Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 92
  1.    #1  
    Poll shows Iraqis back attacks on UK, US forces

    LONDON (Reuters) - Forty-five percent of Iraqis believe attacks on U.S. and British troops are justified, according to a secret poll said to have been commissioned by British defense leaders and cited by The Sunday Telegraph.

    Less than 1 percent of those polled believed that the forces were responsible for any improvement in security, according to poll figures.

    Eighty-two percent of those polled said they were "strongly opposed" to the presence of the troops.

    The paper said the poll, conducted in August by an Iraqi university research team, was commissioned by the Ministry of Defense.

    82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;

    less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;

    67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;

    43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;

    72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.

    The opinion poll, carried out in August, also debunks claims by both the US and British governments that the general well-being of the average Iraqi is improving in post-Saddam Iraq.
    Last edited by BARYE; 10/25/2005 at 04:13 PM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  2. #2  
    Barye, the link only points to a snippet. Where did you get the other poll results? Is there any information that helps us understand the demographic profile of those polled?
  3. #3  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Barye, the link only points to a snippet. Where did you get the other poll results? Is there any information that helps us understand the demographic profile of those polled?
    To quote from BARYE's solid source, "a secret poll said to have been commissioned"... Everything after that is editorial disguising as news.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  4.    #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Barye, the link only points to a snippet. Where did you get the other poll results? Is there any information that helps us understand the demographic profile of those polled?

    shopharim, I only know what is quoted by the Reuters news story --

    It was based on a poll conducted on behalf of Britsh defense ministry
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  5. #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Barye, the link only points to a snippet. Where did you get the other poll results? Is there any information that helps us understand the demographic profile of those polled?
    Apparently, it's a "secret military poll commissioned by senior officers" that has been shown to Sean Rayment, the Defence Correspondent for the Sunday Telegraph.
    V > Vx > m505 > m515 > T/T > T3 > TC > 650 > 680
    <script type="text/javascript" src="http://download.skype.com/share/skypebuttons/js/skypeCheck.js"></script>
    <a href="skype:wwgamble?call"><img src="http://mystatus.skype.com/balloon/wwgamble" style="border: none;" width="150" height="60" alt="My Skype status" /></a>
  6.    #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gamble
    Apparently, it's a "secret military poll commissioned by senior officers" that has been shown to Sean Rayment, the Defence Correspondent for the Sunday Telegraph.
    quoting from your link:

    ...Millions of Iraqis believe that suicide attacks against British troops are justified, a secret military poll commissioned by senior officers has revealed.

    The poll, undertaken for the Ministry of Defence and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, shows that up to 65 per cent of Iraqi citizens support attacks and fewer than one per cent think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country

    It demonstrates for the first time the true strength of anti-Western feeling in Iraq after more than two and a half years of bloody occupation.

    The nationwide survey also suggests that the coalition has lost the battle to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, which Tony Blair and George W Bush believed was fundamental to creating a safe and secure country...
    Last edited by BARYE; 10/25/2005 at 05:56 PM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    quoting from your link:

    ...Millions of Iraqis believe that suicide attacks against British troops are justified, a secret military poll commissioned by senior officers has revealed.

    The poll, undertaken for the Ministry of Defence and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, shows that up to 65 per cent of Iraqi citizens support attacks and fewer than one per cent think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country

    It demonstrates for the first time the true strength of anti-Western feeling in Iraq after more than two and a half years of bloody occupation.

    The nationwide survey also suggests that the coalition has lost the battle to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, which Tony Blair and George W Bush believed was fundamental to creating a safe and secure country...
    Perhaps the poll is secret in part because the Ministry of Defence may have judged it not-credible? Perhaps because of whoppers like this: "71 per cent of people rarely get safe clean water". Really? 71%?
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  8. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #8  
    This is one very compelling reason that we are in Iraq.

    Tom Grey answers David Crow's request the empirical basis for his statement on the number of dead under Saddam Hussein. "See http://www.gbn.org/ArticleDisplaySer...=2400&msp=1242 Here is an excerpt:":Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power"

    http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_d...sein42503.html
  9.    #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Perhaps the poll is secret in part because the Ministry of Defence may have judged it not-credible? Perhaps because of whoppers like this: "71 per cent of people rarely get safe clean water". Really? 71%?

    more likely it is secret because it is so devastating to the rationale behind the sacrifice of all those lives

    that most Iraqis want us gone, and believe their lives are worse because we were there
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    more likely it is secret because it is so devastating to the rationale behind the sacrifice of all those lives

    that most Iraqis want us gone, and believe their lives are worse because we were there
    ...and this is the only poll that's ever showed this. Riiiight....
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  11.    #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    This is one very compelling reason that we are in Iraq.

