iraqis getting killed must be wrong. And that stuff about no electricity is just anti American lies.

This poll is designed for people who read the newspapers but don't actually think. It is for those who want to believe all is well and everything is in order. And this is just the sort of clap-trap stuff they need.

What the pro-war people always neglect to tell us is that the CIA backed Saddam in the initial overthrow when he came to power. They provided the money. Then for all the years he was there up to the invasion of Kuwait, they supplied him with weapons and the industrial means to make chemical weapons. The USA and UK supplied him all through the Iran-Iraq war. Ireland supplied the beef for the army. Then when he fell out of favour, these same two countries were the main parties in applying the sanctions, that systematically destroyed the country and killed over 1 million people. Not only that there is plenty of circumstancial evidence to show they were aware the sanctions actually strengthened Saddam, by making it difficult for resistance to arise. Which of course we should remember, it was the policy of the US Army suddenly allowing Saddam to use his gunship helicopters to crush the rebellion that appeared straight after the Gulf War I.

Things are not going well in Iraq and this poll is yet just another one of the many thousands of lies designed to manipulate public opinion.

by Conor Mon Sep 29, 2003 18:43

Britain and the USA were not the tw omain parties that enforced the sanctions, they were UN enforced sanctions that had the backing of the majority of the UN. And you mention that there is plenty of circumstantial evidencde to prove they strenghtened saddam, have you any idea how ludicrous this sounds? circumstantial evidence cannot be relied upon because it is by its very nature, circumstantial

by Badman Tue Sep 30, 2003 00:56

The sanctions either strengthened or weakened Saddam or did neither. Each individual has to make up his or her mind which they think is most likely. They do this by examining the evidence available. This is not the same as establishing a legal proof, and should not be since the individual is free to change his or her mind as new evidence emerges.

In this context dismissing circumstancial evidence as it "cannot be relied upon" just reveals how tenuous a grasp on logic you have. On the one side we have circumstantial evidence, on the other side we have....um. Either present evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, to support your point and maybe convince people to change their minds, or shut up. Dismissing evidence that supports one conclusion because it is not in itself a proof, without presenting any countervaling evidence, while refering to somebody else as ludicrous, is embarrassing.

by Orla Ni Chomhrai Tue Sep 30, 2003 01:29

There is an interesting piece on the polls here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14545-2003Sep28.html

Data Reveal Inaccuracies in Portrayal of Iraqis

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer

Top Bush administration officials in the past weeks have been citing a pair of public opinion polls to demonstrate that Iraqis have a positive view of the U.S. occupation. But an examination of those polls indicates Iraqis have a less enthusiastic view than the administration has portrayed.

by Conor Tue Sep 30, 2003 02:06

www.cis.org.au/Policy/winter02/polwin02-2.pdf

This is all i could find on short notice but it is better than simply mentioning that circumstantial evidence exists. You can not doubt that the sanctions were imposed by the UN as a whole and not just Britain and America as this is an irrefutable fact

by Badman - Reader of sources Tue Sep 30, 2003 02:19

From the conclusion:

"Yet the basic argument against all economic sanctions remains:namely,that they tend to punish civilians more than governments and to provide dictators with a gift-wrapped propaganda tool.Any visitor to Cuba can see within 24 hours the futility of slapping an embargo on a sheltered population that is otherwise inclined to detest its government and embrace its yanqui neighbours.Sanctions give anti-American enclaves, whether in Cairo or Berkeley or Peshawar,one of their few half-convincing arguments about evil US policy since the end of the Cold War.

It seems awfully hard not to conclude that the embargo on Iraq has been ineffective (especially since 1998)and that it has,at the least,contributed to more than 100,000 deaths since 1990.With President Bush set to go to war over Saddam ’s noncompliance with the military goals of the sanctions,there has never been a more urgent time to confront the issue with clarity."

So you think that you posting a link to a document that directly contradicts your point of view is more credible than 'circumstancial evidence'? Are you embarrassed yet?

