These beheadings may
all seem rather shocking now. But don't worry. You'll get used to it. After all, eventually there will be
thousands of heads being lopped off daily. As they become more and more frequent, I'm sure the media will help us
to understand and embrace this wonderful culture and religion. So different from our own. They'll point out how
we must not be bigoted. How we must tolerate, accept and welcome this diverse culture. After all, how could people
who have chosen to live in the seventh century possibly be inferior to people who live in the 21st century? They
cannot be. They're just wonderful people. Islam is a peaceful religion. We're the ones who don't understand.
But we will understand one day. It won't happen over night. But it will happen.
Unless we WAKE the F@#K UP
already!!!
sheesh!
It also erks me that you
don't see more Muslim Americans out there vehimately standing against whats going on over there...and what these
people are doing in their name. In fact, you don't see any at all. And don't tell me its because they're afraid
of backlash...the relatively minor backlash coming to them is because they are NOT out there trying to ease tension.
Silence is the sound of support in my book. Of course, I'm probably being 'ethnocentric'.
Yep! Even after 9/11 they said
nothing! Well.....with the exception of place the blame on us. "Hey...If the US didn't support Israel none of this
would have happened."
They took/take no responsibility.
The beheadings are the work of
Al-Q associates. They're playing to the worst Western images of horror, thus getting the most reaction per murder.
Al-Q are equating these with Abu-G abuses and presence of peacekeeping forces, to confuse people morally and short
circuit their indignation. If we play our cards right in negating these factors, this "clever stupidity" should
backfire. Certainly the prison abuses now look like adolescent stupidity and hazing by comparison, though they are
not comparable, except for both playing into horrible images (i.e., sexual humiliation, Freddy movies, etc.) from
the others' culture. So a thing Westerners can do is, rather than indulge our horror, let it turn to indignation.
Conversely, it would be playing into their hands to let this become a Judeo-Christian vs. Muslim thing, or
even a non-muslim vs. Muslim thing, for us. They desperately want us to be playing the role of crusader and for
everyone to tell the story their way, so they can rally "all Muslims everywhere" (and there are quite a few of
them). That is why Bush would do well to tone down the religious rhetoric right now where international politics are
concerned. But his "we will not be intimidated" reaction to this was well to the point.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
I agree Western muslims would doOriginally Posted by Elana
well to stand in condemnation more vociferously. They do indeed have a special responsibility there, which should
transcend American politics.
I am also puzzled (and shocked) by the amnesty Saudi Arabia has offered to
terrorists. What the hell kind of timing is that, the day after the beheading? When they took out most of the big
Al-Q cell I hoped they were maybe headed in a better direction.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
II am also puzzled by the
amnesty Saudi Arabia has offered to terrorists. What the hell kind of timing is that, the day after the beheading?
When they took out most of the big Al-Q cell I hoped they were maybe headed in a better direction.
wouldn't expect anything better from the Saudi's. The Saudi Royalty is being looked at as possibly providing the
terrorists responsible for the beheadings, with police cars and uniforms.
I knew some Saudi security
people were accused of providing the uniforms and being terrorist infiltrators, but hadn't heard the Royalty link.
Saudi's are saying they could have bought the uniforms at a surplus store, and that they don't want the West to
think they're being infiltrated like that. That is not to say I trust them, given their history of terrorist
support.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
They're next.
The Saudis are playing both sides
against the middle. They despise the nation of Israel. Therefore they really dislike the USA because of our support
for Israel. On the other hand they tolerate us,because if it wasn't for Uncle Sucker, the Royal Saudi family would
be a thing of the past. Saudi money is behind a lot of the Al-Q funding.
And it doesn't hurt that AL-Q has
a butt buddy in the Western Media. They play our media like a fine violin.
The only thing Bush has
accomplished with the Iraqi conflagration is to "stir up a hornets nest"...If you thought the radical elements of
Islam hated us before you dont want to know what they think of us now. As despicable & abhorrent as the beheadings
are they pale in comparison to what the US has wrought against many innocent Iraqi civilians: men, women & children.
