IMO, the majority of Iraqi people know right from wrong, are highly intelligent and educated, and know well from first hand experience the "benefits" of living under a terrorist/dictator regime and will do everything within their capabilities and power to prevent another leader such as Saddam from becoming president. That's why it is so important that the coalition forces remain in Iraq until the Iraqi government and leaders and the people are proficient and absolute enough to keep a free Iraq from being overthrown. If on down the line...Iraq reverts to another dictator form of government...they were given the opportunity along with the freedom to make choices of which they will have to live with and deal with.

Contrary to some beliefs, it never was and isn't the U. S. 's intention of creating an Iraq that reflects our form of government or that of our founders. How could it? The differences in culture,surrounding regions, historical backgrounds, etc. are like comparing apples and oranges in reality. In fact, Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, and Bremer have indicated numerous times in speeches that the new Iraqi government will reflect their history, belief system and their diverse peoples and won't even come close to anything like that which our founding fathers mapped out for us.

Except South Vietnam, of course.

No, there was no link between the two, At the end of the Vietnam War the Communist nations were actually at their absolute peak of both strength and prestige: the OPEC crisis was the best thing to ever happen to Russia.

The mid 1970s were reagrded as the Soviet Golden age, urban Muskovites actually enjoyed a substantially higher standard of living than before, the Red Army took another leap ahead in R&D which paid off in the technological developments of the early 1980s, which put it on even technological footing with the US in many areas (though not so much in others) By the mid 1980s, the USSR was still ahead of the US in several industries including deep deployment submarine development, Biological and chemical weapons, and helicopters...

But by the time these R&D programs started to bear fruit, the Oil based economy sank, and in the mid 1980s there was a return to the old standard, lower wages and less money to throw around...

Vietnam had nothing to do with the end of communism, in fact the prestige of Vietnam becoming communist and the US fleeing South East asia significantly added to the prestige of the Warsaw pact.

Well, I don't suppose we're instituting Outer Slobovian democracy. Or even Polish democracy, or (perish the thought) French democracy! What type of democracy do you think President Bush would want to institute, turnea? It is, after all, his dog and pony show. Your cleverness attempts to skirt the issue. Nice try.



Do you think the people who are unhappy, yea livid about it are going to participate in a poll they consider to be an American propaganda tool? Let's be realistic.

But I will grant you one thing: our American democracy is looking less like democracy all the time and more like corporatocracy. It's the one with the most money and important friends who wins nowadays, isn't it? Or at least that's what the Republicans are betting on.

The War in Iraq is not over--check out the action in Fallujah. When the bullets stop flying at Westerners and Iraqis seen as collaborators, we might be able to say that we have achieved a measure of success. Remember Bush's aspiration, to make Iraq a safe democracy like the United States. Would you be willing to live in Iraq the way things are now? If not, then success has not been achieved.

Nonsense... your question ignores one of the most basic facts on the ground in Iraq. That the Iraqi interim government is to handle the structure of government. What model Iraqis will choose (The US, Japan, UK, UAE, a new one etc.) has been a subject of debate for sometime now. It is also addressed in the poll I posted.

We aren't instituting any particular form of democracy whatsoever.


That kind of information would show up in the margin of error of the poll (plus or minus 2%, very low). Pollsters know how to account for low participation rates. Which is rather unlikely as Iraqis were very outspoken in earlier polls. The Gallup poll of Baghdad, for instance, had a non-participation rate of 3%.

Your statement is simply an unfounded assumption...


Come now PE, I wouldn't live in France (or a number modern democracies) the way things are now. The question isn't whether Iraq is an equal to the US. It is whether it is a better place.

Obviously it is...

Yeah, your chin scratching emoticon says it all.

And for people who are quite willing to dismiss the results of American pollsters regarding Kerry vs. Bush (especially those that indicate that Bush might be in some trouble), some folks seem to be uncharacteristically credulous about the Iraqis warming up to a pollster enough to say ain't it great that America blew up our country and everything's forgiven now that we're on the road to democracy, but not American democracy, mind you.*

Meanwhile, American contractors are murdered and their bludgeoned bodies hanging for all to see make the front page of American newspapers, and Marines in Fallujah had to destroy a mosque to get at some terrorists who decided to hide in there after they attacked the Marines and killed some of them.

I guess there are margins of error; then there are margins of error.

*(Edited to say: And the Vichy government was a "French government," too!)

Right. And also, the terrorists would use it as a rallying point and use as a recruitment tool.

Calmly ignoring the evidence I see.

If you can cite no reason to disbelieve the polls am I to understand you are still arguing against them? I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here... Are you saying the group that conducted the poll (Oxford Research International funded by ABC, the BBC, NHK(Japan) and other broadcasters are lying somehow?

Iraqis say they have a better life but violence continues in Iraq so it can't be a better place than before the war. (when it was so peaceful) Dumb Iraqis, what do they know about Iraq anyway...

Emotional appeals are nice every once in a while but when they start butting against the evidence for no apparent reason. Well, margins of error result...

I choose to believe the pictures I see in the newspapers and the conflict and deaths I hear about every day from Iraq--silly me, must just be domestic squabbles.

One problem, turnea: our fearless but dumb Commander-In-Chief taunted the terrorist groups to have at our troops. Remember "Bring 'em on"? So they're bringing it on. What's worse is, the terrorists think they are the good guys.

Reminds me of a cartoon which shows a city reduced to rubble with no one in sight but a loudspeaker blasting, "Remain calm. Everything is under control >skip< under control >skip< under control..."