On a related point, how do you think embargoes get introduced to the UN? Do you think the most powerful nation on earth just might be able to have its way once or twice?

by Josef Tue Sep 30, 2003 03:59

President Bush has brought an end to the UN's ludicrous attempts to control Saddam with sanctions. Now that president Bush has shown true leadership in the world the people of Iraq have a bright future ahead of them.

If the anti-war people had gotten their way the poor people of Iraq would still be living in the concentration camp that was Iraq under Saddam.

I'll never forgive the "peace at all costs" brigade for trying to prevent these people from being free.

by David Tue Sep 30, 2003 11:26

You're not that north korean guy are ya?

America sustained the sanctions against Iraq by using its vetoe on several occasions to quash any attmpt to lift them.
America's Depleted Uranium nuclear war has devastated thousands of lives and they, in laughable irony, used that disgusting weapon again in this invasion which had a stated aim to prevent a nuclear threat.

The iraqi people are not free, neither are the Afghani people

by Josef Wed Oct 01, 2003 02:40

You're a typical leftwing raving maniac. The previous administration [Clinton] pursued the Liberal Leftwing American policy of "containing" Saddam by sanctions - anything but a war, eh?

Now Presidnet Bush has sorted the mess out.

You claim "the Iraqi people are not free". How dare you, how dare you be so glib about this? Do you feel that the Iraqi majority would be free if there had not been a war? You make me sick David, you are a very selfish, callous foolish young man.

by David Wed Oct 01, 2003 12:45

What i said is true.
Containing Saddam by decimating the population. According to Madelin Albright "we think the price is worth it" (when confronted by a statistic of half a million children dying because of the sanctions)

Depleted Uranium is highly radioactive and it's widespread use caused huge increases in cancer and genetic mutations in Iraq. The US refused to clean up the devastation and they used depleted uranium again in this invasion and in Kosovo and afghanistan.
Bush's scaremongering about a "Dirty bomb" is nothing compared to what the us used against the targets of their aggression.

by Josef Thu Oct 02, 2003 04:09

DU is not "highly radioactive" as you caliam. It's only slightly more radioactive than background (from rocks etc.) with a half-life of 4.5 billion years. The longer the half-life, the less material is emitted in the form of radiation.

Read up on your subject a bit more coz really you are only believing propaganda....

by Joe Thu Oct 02, 2003 11:53

From what I understand the problem with DU is not so much the residual radioactivity as the fact that it is a heavy metal. So like mercury and lead it is very toxic if ingested or inhaled. DU munitions are designed to vaporize into millions of tiny particles when they hit a target.

Also worth noting that even low levels of radioactivity are dangerous if they are inside the body. Tiny particles get inside all too easy so there is also a radioactivity risk. Comparisons with background radiation are missing the point because background radiation by definition is outside the body and (mostly) stopped by the skin.

by David Thu Oct 02, 2003 16:51

What is Depleted Uranium?
The misnamed 'Depleted' Uranium is left after enriched uranium is separated from natural uranium in order to produce fuel for nuclear reactors. During this process, the fissionable isotope Uranium 235 is separated from uranium. The remaining uranium, which is 99.8% uranium 238 is misleadingly called 'depleted uranium'. While the term 'depleted' implies it isn't particularly dangerous, in fact, this waste product of the nuclear industry is 'conveniently' disposed of by producing deadly weapons.

Depleted uranium is chemically toxic. It is an extremely dense, hard metal, and can cause chemical poisoning to the body in the same way as can lead or any other heavy metal. However, depleted uranium is also radiologically hazardous, as it spontaneously burns on impact, creating tiny aerosolised glass particles which are small enough to be inhaled. These uranium oxide particles emit all types of radiation, alpha, beta and gamma, and can be carried in the air over long distances. Depleted uranium has a half life of 4.5 billion years, and the presence of depleted uranium ceramic aerosols can pose a long term threat to human health and the environment

(taken from http://www.cadu.org.uk/intro.htm )