To attack a sovereign country without provocation has to be a new low in American Foreign policy. As a result I'm
afraid the national security of the US has been greatly compromised.
Other events of note: The Supreme
Court rules that Cheney doesn't have to reveal the details of his secret energy task force for now; certainly not
before the election (they rigged the last one)...and they make a ruling curtailing the power of judges in
sentencing...Someone asked me what I was smoking when I compared the Supreme Court to a military
Junta...Heellllooooo!!!
"Fahrenheit 9/11" came out today so there is some hope...Finally we have some
objective analysis...
My Rant
DAMMIT!
This
beheading shit just sickens me. It also pisses me off.
Wait, maybe that's what they wanted. I don't like
Bush, either, but so far, Kerry looks like too indecisive for me. What we need to do is kill every last one of those
fucking terrorists. Hopefully Bush won't put us out of the frying pan, only to end up in a fire.
I don't
know what's happening, only what I see on TV and in the newspapers. But cutting off a persons head to make a
display is just sickening. But wait, this is war, it's not supposed to be civil. But to keep peace with other
countries, it's just supposed to LOOK civil, as if there were rules. But there are no rules, except to look good.
Don't want to seem evil for killing civilians, but dammit, if it will strike a big enough blow to certain groups,
we may as well. Isn't that what they're doing? Why don't we beat them at their own fucking game.
What the
hell are we all talking about, anyway? All that we've known is our life. None of us has been a soldier in this war.
None of us has watched our loved ones slain, none of us make the decisions for the armed forces. All we know is this
freaking computer screen where we can rant on about the theory of war. We know nothing, I know nothing.
Maybe
the publicising of the beheading was meant to force the U.S. into a blind attack, instead of a well thought-out
plan. Sometimes I just can't stand it any longer, and feel like joining up. But to me, there's no such thing as a
part time soldier. It's something that lasts a lifetime, and I don't want to commit myself to that. I don't want
that to become my life.
I don't know what to think. It's easier to not think about it until it affects me.
I'd rather be busy worrying about what seems now to be petty. I don't want to be in the position to change the
world, and I don't want to try. I just want to believe that what I'm doing is right. I just want the army to
capture the bad guys, and for the rest of the bad guys to say "Hey let's not mess with America." Then I want to
live my life the way I want to live it and not be afraid that either another country or our own president is going
to say that I am not free to be a certain way - when that way harms NO
ONE.
AGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
Amen! Well said.
I agree it is a new low.
On the other hand Iraquis did want Saddham out, and can understand that war is "messy" (i.e., innocents always
die) more than we give them credit for. We went to war on a mistaken premise, but given that "we" believed the
premise and drove out a murderous tyrant, we sort of "got lucky," as badly as it turned out. Now we have a
responsibility to clean up the mess, which sucks for our economy. I hope the UN will help.
I agree with much of
your post Metro, but not the part about the beheadings being small evils in comparison. It is not so simple to
measure evils against each other as you seem to suppose. Our evil at least has some grey moral areas (given our
mistaken assumptions, especially) and areas open to debate. In other words, you can't measure degrees of evil by
just counting bodies. "Destruction" is not exactly the same thing as "evil". That is not to say that what we did is
excusable in any way. But if you were right in your measurements of the evils, Metro, then terrorism could be seen
as just a small, necessary evil, and we should maybe feel just fine setting off bombs in DC or on Wall
Street. I don't know you, but I doubt you come from that place. That seems like dangerous thinking. It plays well
for progressive American politics, but not for the bigger picture and world IMO, which desperately needs to
elimenate terrorists and terrorism. On the other hand, "think globally" is good progressive politics and good
international philosophy.