Believe these polls if you choose to. But it's like having a powerful CEO everyone fears who asks them about his job performance. Only Republicans could somehow believe that the favorable responses are the unvarnished truth.

The country is a mess and they have darned little time to correct things before the June 30th deadline.

Oh, is that all? I believe I referenced this before but to be brief, we are not at all likely to get a full view of Iraqi life from our little news blurbs because:
1. They focus on things likely to be important to Americans rather than Iraqis.
2. They focus on the bad news, because good news like the constant progress that Iraqis reference in the polls aren't attention grabbers (i.e. likely to make good money).

It is rather like trying to peer into an adjacent a room through a scattered set of pinpricks in the wall.

Scientific polls, on the other hand, paint a statistically dependable picture of the opinion of the leading experts in Iraqi lives: The Iraqis. If one had to choose one there is simply no good reason to try and piece things together through news reports only. Certainly not those that don't even claim to be trying to portray the whole of Iraqi life. Do you doubt the polls,if so, why?


More unsubstantiated assumptions. I am not nor have I ever been (or will ever be) a Republican (or a partisan at all for that matter...). Blanket statements are useless
Are you now saying that Iraqis are intimidated by the US so they are afraid to?:
a.) Not participate in the poll and
b.) Vote the way the want to..

If would be a lot easier if you actually posted evidence for any of these assertions but they don't stand up to scrutiny anyway. Iraqis were known to crowd around reporters to give them a piece of their minds (or did you miss that TV coverage?) and are critical of the US in a number of areas even in the polls. As we've noted before Iraqis are not at all afraid to participate and they don't seem inclined to lie since they have a number of different areas of opinion.


Well, quick notify the Iraqis!

Be that as it may, as long as some Iraqis vote their preference with explosives strapped to their bodies, it is an unstable, dangerous situation, certainly not the "Mission Accomplished" televised from an aircraft carrier nearly a year ago.

I have no doubt, turnea, that there are Iraqis who earnestly work toward a genuine Iraqi democracy, like those police recruits who were ambushed while standing in line to be hired. But it will take several assassinations, I am afraid, before this dream of democracy will actually poke its head up from the ground without being cut down by fundamentalist Muslim terror mongers.

It was Gandhi in India, it was Martin Luther King, Jr. here, and countless others all over the world who have had to die to give impetus to their noble causes. It is no different in Iraq. The Iraqis have to ask themselves, Am I willing to give my life to see an Iraqi democracy? In the meantime, there are assassins lining up to make their cause fail.

That's the truth.

Possibly, but I would like to point out it is by no means an answer to the question for debate.

Iraq is a better place, the Iraqis have been saying that for some time, and it's about time we as a nation listen.

...and that is the (on-topic) truth!

I think Iraq today is a better place, because at least today they have the possibility, however slim, of attaining freedom.

They never had that under Saddam Hussein.

Now that is an all-time classic and oh so rich! And, what's even worse is that most of the Democrats think so too...at least that's what the majority of their rhetoric seems to imply. I wonder if our astute politicians on the other side of the aisle ever consider that the terrorists also hear their poisonous campaign rhetoric loud and clear? Thanks to Kerry, Kennedy, and some of the other grand communicators who angrily blame Bush and his administration for a greater part of the woes in the world, I imagine the high fives are becoming more and more popular among the evil doers no matter from what tunnel or rock they are hiding.

Even Larry King has to be reminded and was corrected by Karen Hughes last night in her response to his statement, "Well, somebody made a mistake!" Karen Hughes was quick to remind him, "Larry, let's not forget to place the blame where it belongs... al Qaeda is to blame for 9/11 and not our government!"

Is Iraq a better place now? IMO, yes...but as I have said so frequently, you "ain't gonna" hear it on prime time news! If you are really interested in Iraq's progress...do a Google Search ....but then, how many are starved for good news to make an effort to get it?

Yeah, I'm sure all those terrorists are listening to what Kerry and the Democrats are saying with baited breath, and pushing a get-out-the-vote campaign! Yeah right.

President Bush was a (pardon my language) frickin' idiot for pushing the nation into invading Iraq--just had to do it, right then, nope, can't wait...and so on ad nauseum. Took us down a momentarily gratifying side-trip when we should have been finishing the job in Afghanistan.

To say that Democrats are furnishing the primary impetus to these terrorists is to say otherwise that when our President is acting like a jerk we're just supposed to fall in line behind him. I don't buy either idiotic idea.

God protect our troops, but also give us the wisdom not to unnecessarily place them in harm's way, too, when we aren't even sure of the "intelligence" our Great Leader is acting on!

And one late but still relevant newsflash: Iraq had, according to evidence, NOTHING to do with the 9/11 attacks!

This would assume that Iraqis want democracy. Noone asked Iraqis if they want a democracy, theyve never had one even when they had self rule. WE assumed that democracy is the best thing for them and went over there to impose it on them.

Desert, this tactic of aligning Kerry or the left with terrorists, while dramatic for your own viewing pleasure, ( you seem to amuse yourself ) and completely off topic , greatly undermines your credibility. Its a position mostly argued by people with a less than worldly education and nary a clue how politics work. The low road as it were.

... not entirely true. Though no one asked before the war (Saddam really wouldn't have been keen on the answer) after the war a number have polls have shown that Iraqis want democracy far more than any other form of government. That is likely much of the source of their optimism.

This is just one more reason why Iraq is a better place...

I've often wonder how people who feel strongly that Iraq should be a democracy would feel if China unleashed their million troops against our homeland to "help" us.