    Tom Grey answers David Crow's request the empirical basis for his statement on the number of dead under Saddam Hussein. "See http://www.gbn.org/ArticleDisplaySer...=2400&msp=1242 Here is an excerpt:":Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power"

    http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_d...sein42503.html
    Sadamm was every bit the monster -- but he was no less the monster after the first war against iraq --

    daddy then understood that though we'd defeated its army in battle, it was not the same as becoming its "liberator."

    junior decided that he knew better -- and we became iraq's conqueror and occupier --

    Our professional army, our reservists, our National Guard were sent to a foriegn land whose culture they did not know, whose language was foriegn to them.

    One of our first acts was to dispense with the existing Iraqi army and to take on the full load of occupation and pacification with a force too small to protect itself -- never mind to guard the borders, arms dumps, roads, and museums.

    Have things gone well ?? has it been worth the sacrifice ??
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    Sadamm was every bit the monster -- but he was no less the monster after the first war against iraq --
    That it should have been done sooner is not an argument that it should not have been done.
    daddy then understood that though we'd defeated its army in battle, it was not the same as becoming its "liberator."

    junior decided that he knew better -- and we became iraq's conqueror and occupier --
    So which is it? You can't have it both ways.
    Our professional army, our reservists, our National Guard were sent to a foriegn land whose culture they did not know, whose language was foriegn to them.
    So we can only go to war in Canada???
    One of our first acts was to dispense with the existing Iraqi army and to take on the full load of occupation and pacification with a force too small to protect itself -- never mind to guard the borders, arms dumps, roads, and museums.
    We should have had more troops and we should be more aggressive. That's hardly what you're advocating. Again, you can't have it both ways.
    Have things gone well ?? has it been worth the sacrifice ??
    We liberated a country. The country has now had two free and fair elections. The war started less than two years ago. By any historical standard this war went astonishingly, unprecedentedly well. Whether it was worth it is up to each individual to decide. From everything I've read, the troops serving over there believe so.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    We liberated a country. The country has now had two free and fair elections. The war started less than two years ago. By any historical standard this war went astonishingly, unprecedentedly well. Whether it was worth it is up to each individual to decide. From everything I've read, the troops serving over there believe so.
    We liberated one group from oppression by a smaller group. There was very little resistance from any form of military. The occupation was poorly planned even with professional advice to have more boots on the ground.

    No, it is not up to each individual to determine if it WAS worth it. It was up to each individual to determine if it WOULD be worth it BEFOREHAND. However, given the deceipt of this administration to the American people we were not capable of making an even partially informed decision on the WORTH of invading that country.
  14. #14  
    This war was not justified to the American people as a war to liberate oppressed people from a ruthless dictator. We were told it was a war against a tyrant close to acquiring WMDs and against terrorism. Both of those justifications have been proved false. There were no WMDs and the cesspool of terrorism we cleaned up in Afganistan has moved to Iraq. Our military has not been given the tools and backing it needs to clean up the mess. The civilian leaders ignored the military's advice and tried to do everything on the cheap. Resources that could have really combatted terrorism have been diverted into the middle of a three-way civil uprising.
    Our problem now is how to disengage without leaving total chaos in Iraq. I don't have the answer to that, but, obviously, neither does the current administration that got us into the mess in the first place.
  15.    #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by zvandiver
    This war was not justified to the American people as a war to liberate oppressed people from a ruthless dictator. We were told it was a war against a tyrant close to acquiring WMDs and against terrorism. Both of those justifications have been proved false. There were no WMDs and the cesspool of terrorism we cleaned up in Afganistan has moved to Iraq. Our military has not been given the tools and backing it needs to clean up the mess. The civilian leaders ignored the military's advice and tried to do everything on the cheap. Resources that could have really combatted terrorism have been diverted into the middle of a three-way civil uprising.
    Our problem now is how to disengage without leaving total chaos in Iraq. I don't have the answer to that, but, obviously, neither does the current administration that got us into the mess in the first place.

    well said ...
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    well said ...
    ...but unfortunately not entirely accurate.
    This war was not justified to the American people as a war to liberate oppressed people from a ruthless dictator.
    That's just not true. The administration gave several reasons for the war. Liberation of the Iraqi people was one of them
    We were told it was a war against a tyrant close to acquiring WMDs and against terrorism. Both of those justifications have been proved false. There were no WMDs and the cesspool of terrorism we cleaned up in Afganistan has moved to Iraq.
    The WMD issue remains a mystery. It was universally accepted prior to the war that Iraq had WMD. Even France believed that to be true. So did Clinton. So did John Kerry. We are fighting (and eliminating) the jihadists in Iraq rather than having to try and do so here. That's a good thing. They had used Afghanistan as a base on international operations. Iraq does not offer them that ability.
    Our military has not been given the tools and backing it needs to clean up the mess. The civilian leaders ignored the military's advice and tried to do everything on the cheap. Resources that could have really combatted terrorism have been diverted into the middle of a three-way civil uprising.
    Our problem now is how to disengage without leaving total chaos in Iraq. I don't have the answer to that, but, obviously, neither does the current administration that got us into the mess in the first place.
    This is a fair criticism of the handling of the war. I agree that more "boots on the ground" were needed immediately after battlefield operations ceased.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  17. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by dathomas
    We liberated one group from oppression by a smaller group. There was very little resistance from any form of military. The occupation was poorly planned even with professional advice to have more boots on the ground.