I too am looking forward to Moore's movie, as I know he'll have some points to make
that need making; though I don't know if even Moore would claim it as objective and unbiased.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
This is key...Were the neocons put up by Ahmad Chalabi & the I.N.C (Iraqi
National Congress) or did the neocons, led by Cheney, allow themselves to be ostensibly used by Chalabi to provide a
convenient rationalization for invasion?
I agree Iraq is better off without Saddam...(Why the hell didn't
they finish the job in 1991 during Desert Storm, when a lot of courageous Iraqi resistance fighters that were
helping our cause, were left to perish at the hands of Saddam? )...now the question is: "Is Iraq better off without
the US..." I think a lot of their people would answer in the affirmative. Of course you have to ask yourself that
whatever ends up filling the power vacuum over there, will it be better or worse than Saddam.
I too agree that the
ungrateful little bastards are better off without us there. Of course leaving prematurely would have resulted in an
even bigger bloodbath and a gigantic power vacuum. This is also, to answer your question about '91, the reason we
did not help the resistance. Doing that would have created a huge civil war, all three sects -Sunni, Shiite, and
Kurd would have been struggling for control of the country and its enormous wealth. Now they all have equal
representation, and a true democracy is about to emerge smack dab in the middle of those who would love to tear it
down.
But yea basically their sentiment is like.."OK thanks now get the #@% out!". Oh well...We absorb the
harsh words of the complacent, free world and move along, asking for nothing in return. (as always)
Do you really think that Iraq and
Hussein has anything to do with terrorists? Cant you really see that this whole war is done only for Iraq's oil?
How about all the revenue that the weapon manufacturers are making now to whom Bush is so much commited to? I agreed
with Bush - to some point - when he assaulted Afganistan because at least you could see terrorists based
there.
But what is going on with this new war is outrageous. You really cant blame the extremists if they
behave the way they behave. How would you react if your country was invaded and occupied by foreign
forces?
9/11 was a terrible tragedy but its up to us (and i mean the whole world) to make sure that such a
thing will not happen again. BUT making wars is not the way to do it. Extremists react when there is an equal
action. It is a vicious cycle.
none
None of this crap would be
happening if we, the USA as I'm a citizen, had spent all that Iraq money, time, and military might going after Al
Quaeda and Osama Bin Laden instead of Saddam Hussein who posed little threat and had not been involved in 9/11.
Now, we have certainly created a whole new set of enemies and the stage is set for more and more of this same sort
of gruesomely evil behavior. Well, now we have to keep the fight going and I'm wondering who's next - Saudia
Arabia seems likely, perhaps North Korea, hopefully in my own mind - Iran (we just can't allow them to have nukes -
no way). This whole war is going to go on for a very very long time and we better get used to it - remember
Vietnam, that war was on TV for 10 years and we're still not really over it. And, like in Vietnam, we really only
have a handful of supporting countries (countries willing to use their own soldiers to help our cause). Al-Quaeda
likely has had "agents" in-place all over the world, including the USA for some 20 odd years and they are damn smart
and will strike again. I have nothing personally against our President but unfortunately his government does give
off the impression of being very willing to be war-profiteers and this isn't good but if he isn't reelected,
nothing will change anyways. We better get real used to this stuff. Tonight Sue and I are going to be with this
other couple, very lovely people, we'll smoke some weed, have a few drinks, and make love all night - we'll
momentarily forget all this crap. But, come Monday, it will come back again and, sadly, that's just the way it's
gonna be.
I feel sorry for Kim Sun Il’s
mother. From what I’ve read she’s a simple old country woman with no knowledge of world politics. One day she’s
proud of her boy that got himself a good education and is working for an important international firm. The next day
she sees him broken, pleading desperately for his life. And on the next day he’s dead.
How is the poor
woman going to make any sense out of this? Her whole world must be upside down.
But there are hundreds of
Iraqis under detention simply because some snitch said they might have some information on who knows what (WMD? Al
Qaida cells? One of the jokers in the 52 card pack of Most Wanted?). They’re not charged with any crime. They’re not
captured in any battles. They’re just dragged off the street or rousted out of their homes and locked away for who
knows how long.
And they have mothers too. And their worlds are turning upside down.
Why is one
mother’s suffering worth less than another’s? And if it’s not, how can anybody claim the moral high
ground?
This
is what worries me the most. The Bush administration has dug our country so deeply into this vicious cycle of
violence that I can barely see daylight. Evil is not a corporeal being that can be killed or eliminated. Terrorism
is not an international conspiracy that can be “smoked out”. And, even if you want to be totally cynical about this
thing, the oil being pumped out of that country isn’t even going to make a dent in the national debt that the
Bushies have created.
Thumbs up! Great post...
It's not necessary to claim
high moral ground, except in choosing to move forward in one way, instead of another which would put one on lower
ground. So implicit in anyone doing anything consciously or non-randomly is some sort of moral claim.
Everyone
sane agrees we need to be out of Iraq, I think. People pretend there is huge disagreement here for political
purposes. This is a boring issue, per se, as its already been decided. We will leave as fast as we can, given safety
and infrastructure obligations. The only unresolved questions are around details of how we leave. By and
large, even those relatively few Iraquis who want us out immediately are those who want to take over by force
themselves, especially those with international terrorist (e.g., Al Quaeda) links. We can't fall for their BS when
they claim to be speaking for average Iraquis.
The fact that there is now a war is "spilled milk". Logically, if
you are going to fight a war, which we for the present have no choice about -- until things settle to the point
where the Iraquis and UN can completely take over -- you have to fight it well. To fight it well you have to take
suspected enemies as prisoners. There is no way to avoid this, no matter how much we empathize with prisoners'
families. Again, this is a boring issue. How we do this is interesting, however. There needs to be
some sort of "due cause" documented on each prisoner and subject to oversight scrutiny, for example. Has there
been?
The above coalition acts, then, do not qualify as being comparable to the Al-Queda beheadings. To do that
confuses the issue even more, as Al Q is currently marginalized within the Muslim world. There aren't a lot of
reasonable people defending them (Surveys indicate a lot of Muslims agree with Bin Laden's general political
analyses, but that relatively few agree with his actions.) So why give so much attention to the relatively
few that are?
It's good to stay centered when thinking about such serious things, unless you're running for
office and just want to talk trash about the other side as much as possible, like Bush, Kerry and Nader are doing.
BTW, AKA, I empathize with many of your points.
Last edited by DrSmellThis; 06-26-2004 at 07:20 PM.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
An interesting link, relevant
to the terrorism discussions on the L-S board:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/26/beheadin
g.backlash.ap/index.html
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
Huh???
By "infrastructure
obligations" do you mean all the contracts which the Coalition Provisional Authority granted to mostly US
firms?
Some of those projects will take years, even if everything stays on
schedule.
What is your source? According to a May poll
comissioned by the CPA 55% of Iraqi's would feel safer if the US left immediately.
"The poll, requested by
the Coalition Provisional Authority last month but not released to the American public, found more than half of
Iraqis surveyed believed both that they'd be safer without U.S. forces and that all Americans behave like the
military prison guards pictured in the Abu Ghraib abuse
photos."
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/ap/65477...s+about+safety
(poll results can be found at http://wid.ap.org/documents/iraq/cpa...3_document.htm
)
Which “war” are you talking about?
The
“preemptive war to protect us from WMD” turns out to have been a ruse. The “war to topple Saddam” has already been
won. The “war over Iraqi oil” is at a stalemate, and we do have the choice of giving up and letting the Iraqis fight
over it. The “war on terrorism” is a ubiquitous sort of thing. Per se (Check it out. i can use Latin too.) it is an
impossibility. Terrorism is a tactic, and wars can only be fought against specific forces. In the case of Iraq, the
“war on terrorism” is directed against people that blow things up and kidnap folks in order to get the US out of
their country. And we have the choice of getting out or maintaining a permanent occupation
army.