Maybe they are sitting there saying:
"We are in danger because of America. Their lack of morality and imperialism are negatively affecting us and those poor Americans. There are poor people in America and wealthy tycoons from Tyco, Enron, and Haliburton taking all their money. It is legal for people to sodomize other people. Politicians can be bought by government contracts and take them to war because they are afraid of the future. They kill their prisoners and lead the list in Amnesty International complaints.

If we invade their country and occupy it, we can convert them to our socialist system so nobody is neither poor nor rich any longer. Politicians will be there for life, so there is no need to buy votes. They will love our system and we will liberate them from corruption."

What sounds absurd to us probably works the other way around. We live in a civilized society because that's our culture. Arab nations are tribal and not as civilized because of their culture. Maybe democracy is a bad idea and something they reject as soundly as we reject China's ways.

If we've been 100% wrong about everything that got us into Iraq, why are we betting we're right about this point? Nothing else has been right.

Is it just because WE like it, so everybody else must too?

*sigh*

I do not think you are truely aware of the state of Iraq before the... *cough* invasion.

Had it been like your example, I would also have been angered. Who wouldn't? But it wasn't. Not nearly.

Go to Iraq, and ask any person on the street if Iraq were a safer and/or better place, and you would recieve a positive answer. Sure, there are those there that despise our troops being in there yet. You have to realize, though, there are millions throughout the war supporting the Iraqi 'majority' who want the US ousted. The truth? Well, there really aren't that many. Sure, there are some people who are willing to fight to get us out, but most are ordinary people, just like you and me, and realize the situation.


Here's a scenario for you to consider: You are living in some strange world, and just happen to be right in the center of conflict. Your 'King' is more of a tyrant, building gas chambers and using other tactics similar to those of the WWII concentration camps to kill off anyone opposing him politically or who is of a different 'tribe'. On occasion, he even gets as mad as to spread mustard gas and other poisonous substances in the common public.

He is a nasty man, killing for the fun of it. Get on his wrong side once, and you can say goodbye to your life. He is feared by everyone--even his closest aides. His goal is to in the end spread his religion by force to the entire world. To rule with an iron fist--even if it means the use of nuclear weapons, which he yearns to get his hands onto.


Have that image hard into your head? Now place that image on Iraq. Remember how they celebrated when US troops reached Bahgdad. Remember the joy when it was announced that Saddam was captured. remember the civilian's thankyou's to the troops.


It is true, they were never asked what type of government they wanted, but you have to realize. It, ours, democracy, is the best. Face it. "By the people, for the people." When upheld by strong laws and checking systems to ensure that no one can take over the country, well, no one can take over the country.

Democracy produces a strong economy. A people's-choice government. It gives reason to live.

What is the largest problem with with communism and other socialist governments? They take away everything a person owns, mark it all as 'public property', and force them to work for the common people, getting no personal gain from it. For that reason, seeing nothing for them coming out of it, they are not inclined to work as hard as they might otherwise.


I could continue on my barrage, but shall not.

Reply, so that I may further prove your opinions incorrect.


[PuNK]

After the preceding pontification I felt compelled to respond.



And you know this...how?


Thank you for that qualifier.



This much I'll grant you; the dude was a loose cannon of the worst kind.



His "religion"? No, just his self-aggrandizement, considering even bin Laden considers him an infidel. To the entire world? Muahahahaha!--sounds like Dr. Evil; coincidence? No, I figure he was a happy though morally reprobate camper in his neck of the woods. But then, how many thugs and killers has our government supported in the interest of fighting communism over the past few decades?



Then the honeymoon was over--wonder why?



Iraq had a stronger economy before the U.S. imposed the embargo. It hurt the peasants, not the leadership.

Speaking of democracy producing a strong economy--what about those 2.3 million jobs lost here? What about the deficit? Oh, that's right, Vice President Cheney said to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, "Deficits don't matter. Reagan proved that." A "jobless recovery," what a modern day marvel! Have we gotten the jobs back yet? How come?


Yeah, I get it; you're absolutely right--having Daddy's Supreme Court appointees make you President--only in America. After all, the Supreme Court Justices are people, aren't they?


Thankfully, I do not depend upon the government as my reason for living.



Greed is certainly a motivator in this government system. Ain't it grand? You don't have to worry about the well-being of anyone else, after all, you're not your brother's keeper, are you? That's just religious drivel.

The "Compassionate Party" strikes again. What it does not share of the milk of human kindness from its abundant teats, it more than makes up for in its willingness to use another portion of its hermaphroditic anatomy.



Amen and amen. Just one thing: Please rationalize for me invading a peaceful (at least non-belligerent) country that didn't possess the very trumped-up reason for our attack. They start with a W.

"Yes, but......"

I don't understand,I thought there was no connection between 9/11 and Saddam(Iraq).

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97527,00.html

His goal is to in the end spread his religion by force to the entire world?

ROFLMAO

I believe Saddam and Tariq Aziz are both atheists, but as Baathists, they are not part of some secular religion. That's the reason Saddam and Bin Laden didn't work together. Bin Laden considered Saddam an infidel.

At a minimum, your assertion is too absurd for serious discussion. Out of all the screwed up things happening in Iraq, religion wasn't one of 'em.

And you think I'm not truly aware of the state of Iraq before the... *cough* invasion?


As far as the rest of your diatribe, you've just described a dozen countries in the world. Iraq is only one of many.