    No, it is not up to each individual to determine if it WAS worth it. It was up to each individual to determine if it WOULD be worth it BEFOREHAND. However, given the deceipt of this administration to the American people we were not capable of making an even partially informed decision on the WORTH of invading that country.
    What deceit are you referring to?
    Last edited by phurth; 10/25/2005 at 08:19 PM.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by zvandiver
    This war was not justified to the American people as a war to liberate oppressed people from a ruthless dictator. We were told it was a war against a tyrant close to acquiring WMDs and against terrorism. Both of those justifications have been proved false. There were no WMDs and the cesspool of terrorism we cleaned up in Afganistan has moved to Iraq. Our military has not been given the tools and backing it needs to clean up the mess. The civilian leaders ignored the military's advice and tried to do everything on the cheap. Resources that could have really combatted terrorism have been diverted into the middle of a three-way civil uprising.
    Our problem now is how to disengage without leaving total chaos in Iraq. I don't have the answer to that, but, obviously, neither does the current administration that got us into the mess in the first place.
    Sadly, as a conservative, I want all this to be untrue, but I cannot see it as anything but the reality of the situation. Bush bungled Iraq plain and simply, and it will be the black smear upon the history of his presidency.
  19. #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    ...but unfortunately not entirely accurate.That's just not true. The administration gave several reasons for the war. Liberation of the Iraqi people was one of themThe WMD issue remains a mystery. It was universally accepted prior to the war that Iraq had WMD. Even France believed that to be true. So did Clinton. So did John Kerry. We are fighting (and eliminating) the jihadists in Iraq rather than having to try and do so here. That's a good thing. They had used Afghanistan as a base on international operations. Iraq does not offer them that ability.This is a fair criticism of the handling of the war. I agree that more "boots on the ground" were needed immediately after battlefield operations ceased.
    The fact is that there were no jihadists in Iraq before we invaded. The chaos that insued after the collapse of any governing body allowed the jihadists to stream into the country.
    The WMD issue was totally manipulated by the Bush adminstration. After 9-11, everyone gave the benefit of the doubt to Bush on the assumption he had knowledge and information not available to the rest of us. Now we know that the intel was massaged to fit the view of the hawks. More of this will surely come out if Fitzgerald issues any indictments this week.
    While I do not mourn the ouster of Saddam (he was a monster!), it was not our job to unilaterally remove him from power. If you believe that removing him was all the justification needed, the why don't we tackle other despots in the world? Surely, Kim Il Jong fits the description. We cannot save the world. We should do all we can short of military intervention to encourage democratic movements wherever they are.
  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by zvandiver
    The fact is that there were no jihadists in Iraq before we invaded. The chaos that insued after the collapse of any governing body allowed the jihadists to stream into the country.
    The WMD issue was totally manipulated by the Bush adminstration. After 9-11, everyone gave the benefit of the doubt to Bush on the assumption he had knowledge and information not available to the rest of us. Now we know that the intel was massaged to fit the view of the hawks. More of this will surely come out if Fitzgerald issues any indictments this week.
    While I do not mourn the ouster of Saddam (he was a monster!), it was not our job to unilaterally remove him from power. If you believe that removing him was all the justification needed, the why don't we tackle other despots in the world? Surely, Kim Il Jong fits the description. We cannot save the world. We should do all we can short of military intervention to encourage democratic movements wherever they are.
    I don't believe the simple fact of Saddam's removal was enough to justify going to war. All of the justifications given prior to the invasion when taken in total were a compelling argument.

    Bush said nothing about WMD that Clinton didn't also say. The difference was he took the threat seriously. The mystery is why Saddam acted in every way as if he *did* have WMD to hide. The intelligence failure is that the true nature of Saddam's WMD program wasn't known. Also the quick collapse and melting into the population of the Iraqi army wasn't foreseen (along with the resultant insurgency). The influx of foreign jihadists was neither foreseen nor prevented. All these are failures of this administration.

    If we suspected North Korea was supplying Al Qaeda with WMD to hit us with, you better believe I'd support war to prevent that. I would not support war simply to remove a dictator - absent any other U.S. national interest.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions