New poll shows that 6 in 10 Iraqi's support attacks on US military

Guess what? The man on the street in Iraq does not like the US and wants us to go away! So much for the great "liberation" of Iraq. What a stunning surprise! Here's some snips from a highly interesting public opinion poll that came out today:
(http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pi...t=250&lb=hmpg1)

A new WPO poll of the Iraqi public finds that seven in ten Iraqis want US-led forces to commit to withdraw within a year. An overwhelming majority believes that the US military presence in Iraq is provoking more conflict than it is preventing and there is growing confidence in the Iraqi army. If the US made a commitment to withdraw, a majority believes that this would strengthen the Iraqi government. Support for attacks on US-led forces has grown to a majority position—now six in ten. Support appears to be related to a widespread perception, held by all ethnic groups, that the US government plans to have permanent military bases in Iraq.

Support for US withdrawal appears to be derived from a widespread perception that the presence of US-led forces is having a net negative effect on the situation in Iraq. Large numbers say that the US military presence is “provoking more conflict than it is preventing.” This view is held by 78 percent overall

Confidence in the US military is quite low. Eighty-four percent say they have little (22%) or no (62%) confidence in the US military. An extraordinary 98 percent of Sunnis take this view (no confidence 85%, a little 13%) as do 91 percent of Shias (no confidence 66%, a little 25%). However a majority of Kurds—55%—express confidence in the US military (some 37%, a lot 18%), while 45 percent do not express confidence (no confidence 17%, a little 28%

Support for attacks against US-led forces has increased sharply to 61 percent (27% strongly, 34% somewhat). This represents a 14-point increase from January 2006, when only 47 percent of Iraqis supported attacks.

Damn "democracy" haters!

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by marichiko

Damn "democracy" haters!

Originally Posted by WPO Website

WPO is made possible by the generous support of:

Ford Foundation
JEHT Foundation
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Stanley Foundation
Calvert Foundation
Circle Foundation

Speaks for itself.

[Happy Monkey]

Support appears to be related to a widespread perception, held by all ethnic groups, that the US government plans to have permanent military bases in Iraq.

All ethnic groups? How about all thinking persons in or out of Iraq? Our "embassy" is larger than the Vatican.

[tw]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

WPO is made possible by the generous support of:
Ford Foundation
JEHT Foundation
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Stanley Foundation
Calvert Foundation
Circle Foundation

Speaks for itself.

It says the WPO is financed by good, honest, non-profit organizations dedicated to the advancement of mankind.

For example, Calvert Foundation serves as a facility for individual and institutions seeking to channel investment into disadvantaged communities with a simple goal -- to help end poverty.

What speaks for itself? That MaggieL was a member of the Michigan Militia - complete with advocating torture and even denying the Geneva Convention? Was the Geneva Convention also some evil communist plot? Why is Bill & Melinda Gates and the Hewlett Foundation also not listed as enemies of MaggieL?

WPO poll in Iraq confirms what honest reporters have been reporting for years. A trend posted in The Cellar years ago. A problem made only worse when a lying president did nothing for seven months - did nothing to plan for the peace.

JEHT Foundation: Its name stands for the core values that underlie the Foundation's mission: Justice, Equality, Human dignity and Tolerance. The Foundation's programs reflect these interests and values.

Clearly another organization dedicated to the destruction of Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and MaggieL. No wonder she so fears the Ford Foundation.

MaggieL - your pettycoat is showing.

[Hippikos]

Speaks for itself.

Really? Please elaborate. Don't tell me it's because AEI or AIPAC aren't included.

Like Junior, MaggieL is in a constant State of Denial.

The White House ignored an urgent warning in September 2003 from a top Iraq adviser who said that thousands of additional American troops were desperately needed to quell the insurgency there, according to a new book by Bob Woodward, the Washington Post reporter and author. The book describes a White House riven by dysfunction and division over the war.

The warning is described in “State of Denial,” scheduled for publication on Monday by Simon & Schuster. The book says President Bush’s top advisers were often at odds among themselves, and sometimes were barely on speaking terms, but shared a tendency to dismiss as too pessimistic assessments from American commanders and others about the situation in Iraq.

As late as November 2003, Mr. Bush is quoted as saying of the situation in Iraq: “I don’t want anyone in the cabinet to say it is an insurgency. I don’t think we are there yet.”

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld is described as disengaged from the nuts-and-bolts of occupying and reconstructing Iraq — a task that was initially supposed to be under the direction of the Pentagon — and so hostile toward Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser, that President Bush had to tell him to return her phone calls. The American commander for the Middle East, Gen. John P. Abizaid, is reported to have told visitors to his headquarters in Qatar in the fall of 2005 that “Rumsfeld doesn’t have any credibility anymore” to make a public case for the American strategy for victory in Iraq. [...]

Robert D. Blackwill, then the top Iraq adviser on the National Security Council, is said to have issued his warning about the need for more troops in a lengthy memorandum sent to Ms. Rice. The book says Mr. Blackwill’s memorandum concluded that more ground troops, perhaps as many as 40,000, were desperately needed.

It says that Mr. Blackwill and L. Paul Bremer III, then the top American official in Iraq, later briefed Ms. Rice and Stephen J. Hadley, her deputy, about the pressing need for more troops during a secure teleconference from Iraq. It says the White House did nothing in response.

The book describes a deep fissure between Colin L. Powell, Mr. Bush’s first secretary of state, and Mr. Rumsfeld: When Mr. Powell was eased out after the 2004 elections, he told Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff, that “if I go, Don should go,” referring to Mr. Rumsfeld.

Mr. Card then made a concerted effort to oust Mr. Rumsfeld at the end of 2005, according to the book, but was overruled by President Bush, who feared that it would disrupt the coming Iraqi elections and operations at the Pentagon.

Vice President Cheney is described as a man so determined to find proof that his claim about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was accurate that, in the summer of 2003, his aides were calling the chief weapons inspector, David Kay, with specific satellite coordinates as the sites of possible caches. None resulted in any finds.

The fruitless search for unconventional weapons caused tension between Vice President Cheney’s office, the C.I.A. and officials in Iraq. Mr. Woodward wrote that Mr. Kay, the chief weapons inspector in Iraq, e-mailed top C.I.A. officials directly in the summer of 2003 with his most important early findings.

At one point, when Mr. Kay warned that it was possible the Iraqis might have had the capability to make such weapons but did not actually produce them, waiting instead until they were needed, the book says he was told by John McLaughlin, the C.I.A.’s deputy director: “Don’t tell anyone this. This could be upsetting. Be very careful. We can’t let this out until we’re sure.”

Mr. Cheney was involved in the details of the hunt for illicit weapons, the book says. One night, Mr. Woodward wrote, Mr. Kay was awakened at 3 a.m. by an aide who told him Mr. Cheney’s office was on the phone. It says Mr. Kay was told that Mr. Cheney wanted to make sure he had read a highly classified communications intercept picked up from Syria indicating a possible location for chemical weapons.

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Speaks for itself.

Just to add to tw's list, the Rockefeller's Brother's Foundation describes itself as "a philantropic organization working to promote social change that contributes to a more just, sustainable, and peaceful world."

Sounds like a bunch of Commies to me.

Get real, Maggie. The Iraqi's hate us and for good reason, too.

[Bullitt]

The whole "findings" are some pretty shaky ground as far as I am concerned. A poll of 1,150 people.. out of a population of 26,783,383 (July 2006 est.) can hardly say that it is representative of all Iraqis.
I'm not saying they're right or wrong, I'm saying the poll is horse sh*t and can't be broadly applied to the entire nation like that website is trying to do.

(population figure comes from the CIA website: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications...k/geos/iz.html )

Originally Posted by Bullitt

The whole "findings" are some pretty shaky ground as far as I am concerned. A poll of 1,150 people.. out of a population of 26,783,383 (July 2006 est.) can hardly say that it is representative of all Iraqis.
I'm not saying they're right or wrong, I'm saying the poll is horse sh*t and can't be broadly applied to the entire nation like that website is trying to do.

(population figure comes from the CIA website: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications...k/geos/iz.html )

Just because you disagree with the results, doesn't make a poll wrong. Poll takers often use a sample size of 1,000 to 2,000 people. What counts is accuracy, not quantity. If you read the information under "Methods" in the link I gave in my OP, you will see that WPO went to great effort to pick a random sampling that included all Iraq's major ethnic groups and urban areas as well as rural ones.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by tw

MaggieL - your pettycoat is showing.

The bias of the backers of this outfit is what's really showing. It's a mill to generate custom poll results useful to liberals. With the right questions and sample you can "prove" any proposition you like.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by marichiko

Just because you disagree with the results, doesn't make a poll wrong.

And just becuase you like the results doesn't make it right.

Imagine what would have been the result if the same kind of questions had been asked of Sunnis about attacks on Shiites, and vice versa.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Bullitt

The whole "findings" are some pretty shaky ground as far as I am concerned. A poll of 1,150 people.. out of a population of 26,783,383 (July 2006 est.)

Then your news sources must be dominated by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and other disciples of propaganda. Those findings only confirm what reports said even in 2003. Where have you been all these years? Listening to a lying president, or instead talking to honest Americans.

Why does every US general who served in Iraq and who is now retired say things that agree with that poll? Why was this post of 9 September 2003 so accurate?

Major Concession
Iraq is becoming the quagmire that military generals warned about. Only right wing extremists did not hear those reports and those warnings. Only right wing extremist contradict the military and say we have enough troops in Iraq. Only right wing extremist would have us forget what generals, now removed by Rumsfeld, were warning about. At least 200,000 troops for up to five years in Iraq. Leaves nothing to rebuild Afghanistan.

The US desperately needs international help because the long term situation in Iraq is not good and getting worse. Those are facts from so many sources who speak Arabic and have been there. Eliminate the administraton lies and the reports are a country that is now in anarchy almost everywhere. And a civilian administrator that has no representative outside of Baghdad - because the Paul Bremer program is in disarray.

Or from Jun 2005

Why did we go into Iraq?
What is the purpose of war? To return a conflict to the negotiation table. The most stupendous military victory can be lost if the political side does not plan for the peace. It is why war is fought with a strategic objective. It is why plans for the 'peace' settlement are made often before the first major battles are even fought. Informed political leaders are taught the lessons of history - including the most simple of facts from Sze Tsu's 500 BC book "Art of War". An informed neocon administration would have clearly understood that the police and army are never disbanded. But that is the difference between those who learn from history verses extremists who want to fix history with a political agenda.

Violate such well proven principles and the population will despise its military occupiers. How many times must it happen in history before you concede? That poll only confirms again what history teaches.

24 May 2004:

Exit Strategy
First thing noted by Dexter Filkins of the NY Times (interviewed by the PBS Newshour) is how Iraqis show no remorse for those dead. He is quite blunt about how bad Iraqi attitudes have become in only the last three months. So bad that reporters don't even dare leave or go to a border area where a 'wedding party' is said to have been slaughtered by American helicopters. ...

In many circles of political reporters, there is much speculation as to how much we will drop and back out - in a hope that others can take blame for any impending disaster or civil war. Iraq has become so bad that even reporters could not go out to confirm military reports since most of 2004. Iraqis that much hate foreign occupiers. Of the 2000 reconstruction projects, only 42 remain ongoing. Things are that bad.

Nov 2004:

U.S. Helicopters filmed firing into crowd of civilians
If the equipment was so vital, then why did soldiers leave it? Why would they abandon vital equipment in a town that supposidely wants American liberators? This event demonstrates a major disconnect. ...

Reporters, private contractors, and other nationals are saying this. Local temper is gently and increasingly becoming more anti-American. ... Using a missile to destroy vital equipment on streets containing civilians is only justified if the streets are full of unfriendlies. Obviously from the video, there were not masses of armed insurgents. So why would helicopters fire? Do we abandon equipment quickly - hope that choppers can destroy vital equipment later - because anti-American sentiment is that widespread even in Baghdad? ...

How to support the troops. Eliminate their biggest problem. A president that refuses to provide troops with a workable strategic objective, an exit strategy, or a political solution. What is a soldier suppose to do when the president even lies about this as being a 'war on terror'. Hell. I don't see Al Qaeda or bin Landen in Iraq. What I do see are many people who resent American occupation for good reason. Soldiers placed in a classic 'no win' situation.

Seven months of doing nothing - even denying that looting was ongoing as was predicted. What do you think would be the Iraqi opinion of Americans? Iraq was so dangerous for Americans two years ago that Americans never traveled outside the Green Zones without military escort. Instead you deny what was so obvious and confirmed by another poll? Do you also believe George Jr is honest and the moon is made of green cheese?

From The Economist of 1 Jan 2005:

The old man should have read the bilingual notices that American soldiers tack to their rear bumpers in Iraq: "Keep 50 meters or deadly force will be applied". In Ramadi, ... the marines are jumpy. Sometimes, they say, they fire on vehicles encroaching within 30 metres, sometimes they fire at 20 metres: "If anyone gets too close to us we fucking waste them", says a bullish lieutenant. "It's kind of a shame, because it means we've killed a lot of innocent people." ...

Since September 1st, when the battalion's 800 men were deployed to Ramadi, they have killed 400-500 people, according to one of their senior officers. A more precise estimate is impossible, because the marines rarely see their attackers. When fired upon, they retaliate by blitzing whichever buildings they think the fire is coming from: charred shells now line Ramadi's main streets. "Sometimes it works in the insurgents' favour", admits Rick Sims, a chief warrant officer. "Because by the time we've shot up the neighbourhood, then the guys have torn up a few houses, they're four blocks away, and we just end up pissing off the locals."

Good Morning Vietnam.

FISH - Fighting In Someone's House. IOW first throw in a grenade. Then learn who you have harmed - civilian or insurgent.

Posted on 12 Dec 2005:

Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone
Finally the BBC World Service reporter noted one more glaring fact. Last year, he recorded the poll's report from inside an Iraqi shopping mall. Today, he says, he does not dare enter that mall anymore. Doing so would only invite death or kidnapping.

Ten months ago, xoxoxoBruce notes that "Nothing unites a country like a common enemy."

There's other evidence of the United States' increasing unpopularity: Two-thirds now oppose the presence of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq, 14 points higher than in February 2004. Nearly six in 10 disapprove of how the United States has operated in Iraq since the war, and most of them disapprove strongly. And nearly half of Iraqis would like to see U.S. forces leave soon.

Bullitt - maybe you would like to support your doubts with some facts?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Imagine what would have been the result if the same kind of questions had been asked of Sunnis about attacks on Shiites, and vice versa.

There's a good chance they'd support those attacks too. So?

[WabUfvot5]

Call me crazy but a relatively stable dictatorship (even one as terrible as Sadam's) sounds quite a bit more appealing than a "democracy" in the throes of civil war. Given this I can easily imagine 6 of 10 Iraqis hating us something bad.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Yeah, whether you agree with the premise of altering Iraq's government, or not, it's pretty hard to deny Bush and Rumsfeld screwed the pooch on this mission. Clearly not thought through and planned properly.

[Bullitt]

Wow TW, hope you get a colonoscopy soon cause you've got something wayyy up your ass (probably Bush's entire cabinet). If you reread my post again, I stated that I don't disagree with the results (hear that mari?). I said that I think a poll that is going to be applied over a population of millions ought to have a larger pool of people polled.

And just for the record, I do not support the war. I think the amount of resources we used could have made a much bigger difference in somewhere like.. Darfur, just as an example.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Yeah, whether you agree with the premise of altering Iraq's government, or not, it's pretty hard to deny Bush and Rumsfeld screwed the pooch on this mission. Clearly not thought through and planned properly.

I agree with you fully bruce