Yes, it is a low blow and believe me, I am not in the least amused! And I might add, it won't be the first time nor the last time a member has posted off topic! Let me explain why I have no qualms, at this time, about that comment. From my early teens, I have been a political junkie in a Republican household, Harry Truman was my first presidential hero, and by the time I was old enough to vote for the first time, I proudly voted for my second hero, John F. Kennedy. After Kennedy, although I voted Republican, I was proud of our presidents and their administrations, whether they be Democrat or Republican. Although I strongly disagreed with some of their policies and decisions (Johnson and Vietnam) and angry at and ashamed of Nixon's Watergate scandal that led to his resignation, and at Clinton for dragging his private addictions into the White House and into our living rooms...I finally came to the conclusion that our presidents can't be all things to all people and they, like us, have their weaknesses and strengths, their good side and their bad side...but they are deserving of our support or at the very least, our respect through the good times as well as the bad times. There is nothing wrong with challenging, demanding answers, and protesting our president or our govenerment...but when did civility and respect go out of fashion? For many years, I have admired and respected (some more than others) representatives on either side of the aisle and have "grown up" with so many of them. I have no doubt that if Presidents Truman and Kennedy could throw in their two-cents worth of advice to their fellow Democrats...it would be for them to forget the Howard Dean anger and hate rhetoric and get back on the track of arguing and defining the differences between the two parties on policies and issues rather than this incessant character assassination of a sitting president. You may joke about Zell Miller's book, "A National Party No More" but if you read it, I think you will have a better understanding as to why he can't be on the side of the Democrats although he is on their team. I have read his book and I know just where he is coming from (although I am a Republican) for I recognize many familiar faces from the other side of the aisle, but I don't recognize this election year's rhetoric of the Democrats. For the first time in my life, I am sorry to say that I am not only angry at them, but I am ashamed of them!

So, do I equate Kerry, Kennedy and the Democrats with the terrorists? Only one similarity...their emotions of anger and hate in their rhetoric about our President and our government is really not far removed from that of Saddam's or Osama's or any other terrorists. When and if they decide to clean up their act, they will once again gain my respect...until then...shame on them!



Sorry, but this statement just cracked me up as no matter how hard I try, I can't imagine the terrorists thinking any other way than they are the good guys and we are the bad guys and that's why they declared war on us!

And, since Osama and clan were watching the September 11th events on TV, (according to their conversations on one of their tapes) don't be so quick to count them out in viewing world events whether it be from tunnels, caves, or from their rented apartments and homes which just may be in another country or right in our own back yard...and maybe in some of our very own neighborhoods.

And who ever said that Iraq would have a democracy and a government that would mirror ours? Show me the source!



Yes, in my efforts to remind some that the terrorists are the enemies and not a sitting president, regardless of whether a Republican or Democrat, nor our government is to blame...I quoted Karen Hughes in their discussion about 911 and the 911 Commission which has no direct link to Iraq. Sorry about that!



Well, once again...if you follow the primary news networks, I can see why you would believe this. However, as I frequently suggest...make an effort to search for some good news and you will learn that contrary to what the media tells us 24/7, there is much else going on in the overall big picture in Iraq, the size of California, than bombings and uprisings. Yes, Iraq is dangerous and has some serious problems, but believe it or not....not all Iraqis are protesting nor hate the Americans! The wonderful benefits of 24/7 cable news! Guess I will have to write them again and request some good news from Iraq!

Actually, I dont think many people are aware of the state of Iraq before sanctions, before the US began supporting Saddam against Iran, before we armed Saddam Hussein enough to get on a high horse.
Well, that is all water under the bridge, but the truth of the matter is, we meddled in all of it, caused most of it, and lost a few opportunities to check him in the past. Bush 41 knew of Saddams plans to invade Kuwait and basically gave a greenlight, knowing this would give us a right to war with Iraq, hence the sanctions that destroyed the country.

In waltzes Bush 43 to set it all right by invading. More war and suffering for the Iraqi people.

Back to Dayton Rockers post about basically 'Father knows Best' and freedom and democracy for Iraq by our hand.

History proves that even if you dont like your leadership, you dont like to be occupied and told how to live by a foreign people who have no understanding of your religion or culture, especially when you (must) suspect that what they really want are your resources. Such has been the case for Iraq for decades if not a full century. The US is a sexually and otherwise decadent, violent country in Muslim view, objectifiying women, politically corrupt, a freeforall society that they do not believe in. Actually the US is violent and decadent, our kids shoot each other in schools as well as many things we choose not to take an overlook of. We have little values of any value to an Iraqi citizen, so while they take from us what can be given in ousting Saddam Hussein, their loyalty to us is only selfish and to a point. They have nothing in common with us ideologically and DO NOT WANT WHAT WE HAVE HERE.

Yes, I am sure they were happy to be deposed of Saddam Hussein, then they want us to get out and leave them to run things their way. Of course, this cannot be, because freedom and democracy are not why wars are waged and noone spends billions to free people and leave, they want their fare due and the spoils of war.

Considering that Iraqis know this since they have been through it before, they are going to temporaily put up with the adjustments and irritations of the occupation for awhile, they may even write off 10,000 civilians killed, until the ocupational force tries to be too heavy handed and looks like they are not doing what they said they were there to do, but try to silence the people and steal their resources, then they are going to revolt. We are seeing this now.

My point is, NOONE likes an occupation. Anyone may have a screwed up country sometimes, but let someone try to come in and tell you different, especially a country like the US that is so diametrically opposed to their religion, cultural viewpoint and basic ideology of life. Our bases in Saudi Arabia were part of the cause of Osamas rage, our permanent bases and meddling in Iraq from this day forward will always be a bone of contention for Iraqis and mid east terrorists. They will have a lot to deal with in cleaning up another mess of a war and....

