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

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by Jebediah

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.

You mean like America 150 years ago? And "more appealing" to who? If by more appealing you mean a smaller blip on your personal radar screen then maybe you are right. If you mean more appealing to every female in Iraq and every child in Iraq who now might actually have a chance in life then I'd have to say no. Not more appealing.

Some mourn the loss of the rainforest over the remote chance that the saliva from some lizard down there might cure cancer, AIDS and diabetes but we dismiss the unrealized potential of millions of intelligent fellow human beings because we prefer to think that they are better off with a boot shoved halfway down their throat.

And the idea that Iraq was ever a stable democracy is absurd. Almost as absurd as opinions being formed on the basis of a "poll" of Iraqis.

I can hardly believe what I'm reading in this thread. A dictatorship preferable to a democracy??? I pray that if America ever turned into a dictatorship that those with the power to liberate us would have a little more respect for us than some people have for the people of Iraq. Its not just about the 6 out of 10 old farts who, out of a sense of self-preservation, accepted Saddam its also about their kids and countless future generations who need not sacrifice their humanity for the sole purpose of not disturbing our American way of life.

But, having said all that, I'll take every word of it back if anyone who trades their life for the "more appealing" benevolent rule of Saddam continues to hold the same opinion.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Bullitt

Wow TW, hope you get a colonoscopy soon cause you've got something wayyy up your ass (probably Bush's entire cabinet).

If posting as an adult, those facts were considered without any reference to your toilet training.

Yes, poll sample was small. But a larger and relevant fact remains: Iraq is that bad, obviously was getting that bad even in 2003, and will only get worse. Are you ready to approve of a selective service draft? Things are becoming that bad.

Your criticism of that poll has no basis in reality. Had you only questioned its small sample size, then your post was logical. But you did not do that. You ignored a tidal wave of reality to then post:

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.

You could only post that criticism by denying a giant woodpile of reality. The poll accurately represents Iraq. The poll accurately demonstrates dangers that Iraq is creating for Americans and Britons all over the world - as both US and UK intelligence services report. The poll adds one more toothpick onto a giant woodpile of fact: "Mission Accomplished" has even made Americans (and Britons) unwelcome by most Iraqis - as was being reported years ago. The poll defines but again (with same ballpark numbers) a situation that is well reported - and denied only by political extremists.

A mental midget president would love nothing better than to have another few thousand Americans die - so that he could become popular again. Would you trade childish insults about colons - or discuss that presidential reality? A few thousand dead American would only promote the "Mission Accomplished" agenda ... reality is that chilling.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Beestie

If you mean more appealing to every female in Iraq and every child in Iraq who now might actually have a chance in life then I'd have to say no. Not more appealing.

Well then you did not hear the BBC interview female doctors in a medical conference in London. Every lady doctor said Iraq was better under Saddam. Every one. The #1 reason why? Well basic services, health, and so many other things were cited as worse since Saddam was gone. But the #1 reason why Iraq is worse - life was so much safer under Saddam.

And so we go to the numbers. Saddam killed 200,000 over then years. Americans (conservatively - not even including numbers from Anbar province) created the death of 98,000 Iraqis.

We have their testimony. We have numbers. What has this mythical democracy created? A worse life.

The bright side of those interviews was that Iraqis expected and hope things would get better. That attitude was also expressed often in hundreds of other BBC interviews. But to claim democracy has brought the Iraqi people anything better is simply denied in interviews of Iraqis and in well documented numbers.

Democracies have a long term advantage. But if imposed on a population - not earned by that population - then democracy becomes as bad as and results in dictatorships. Blindly listening to a mental midget proclaim Iraq will be cured by democracy is idiocy - not even supported by history. Successful democracy is created by - cannot be force by a jack boot upon - a nation.

Having destroyed a stable government, then the Iraq death rates are many times higher. At this point, the only hope for a successful democracy in Iraq lies in a civil war - either a hot civil war or by actions that fear a civil war. A stable democracy cannot be force down their throats no matter how many times a mental midget says otherwise.

Time and time again, reports by numbers and in interviews – Iraq is worse than it was under Saddam – no matter how many times George Jr denies it. And Iraq is only getting worse. Democracy did not solve anything.

[Undertoad]

One can approach this data any number of ways.

One way - the way the article takes it - is: "Majority support US withdrawl within a year."

Another way is: "63% of Iraqis support US remaining at least 6 months." or "Vast majority of Iraqis do not support immediate US withdrawl."

Another way, which the article notes at one point, is: "Iraqis show new confidence in their own security forces."

...

Don't miss the "Related Articles", in which we learn some optimistic news:



and



and



A little optimism in an otherwise pessimistic situation.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

[

A little optimism in an otherwise pessimistic situation.