You are implying that the US is some sort of stabilizing force. All evidence points to the
contrary. The occupation forces can’t even protect their own people much less the Iraqi population. Kidnappings
have risen to the point where parents are afraid to send their kids to school. More and more people don’t dare to do
business with us. And just being in the vicinity of occupation forces could get you blown
up.
According to
Amnesty International, there has not:
"Incommunicado detention
People held in prisons and detention centres
run by Coalition forces – such as Camp Cropper in Baghdad International Airport (which closed in October), Abu
Ghraib Prison and the detention centres in Habbaniya Airport and Um Qasr – were invariably denied access to family
or lawyers and any form of judicial review of their detention. Some were held for weeks or months; others appeared
to be held indefinitely."
http://web.amnesty.org/report2004/irq-summary-eng
Maybe not. I guess it depends on your criteria. My criteria is the amount of suffering
caused. And my conclusion was that the suffering caused by terrorists AND the suffering caused by coalition forces
is immeasurable. Therefore neither the terrorists nor the occupation forces can claim moral superiority.
I
don’t understand what your criteria is, otherwise I might be able to empathize with it.
How many reasonable people are defending the US occupation?
Did you have a specific
question in mind when you said "huh???" So far all I can say is that your retort would have been more effective with
four question marks.
I am not trying to argue so much about "facts" just yet, but to find
some basic areas of agreement on a philosophical level. Some of the larger discussion needs to happen on this level.
So I could care less for the moment what "all the contracts" are. Whatever the crucial and urgently needed systems
are for water and basic energy needs, by some minimal compromise of a definition; most can agree we have an
obligation to make sure they are up and running, or at least limping along, inasmuch as they still need our help.
Not having basic services is one of the things the Iraqi people are the most upset about. I'm fine with others
debating which projects are and are not crucial and urgent. Although it has made sense for us to help materially and
financially with the rebuilding, of course it will be best when they are able to finish the rest themselves. I
don't agree with taking reconstruction jobs from them for purely selfish economic reasons, but if we are
paying for a job it makes sense that we award the job to a competitive bidder, or at least turn over lump sums
based on competitive estimates and guarantees of a job's completion.
RE: my "source": You pointed out one
survey, (which I now remember seeing) and seem to be suggesting they all just hate everything about us, want us out
yesterday, and wish we never showed up. If the vast majority of them, including their government and most
knowledgeable citizens, felt that way, I'd want us out yesterday too. I'd happily agree with you. I wish we never
went, myself, and wish we could have left as soon as the statue fell. But here is a detailed BBC survey of 2500
Iraquis that says some very different things.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3514504.stm
Perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle. Also, most of their provisional government members want us there
for a while longer, according to recent news reports I've seen. Yeah, we appointed them, which everyone agrees is
not as good as the upcoming elections, but their opinions count for something too, as they are sort of
representative of different camps.
Why are you taking a contentious tone about an ordinary use of the word
"war"? Of course, you don't just tip over the statue and call the war "over". No war is over until a reasonable
amount of peace or safety ensues. We could have left, but the war we started would not have been over.
The
survery I just posted suggests that security is by far the biggest concern for Iraqis. No one is saying our
forces are some perfect stabilizing force, but your pointing out unprevented violence is not proof that they aren't
significantly stabilizing. Everyone agrees there are disadvantages to our providing the security, which is why we
have to turn it over ASAP. The question is whether Iraquis were immediately ready to provide all their own security
needs (is there any remotely compelling argument that they were?), and prevent a civil war which we would have been
partly (largely?)responsible for had we just bolted. We don't want to be there, by and large, we just got ourselves
into a mess. Tell me your plan for security in Iraq. What would you have done, and what would you do now? As of
yesterday, the Iraquis have sovereignty, and if they tell us to leave we will leave.