Its not like they dont remember it was WE who spent them dry in a war with Iran and were Saddams friend then. Do you think they have forgotten?

Their loyalty to us is as superficial as our loyalty to them has ever been.

Americans suffer from a disease of 'we know best whats good for you'. I loathe the day this turns on us and someone else thinks as we do.

Hasnt anyone read of the disaster of the English occupation of Iraq and eventual pull out?

When it is asked, is Iraq a better place today, the question comes way too soon.
Obviously today it is not, last month maybe it was, next year? We cant know yet.
( Our record in Iraq, starting from the early 80's is not a good example of how we
'handle' things there.)

Now I'd love to hear evidence on why Iraq as a whole is not a better place today. When Iraqis declared it was a better place back in February they noted a number of areas where this was true. Fighting in some Iraqi cities surely wouldn't change all of that. In February there were a number of terrorists attacks I believe, yet Iraqis said on balance they had better lives.

Saying Iraq is not a better place is sounding less like an estimate and more like denial.

Is Iraq a better place?


[QUOTE]March 15— A year after the bombs began to fall, Iraqis express ambivalence about the U.S.-led invasion of their country, but not about its effect: Most say their lives are going well and have improved since before the war, and expectations for the future are very high.

<snip>

On a personal level, seven in 10 Iraqis say things overall are going well for them — a result that might surprise outsiders imagining the worst of life in Iraq today. Fifty-six percent say their lives are better now than before the war, compared with 19 percent who say things are worse (23 percent, the same). And the level of personal optimism is extraordinary: Seventy-one percent expect their lives to improve over the next year.


If the Iraqi people say it is, then it is, who else can really say but those that have to live there each day.

Desert Resident: I have been against this invasion of Iraq from the get-go. I am sorry that my comments have angered you, but I am incredibly angry that the current President dragged our country into this. The reason I am so angry at this whole thing is I believe our President was dishonest in his reasons for getting us into the conflict, and he rushed us into it, I believe, before all peaceful approaches were exhausted.

I stated the obvious that the terrorists think they are the good guys because no group starts killing another group unless they perceive that some monstrous wrong was perpetrated against them. Instead of trying to see if there is any validity to their accusations, we attack them as a reflex. I understand; many American people (among others) have died at their hands.

But the cycle of violence continues. And the fact that Americans are trying to do a good thing does not mitigate the sense of injustice these people feel. Until the root causes of the violence are addressed, the violence will continue. Please do not construe this as an attempt on my part to justify their actions.

It's like baking a lousy-tasting cake and then trying to fix it by covering it with a tasty frosting. Even though Saddam is gone, there are still problems there that have not been addressed, and people angry enough to bite off their nose to spite their face because of those problems.

In another war, someone said, "Let's declare victory, then get the hell out of here!" I don't want to see the outcome of this war, however unwisely started, to mirror the outcome of that war. And, I'm afraid, no "poll" (the absurdity of polling people in an occupation!) will tell me that things are that much better, rape rooms notwithstanding.

(Edited to include: Whether Gallup does it or anyone else, the results of a poll in a nation recently conquered by another nation with data gathered by members of the conquering nation will always be suspect.)

To edge this back on topic...

Would you please enlighten us as to why the polling results are suspect? It's not participation rate. It's not the questions. It's not that Iraqis are afraid to answer truthfully. It's not the way the poll was conducted.

For the life of me, I would love to know exactly what the problem is?!

This comes to mind. I have some Russian friends who I was spending time with after the fall of the Soviet Union. They told me that people still acted in fear and behaved exactly the same as before, worrying about blacklists and all that.

I have wondered who is polling who and how? The man on the street, walking around, certainely not by telephone. Do these poles include women because I dont think women are out and about to be spoken with much. Are the pollsters American or Iraqi.

These are just questions I ask myself.

But my points are not about superficialities, there is much more to the 'betterment' of Iraq than a few new buildings in a long view. Stability and security for one.

This doesn't check out in Iraq. I recall that Iraqis would crowd around reporters eagerly giving them a piece of their minds; compliments, complaints, it didn't matter, the Iraqis weren't scared a bit.

This is also borne out by the statistics with the early Gallup poll having a non-participation rate of just 3% (which is a lot lower than anything you'd get in the US ) Iraqis also voice a range of opinion, some comforting to US officials some they definitely wouldn't be too pleased with 51% percent opposing the coalition forces presence on principle (though they don't want them to leave until the job is done, many feel it's a necessary evil...).

I have seen absolutely no evidence that Iraqis were afraid to answer truthfully. If that's why some disbelieve the poll, I wish they would enlighten me to their sources...


So, glad you asked.

The early Gallup poll of Baghdad was conducted using face-to-face interviews, a link explaining their methodology is included below.
How was the Gallup Poll of Baghdad conducted?

The poll I've been referencing the most, however, is the Oxford Poll of Iraq (funded by the BBC, and ABC among others, training for Iraqi interviewers by Oxford as well as other expertise form Oxford and some local Iraqi universities) . I believe this was face-to-face as well (as I understand it, this is almost impossible to avoid in the rural areas.)
A link to the Full Poll with ABC's notes and the questions below:
Poll: Most Iraqis Ambivalent About the War, But Not Its Results(PDF)
a link to their methodology (complete with scientific jargon )
Iraq Methodology(PDF)
Both sets of pollers note that the organizations took care to interview a statistically sound proportion of women to men. (Which in Iraq would make most subjects women)

Iraqis cover that in the poll as well.

Wow....when I say I am angry and ashamed of the Democrats (see my previous post), Paladin...I mean the Top Dogs in Washington because they are the voices for (or the representatives of) their constituents, our government, and on many occasions a reflection of the American people as a whole. Attacking the messages of our leaders is civil...character assassination is not...and these representatives are good people that are letting an agenda of winning an election override their common sense and their conscience...and it is like a runaway train that is not always in the best interest of our nation. Let me tell you, when the Republicans were attacking President Clinton and suggesting that he dropped bombs to sway peoples' attention from the Monica scandal (just for one example out of many) our mailman had job security during that long Monica episode because the letters from me to the RNC and various Republican representatives were steady with the subject matter always being "Shame on you!"

So, Paladin and everyone else....while I may or may not agree with you on issues and rhetoric, I am not angry with you personally and I am sorry if my explanation indicated otherwise. Now...I have more than overstayed my welcome in the OFF TOPIC arena....thanks to the moderators for their tolerance!

Is Iraq a better place now?

We have been told that Iraq is about the size of California with about 35-45 million people. I don't for a minute believe that what we see on our screens 24/7 is a reflection of the new Iraq. This "headline news-bad news" mentality reporting may sell newspapers and increase network ratings, but IMO is biased reporting. Since the stakes for all concerned are so high, why wouldn't viewers be interested in updates about the progress made since the end of the major conflict? We hear stories from our military (some members on this forum) that indicate there are good things happening throughout Iraq in spite of the protesting and uprisings. The only reason I can think of for the "blackout" of good news from Iraq is that the few times they did report it, the ratings fell. Well...I am going to (again) email a request to CNN Paula and Aaron and question them why all the gloom and doom reporting about Iraq? I know there has to be some good news about Iraq that we aren't getting from the mainstream media.

That is likely the very reason for this thread, the reason people can't believe Iraq is better off is because they aren't being told the whole truth, as usual

I started a thread on it in the media forum.
The Media and Iraq
I think another major problem is simply frame of reference. As in, things we take for granted many Iraqis never had. Therefore when presented with a picture of Iraqi life the reaction is emotionally negative and then... nothing.
Rather than checking up on what things were like before the war.

So my advice (for I give such things far too freely) is to get out from in front of the TV for the vast majority of news and hit the net. The BBC News Site, NY Times (yeah, even they're better than TV), and Iraqi sites like Iraq Today all put both cable and broadcast to shame)

And another article on rebuilding and why Iraq is a better place than it was prewar.
Iraq reconstruction

Awesome. I wonder why this is never reported! We need to report the good news to let Americans know what is going on besides death and destruction and how the lives of Iraqis have improved since the end of Saddam

Firstly, Iraq was a very successful country pre-Desert Storm. It had the best literacy rate in the region and one of the best infrastructures - roads, health, water supply, etc. - and then when they were expelled from Kuwait and the West pummelled Iraq weekly and sanctioned her to the bare minimum (and because the sanctions were a farce, Saddam skimmed as much as he wanted) the nation was flipped on its head.

So now we have 80% unemployment (including the 400,000 strong Iraqi army that was disbanded en masse and which took its small arms with it), a decimated health service, electricity and water system, a delapidated oil production system and so on. This all has to be rebuilt virtually from scratch because we destroyed the country (knowing full well Saddam was accelerating this decline) over 13 years. Now we have to rebuild it, which will cost as much again as the invasion has so far cost ($150bn by the end of the year)..

Also, these polls. Let's just look at these numbers and flip them to see where all this violence is coming from. Depending on the precise question, you will see that between a fifth and a half of Iraqis are either against the occupation, the invasion or do not think things have improved.

More than 1 in 3 Iraqis think things are worse than under Saddam and about 1 in 5 think that attacks on occupation forces are acceptable. Nearly half think the invasion humiliated Iraq. More than half do not think public services are better than prewar and a full quarter do not think things will improve in a years time.

This is just a sample. Now even 25% of a 22 million person nation is a LOT of people. More than 10 times the number of occupation troops.

This is what people, but especially governments and military personnel, should be looking at. Because this is where the danger lies.

This is why we see two ethnic groups starting to hit the occupiers independently, for their own reasons. They may be "minorities", but that does not mean they're "unpopular". If I had the backing of 25% of the population I would never say I was unpopular. Would you?

Schooly

Today, I spent a considerable amount of time at various media/TV network/newspaper web sites submitting comments as a constructive question:

"We are told that Iraq is the size of California with a population between 35-40 million people which strongly indicates to me that something else must be going on in Iraq other than the daily conflicts and casualties we are exposed to on a 24/7 basis. Is this "blackout" on Iraq's progress/good news due to network ratings and number of papers sold or biased reporting?"

Although I don't expect any answers, other than auto-responders that they received my comments, I will be looking for some good news from Iraq reporting from our media in the not too distant future.

NEVER is a long time. What Iraqis NEVER HAD has only been 14 years in the making. Have any of you educated yourselves on what Iraqis had 'before' US meddling, like free education through post graduate and health care? Dont think we have it all over them systematically.

What exactly is the significance of Iraqi betterment before the war when it was beaten into submission by the US since the 1983 support of Saddam, compounded by the 1991 Us greenlight of the invasion of Kuwaiit?

Are we pontificating on the issue that THIS invasion helped Iraqis, while US involvement for 20 years served to impoverish them? Thats quite handy.

IE: We supported your ugly dictator to starve you and win our wars for us, then we had to bomb you so that we could stop starving you when our puppet got out of control.