The last graph only indicates what has always been known. Al Qaeda and bin Laden have never been major players in Iraq. Even Zarqawi was never Al Qaeda - only used the name for prestige purposes. Iraq instability is due to an insurgency - a lawn full of dandelions. Most dandelions are from religious extremist, unemployed police and military, power broker militias, regional (ethnic) hatred, and a common distaste for the infidel invader.

Eliminate George Jr propaganda about bin Laden and Al Qaeda in Iraq; then this last graph makes complete sense.

Largest contributing factor to the Iraqi insurgency is Bremmer – who did nothing in planning for the peace, refused to demand massive numbers of American troops when he so desperately needed them to establish order before insurgencies could form, and who then – stupidly – disbanded the police and military. Al Qaeda and bin Laden were never significant in Iraq. Al Qaeda and bin Laden were only George Jr propaganda so that Americans would have fears - support "Mission Accomplished".

[Bullitt]

Originally Posted by tw

If posting as an adult, those facts were considered without any reference to your toilet training.

Yes, poll sample was small. But a larger and relevant fact remains: Iraq is that bad, obviously was getting that bad even in 2003, and will only get worse. Are you ready to approve of a selective service draft? Things are becoming that bad.

Your criticism of that poll has no basis in reality. Had you only questioned its small sample size, then your post was logical. But you did not do that. You ignored a tidal wave of reality to then post: You could only post that criticism by denying a giant woodpile of reality. The poll accurately represents Iraq. The poll accurately demonstrates dangers that Iraq is creating for Americans and Britons all over the world - as both US and UK intelligence services report. The poll adds one more toothpick onto a giant woodpile of fact: "Mission Accomplished" has even made Americans (and Britons) unwelcome by most Iraqis - as was being reported years ago. The poll defines but again (with same ballpark numbers) a situation that is well reported - and denied only by political extremists.

A mental midget president would love nothing better than to have another few thousand Americans die - so that he could become popular again. Would you trade childish insults about colons - or discuss that presidential reality? A few thousand dead American would only promote the "Mission Accomplished" agenda ... reality is that chilling.

Wow you do love to say mental midget.. and lets get some things straight here about what I know about reality:
I know more than a handful of friends who are serving over there as we speak, and am fully aware that Iraq is an absolute hell hole right now. We have created a nation sized training camp for anyone in the Middle East with a gun and a hatred for the US to come and try their luck against the infidels. Iraq is also now prime real estate for recruitment into extremist groups, and I wouldn't be surprised if they were getting record numbers. And you are exactly right about Bremmer tw, we would not be in the same situation we are now if we hadn't dissolved the Iraqi police, military, and other security forces. It really makes no sense to me why the forces that keep society from eating itsself alive would be eliminated. I read an article recently about brand new generators being installed in power stations throughout Iraq, but because our great war leader decided to ignore the basic infastructure a rebuilding country would need, there are no technitians to run the plants once they are rebuilt. There are no effective security forces to protect the ones that do come to work because the US troops can't babysit them while having to lookout for idiots with bombs blowing up the powerlines.

So like I said before tw, which you ignored, I personally think that a.) the poll simply should have been of a larger pool.. much larger, in order to apply its assumptions over the whole of a diverse people. That's it. I am not saying we would not have gotten those results had the poll included more people. The results may indeed accurately represent the thoughts of the entire country, but I would feel much more comfortable applying that sweeping statement with a poll that includes more than just a fraction of a percent of the Iraqi people. And b.) The amount of resources we spent on this bumbled war could have been put to a much greater use, and of more immediate benefit to a suffering people somewhere like Darfur, Somolia, or hey how about finishing up in Afghanistan first.

Just a few comments:

For an easy to understand explanation of why a sample of a thousand or so people can produce an accurate result, try here:
http://www.britishpollingcouncil.org/questions.html

Originally Posted by tw

Well then you did not hear the BBC interview female doctors in a medical conference in London. Every lady doctor said Iraq was better under Saddam. Every one. The #1 reason why? Well basic services, health, and so many other things were cited as worse since Saddam was gone. But the #1 reason why Iraq is worse - life was so much safer under Saddam.

Infant mortality rate has climbed since the US occupation because women are now afraid to leave their homes to go to a hospital to give birth. This one statistic alone is damning evidence about how much more "secure" life in Iraq is now.

Originally Posted by Beestie

You mean like America 150 years ago? And "more appealing" to who? If by more appealing you mean a smaller blip on your personal radar screen then maybe you are right. If you mean more appealing to every female in Iraq and every child in Iraq who now might actually have a chance in life then I'd have to say no. Not more appealing.

See above. And the US Civil War was started by Americans. No outside force from another country invaded the US, declaring that we needed to end slavery. The American people came to this conclusion on their own. Certainly, Fundamentalist Muslims treat women almost or as bad as we did the slaves, but you do not create positive changes in society by people from OUTSIDE that society coming in and declaring war. That only strenghthens the opposition to change and the moderates who might have come over to your way of thinking become extremists who hate you.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

A little optimism in an otherwise pessimistic situation.