Again, I don't
quantitatively compare terrorism and/or its sadistic beheadings of innocents with the Iraq war we mistakenly
started, so of course I have no criteria for measuring one against the other in the one dimensional way you are
attempting. Both originated from mistakes. Our armies caused more physical damage during the last two years, theirs
over the course of time. Their intentions, sadism, and achievement of cruel horror are worse. Both sides have
hypocrisy, theirs is more poignant due to the constant Koran thumping while, say, plowing airplanes into buildings,
intending to take out as many innocents as possible.
Regarding your last question, lots of reasonable
people, most of both Democrats and Republicans, are defending our forces being there for the time being, given that
it's too late to "take back" the war, just as lots of reasonable people also believe we went there on a false
premise. On the other hand, people who believe we should have just tipped the statue and bolted are a very small
minority, whether among Democrats, Republicans or Iraqis.
Last edited by DrSmellThis; 06-28-2004 at 12:18 PM.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
That sounds like a good idea. The problem is philosophical generalizations are useless if they don't
pertain to the facts at hand. For example...
....this seems like a noble
philosophy but...With all the billions of dollars being pumped out of our national treasury, these corporations’
record at rebuilding Iraq is worse than Saddam’s record of rebuilding after the first Gulf War — under international
sanctions.
The contracts I speak of are legally binding documents drawn up by the CPA and guaranteeing
specified payments. There are no such documents guaranteeing that any of the Iraqi's infrastructural needs will be
met.
Reconstruction is a good thing, “per se”. But, under the circumstances, is it unreasonable to
question whether the actually existing reconstruction projects are more likely to enrich corporations than to meet
the needs of Iraqi people? Given our current budget deficit, are they a sound investment? Are they worth keeping
our troops in harm’s way?
The poll you linked us to was interesting but I fail to see how it reflects
either a broad base of support or a marginalized opposition.
Of course, in this poll, only 15% of Iraqis
wanted the troops to leave Iraq IMMEDIATELY, whereas 36% wanted them to leave after an Iraqi government was in
place. (I wasn’t sure if this meant the Iraqi governing council that will be installed in June, or the one that
will presumably be elected in January.)
But did you consider the bigger picture?
In response to the
question, “Do you support the presence of the coalition forces in Iraq?” 13.2% strongly support, 26.3% somewhat
support, 19.6% somewhat oppose and 31.3% strongly oppose. So you had roughly the same percentage of people opposed
to the coalition forces as in the CPA poll. The difference is that by March (when the BBC poll was published) Iraqis
where not as adamant about getting the troops out as they were in May (when the CPA poll was taken).
The
Abu Ghraib photos came out in April. Coincidence? Maybe. But a legitimate hypothesis would be that opposition became
more emphatic and support grew weaker.
Did you also notice that, in the BBC poll, more than 40% of Iraqis
had no confidence in US/UK occupation forces and that — in response to the question “Who should take care of
regaining public security in Iraq?” only 7.3% said the US and only 5.3% said coalition forces?
Once again,
looking for common ground between us and the Iraqi people is a noble philosophy. But is the presence of US/UK
“security” forces a legitimate basis for such a thing.
I would describe my tone as “incredulous” but that’s
besides the point. In ordinary usage “war” pertains to some form of armed conflict, such as the current conflict
over Iraqi sovereignty — which we do not need to be involved in. But you refer to a “war” that we have no choice BUT
to be involved in. As far as I can see, the only type of conflict that falls under this category is a struggle for
survival. So I asked for clarification.
What does does my tone have to do with your capacity to answer a
legitimate question?
True. But did you notice that they have more confidence in their own
ability to meet their security needs than in the coalition forces?
Perhaps this is where some philosophical agreement would help iron this
argument out.
Where does the burden of proof lie in legitimizing the presence of occupation forces? I
don’t know what would constitute “proof” in your philosophy. But I’ve offered examples of the in-securities which
coalition forces create for the Iraqis. Are there ANY examples of coalition forces protecting Iraqi citizens from
anything?