And we wonder why we have terrorists who hate the US?

I dont think we can give ourselves pats on the back for what we have done in Iraq, but I do hope with all the turmoil WE have created we might be able to do something eventually for these people, unfortunately to our own detriment as wars go.

However, since there is no stability nor security still for Iraqis, factions that have no shared political leanings are rising up together against us and we are going to have to beat them down with an unusual show of force if we are to regain control. HOW is it possible to assume or even half think that Iraq is better off now?
The country is on the verge of a united insurgent uprising with no true army. That means many more dead and wounded civilians with an already overloaded health care system and weak infrastructure. Civil engineers, security people, and reconstructionists are being murdered or kidnapped, several threatened to be burned alive in less than 48 hours.
What are you missing in your views of 'betterment"?
I have said this so many times, Iraqi betterment is an issue that will be years in the making, if ever, since Iraqis despise occupation in the very essence of their being.

One year ago today:


Over 600 dead a year later. No WMD.

Only here do you actually begin to touch upon the question for debate. The question is not whether or not Iraq was better or worse off than before sanctions (kind of a no-brainer). But whether things are better now than before the war, the majority of Iraqis say yes, and I see precious little reason to disbelieve them.

Question answered: Reconstruction has been successful at making Iraq a better place than before the war, though there is still a distance to go before it is acceptable.

You may focus on the bad news as much as you wish, it is useful in its on way. Just be careful of ignoring the good, of which there is plenty. When 70% of Iraqis call their lives "good" and 56% better than before the war. The notion that the invasion (and post-war looting) spoiled the country falls flat on it's face. Now that's something to rejoice about...


Perhaps not, if I were running for Prom King or something

However this contest is a different beast. The insurgents aren't going to win the war with 17% of Iraqis finding attacks on coalition forces acceptable. They simply don't have the power to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory for Iraq.

Though Iraq did have some very good services pre-sanction they were, of course, never near par with the US. When I say never, I speak of the political benefits and peace of mind of those who have never known life without Saddam. Those have clearly factored into the voices of Iraqi noting progress as well.

The partial alleviation of the suffering of millions of people.

I'm not looking to judge morally historical US involvement in Iraq. That is no where near the topic.


We who? I wasn't alive in 1983 and I don't know of any here who supported the actions of the US government regarding Saddam pre-91. Such sins of the father attacks are pointless. I do believe enormous amounts of credit are due to the occupation authority workers, aid workers and the Iraqis themselves. Regardless of history what they have done is labored to make a better Iraq and they are succeeding anew every day.


..and I'd say stretching the will of Iraqis to finally have control of their own destiny to mean than Iraq is not a better place than before the war is useless. The ship on whether Iraqi is better has already set sail, most of the Iraqis are on board. Denial won't change that.


...and I think I've got the connection. Iraq is a better place today because no one has had to dig holes to bring the up. It would really muss up the lawn.

Question answered: Reconstruction has been successful at making Iraq a better place than before the war, though there is still a distance to go before it is acceptable.

I would be leary of polls, I'm sure if you asked if they wanted an Islamic Republic, the vast majority would say: "yes" There is quite a disconnect between the polls and their actions. Here's a great example(I post it here since I can't find the guy who thought the Iraqi army was becoming as brave as Patton's 3rd army)


April 11th, Washington Post Article by THomas E. Ricks

We hear about this support and how happy the Iraqi people are, but when was the last time you saw throngs of protestors on our side?? When has the Iraqi army and police stood up to a rag-tag group of villagers who chase them out, or whom they fight alongside with against us?? This is a propped up regime with a propped up military wing, and we are having a hard time maintaining the "all's well" routine with the crazy aunt in the basement that is otherwise known as Iraq. We hear about schools and electricity being provided in some village, but is that really an indication of success?? Is that not outweighed by the fact that we are losing more lives from a group that up until now has sat on the sidelines?

Swing-and-a-miss!

That question was actually asked in this poll (I really recomend a read through)

Survey says!: Iraqis by and large 49% want a democracy (as opposed to "a single strong leader or Islamic state which each got less than half the votes for democracy), with even dictatorship coming out before Islamic Republic. No Iran repeats are wanted.


According to NPR Iraqi police are (or were before the ceasefire) fighting in Fallujah. Don't let the actions of one battalion overshadow the whole. There are in fact the most trusted group in Iraq (according to Iraqis). They have fought side-by-side with coalition forces to keep order and they are well respected for it.


Who Sadr's goons? as if they mattered in the long run. Please don't confuse Sadr's tiny tiny minority of the Shia with the general population, 85% of whom say violence against the coalition forces is unacceptable.

Here agains is the poll, I urge everyone to read it...
Iraq Poll with ABC Notes(PDF)
and a special poll comparing Sunni to Shia.

Having some minor cleric's private army against us is a military problem to be dealt with. It does not overshadow the fact that Iraqi Health services, education, and electricity, etc are all better than pre-war levels.

History is not a mere 20 years. You say you were not alive in 1983, however many of us were adults in 1983, as was Bush 43. Sins of the father are not pointless, they are likely the very reason we are in Iraq today.

Some of us do know something of Iraq before the US got involved at all, it was within our lifetimes. This is pertinent to the topic because we have already seen how faulty our shortsighted policies can be. Many of us who were politically active were against those actions then, to NO avail, as now. However Bush Sr. was voted out of office.