Yes, despite everything, an overwhelming majority of Iraqi's do NOT support terrorist groups. So why are we there?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw
Well then you did not hear the BBC interview female doctors in a medical conference in London. Every lady doctor said Iraq was better under Saddam. Every one. The #1 reason why? Well basic services, health, and so many other things were cited as worse since Saddam was gone. But the #1 reason why Iraq is worse - life was so much safer under Saddam.

If they were Doctors under Saddam's rule, wouldn't they have to have been part of the privileged minority?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

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

It suggests perhaps they're just into attacking.

Maybe that whole deal about letting Iraq be three nations makes sense. Excecpt to the Sunnis, of course, who liked the sweet deal they had thugging the Shia out of their oil under Saddam and still hope to get it back somehow. And it would piss off the Turks. Tough.

[tw]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Maybe that whole deal about letting Iraq be three nations makes sense. Excecpt to the Sunnis, of course, who liked the sweet deal they had thugging the Shia out of their oil under Saddam and still hope to get it back somehow. And it would piss off the Turks. Tough.

It would not just piss off the Turks. It would piss off Turkey who has threatened to attack if Kurdistan becomes a separate nation. To a lesser extent, it would also piss off the Iranians.

There is merit to a suggestion of three autonomous Iraqi areas united in a common nation. I don't know of previous examples where this had worked successfully. Bottom line is that without a solution, Iraq may otherwise need an even more violent civil war.

Which Iraqis would be militarily opposed? Sunnis. Kurds and Shia have oil rich regions. Sunnis do not. And Turks who would consider themselves oppressed under Kurds.

To know - to even suspect - that three autonomous sections for Iraq would work can only be answered by knowing Iraq at a detailed level well beyond what anyone here could even summarize. We do know that under this current situation, Iraq will only get worse. Too few American troops. Too little Iraqi cooperation. Too much hate of the American occupiers (mislabeled in America as coalition troops). Too many insurgents so easily recruiting because Americans are both occupiers and ineffective.

Bottom line is that the worst possible solution is the one we Americans are currently imposing on the Iraqis. Iraq will only get worse and Americans will only be blamed. American military personal know this. As one American Captain noted quite bluntly: they cannot defeat Americans but Americans cannot win. That is his tactical situation. The strategic result for America is Vietnam or Somolia because our leaders are more concerned about their self serving politics (their legacy) rather than in America. A self serving agenda that would even use torture to solve a war that has no strategic objective and no exit strategy.

[Hippikos]

And it would piss off the Turks. Tough.

Exactly this incredible arrogance and ignorance about the local geopolitics was the reason the ME developped into the powder keg it is now. Unfortunately many politicians had the same irrisponsible attitude the last century.

The Bushites opened a box of Pandora and have (like MaggieL) not a single clue how to solve it.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

And Turks who would consider themselves oppressed under Kurds.

You lost me here. I know the region of Iraq that the Kurds control, borders on Turkey. Also, there are a lot of Kurds living in Turkey, which worries the Turks, for fear the Kurds will try to break off a piece of Turkey to merge with the Iraqi Kurds.

But are you saying there are Turks living in Iraq, in the Kurdish dominated north east. If so, they are already under Kurdish dominance, aren't they?
What difference would it make if the Kurdish region was autonomous?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

It suggests perhaps they're just into attacking.

Then what good can we do? "We're attacking them over there so they don't attack each other over there?"

Maybe that whole deal about letting Iraq be three nations makes sense. Excecpt to the Sunnis, of course, who liked the sweet deal they had thugging the Shia out of their oil under Saddam and still hope to get it back somehow. And it would piss off the Turks. Tough.

I think that's going to have to be the end result.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

But are you saying there are Turks living in Iraq, in the Kurdish dominated north east. If so, they are already under Kurdish dominance, aren't they? What difference would it make if the Kurdish region was autonomous?

Turkomen living in a Kurd dominated regions that must answer to a central government can appeal to that central government AND can easily find allied in others such as Sunnis.

What raised a red flag (and I don't grasp reasons for this response) is a Turkey threat to invade northern Iraq and protect those Turkomen if Kurdistan becomes independent or autonomous. I don't know how serious to take that threat. It adds another variable of instability to a region already made so unstable - starting 1 Aug 1990 - the day the world changed.

Previously noted was a warning by Holbrook about dangers over this next year in Kirkuk. Turkomen are only part of the instability. Kirkuk is a focal point for stability of that entire Kurdish dominated region of Iraq. Kirkuk is also essential for the crown jewel of that region - oil. Kirkuk is where that oil is controlled.

Some of this is discussed with a warch post on 15 Aug 2006 entitled:
Bush links Hezbollah to Ali-Q .

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by tw

.... To a lesser extent, it would also piss off the Iranians.
...

I don't think so. The Shia south would be closely allied with Iran. Maybe to the point where Iran would protect the south from any Sunni aggression. Why do you think the Iranians would be pissed?