Let me make myself more clear. We went to war with Saddam already, in some of our lifetimes. We were supposedly successful then. The rouge dictator was supposedly taken care of yet fell short of removal, but it was supposed to be good enough. We then went about starving and humiliating Iraqi people for 12 more years. In comes Bush 43, fixated on Iraq once again.
This is clearly a continuing, uneccessarily extended problem, not ancient history.

This is not be be dismissed as irrelevant when given the picture of a NEW and Improved invasion of Iraq.

I think it should be understood that some of us who doubt that Iraq is really better off have already seen this go-round once. It did not turn out better then. It turned out to impoverish the country and kill off millions of Iraqis in the worst way, mostly who were never to blame for either terrorism nor Iran, nor anything at all.

I cannot base my opinion of Iraqi betterment on some polls, nor that there are now more schools and running water. I have doubts if Iraq will ever have any real kind of freedom. Knowing Iraq's history and hatred of Western meddling, any occupation, and with recent events, although I think some good things are happening I believe it is way to soon to speculate if Iraqis are truly better off.
I see the question posed as a way to prove that the invasion was overall a good thing. I dont think it was. Indentured servitude to American policy and eternal , get on your knees and be grateful for bestowing on you a fake democracy and ridding of Saddam is not in the Iraqi personality.

I believe that people desire above anything self determination and I dont believe that the US is, even in the long term, going to let that happen. Iraqis, by their history will rise up time and time again to shrug off and rid themselves of our influence and what it too clearly a coup upon ultimate control of their resources.

This means perpetual war, not good no matter how many new buildings you build, you cant keep it up. You cannot maintain stablity and security or basic services in a country in perpetual war and upheaval.

Turnea, forgive me if I am speculative toward Iraqi's well being under our control. I have seen too many failed attempts there and elsewhere.

The removal of Saddam may be the only major 'good' thing that gets accomplished in Iraq in the next ten years.
Then, can we be sure we will not manipulate them into new wars with their neighbors? Our track record on Iraq is abominable. You may put on your rosy glasses about it, but there has been NOTHING rosy about Iraq since WE began supporting Saddam Hussein. You speak of denial? Read it and learn.

I've been trying to tell many that on other debate sites that these who are currently fighting us, including the Sunnis, out of 24 million people, are in the minority. A full majority prefer us over Saddam and as you stated a majority of them are against this violence towards the coalition

According to recent government sources, the Iraqi forces have been lackluster and rather disappointing.


( U.S. Military seeks additional forces for Iraq, April 12th, 2004 article by Sewell Chan)

I don't deny that perhaps some praise was heaped on the Iraqi police and new military forces early on(much like how the coach of the Clippers gives a pep talk to his boys) but the simple fact of the matter is--more forces are being requested because Iraqi forces can't hold the line, and that's just the fact of the matter.

[quote=nebraska29,Apr 12 2004, 05:27 PM] According to recent government sources, the Iraqi forces have been lackluster and rather disappointing.

[QUOTE]
Top U.S. military commanders expressed disappointment Monday with the performance of Iraqi security forces in countering an intensifying insurgency and said they were requesting thousands of additional U.S. forces to meet the threat. [/quote]
That is very disturbing to know that the Iraqi Security Force is reluctant to fight Sadr's gang of loyalists. There reason is because "they do not want to kill fellow muslims". I think that is bull. Their fellow muslims are blowing themselves up and killing innocents and wrecking a chance at a decent life in Iraq

What's so disturbing?

If you were in the National Guard and were ordered to shoot fellow Americans who believe they are defending their country, wouldn't you be just a little bothered?

Why is it WE are allowed nationalism, but Iraq is not? They are not the United States of Iraq. They don't wear American flag pins on their lapels like we do. They are Iraqis and we are demanding they shoot their neighbors.

It's easy to sit in our lazyboy recliners and dictate an Iraqi's responsibility from here in front of our computers, but it's much different when you're holding the gun on someone you may have went to school with.

We are the invaders - the Iraqis aren't. The overwhelming majority of the targets by the Iraqis are strategic targets (unlike the Palestinians). They actually fight our military. While I hope anybody that raises a weapon against our troops is instantly shot and killed (personally, I wouldn't sacrifice one American life for an entire country full of Arabs), I respect their reason for wanting to do it and I believe they have a credible voice.

And my bet is, so do the Iraqis we're suddenly calling "cowards".

Edited to add:
By golly, it is getting better. It's going so well, that the US is now recruiting Saddam's ex-officers


This difficult situation was a creation of our president. This incredibly difficult situation should not exist. If Iraq had attacked us, you would be correct. But that is not what happened. It was a war of choice that sidetracks the true war on terror because Iraq was never part of international terrorism, never used WMD when we didn't supply them (even the first time we went to war with them), and had no WMD left over from the 90's.

By being critical, we are aiding the Americans that won't die because of political choices that may not be made in the future because of our ability to sway elections away from leaders who put politics over principle (something I would have never beleived Bush would have done when I voted for him).

Silence in the presence of wrong helps nobody. You beleive this war is just. Half of America, including me, disagrees with you.

You know I believe there is a response to that, but in order not to take away from the importance of the real topic here. Even lack of cooperation (to whatever degree) from the Iraqi police does not overshadow the other areas of progress.

The fact is Iraq is a better place as judged by the Iraqis in a wide spectrum of ways. Rather than decrying "all's well rhetoric" maybe those working to make Iraq better could catch a bit of credit, praise, etc?

It's also easy to focus on the negative in an incredibly difficult situation and refuse to give any credit where it is due. But in doing so we aid no one.

The occupation authority and humanitarian aid workers have earned a break from the negativity it seems to me. Not to say we can't criticize, but how's about a little perspective?