Once again, security is a rational goal,
per se. But there is no evidence that the coalition forces can play this role. And the entire premise of your
argument is paternalistic. The coalition is an occupation army, for God's sake. When the Soviets occupied
Afghanistan, nobody took their claims of protecting the people seriously. Why should the US claims be taken any more
seriously.
I'm not an Iraqi. I'm an American, and this is my plan for American
security: Let's get the hell out of there while the getting's good.
I'm not an imperialist, but if I was, I would have tried to buy the Ba'athist leadership. The
Ba'ath party is the only secular force left in that country, with a history of opposition to Al Qaida and other
Islamicist groups.
Rather than try to ferret out the
Republican guard elemnts, through illegal detentions and unethical interogations, I would be trying to lure them in
with promises of power and money.
????
“Mistakenly started”? As in “Oops, we didn’t mean to invade their country?” or as in “Oops, we
didn’t think these suckers would fight back so hard?”
The Iraqi
death toll is estimated at over 10,000. Which course of time are you talking about?
If you have no way of measuring this in my
“one dimensional” way, how do you make this determination in whatever dimension you operate in?
So thumping the Koran is more hypocritical than pretending to be the
liberators?
There were no Iraqis on those planes.
Would world
opinion polls sway your opinion on this?
Sorry. I'm tired. You can win the bloody debate. You certainly
deserve it for holding your own while defending such an untenable position.
The only reason any of this is
"interesting" is that people's lives are at stake. You seemed like somebody that could be reasoned with. Obviously,
at least one of us is not up to that task.
Last edited by a.k.a.; 06-28-2004 at 09:11 PM.
The March Iraqi Survey
Survey
finds hope in occupied Iraq
An opinion poll suggests most Iraqis feel their lives have improved since the
war in Iraq began about a year ago.
The survey, carried out for the BBC and other broadcasters, also
suggests many are optimistic about the next 12 months and opposed to violence.
But of the 2,500 people
questioned, 85% said the restoration of public security must be a major priority.
Opinion was split about who
should be responsible, with an Iraqi government scoring highest.
Creating job opportunities was rated more
likely to improve security effectively than hiring more police.
However on various issues, there were stark
differences of opinion according to region or ethnic group.
About 6,000 interviews were carried out in total,
half in Autumn last year and half this Spring, in a project run by Oxford Research International.
Seventy per
cent of people said that things were going well or quite well in their lives, while only 29% felt things were bad.
And 56% said that things were better now than they were before the war.
The poll company's director Dr
Christoph Sahm, said Iraqis trained as interviewers travelled around the country to speak to randomly selected
people in their homes.
The survey reflected Iraq's distribution of population, balance between men and women,
and religious and ethnic mix.
In the poll of Iraqis, nearly 80% favoured a unified state with a central
government in Baghdad; only 14% opted for a system of regional governments combined with a federal authority.
The majority was even bigger among Iraqi Arabs, but for the Kurdish minority, the situation was reversed, with
more than 70% backing a federal system.
There is an existing Kurdish regional government in the north, the
powers of which were recognised by Iraq's interim constitution, signed last week.
BBC diplomatic correspondent
Barnaby Mason says the American and British governments will take some comfort from the results.
The survey
shows overwhelming disapproval of political violence, especially of attacks on the Iraqi police but also on American
and other coalition forces.
But among Arabs, nearly one in five told the pollsters that attacks on coalition
forces were acceptable.
About 15% say foreign forces should leave Iraq now, but many more say they should stay
until an Iraqi government is in place or security is restored.
Looking back, more Iraqis think the invasion was
right than wrong, although 41% felt that the invasion "humiliated Iraq".
But by ethnicity, only one in three
Arabs believed their country was liberated - compared to four out of five Kurds.
Safety conscious
Dan Plesch, a security expert at Birkbeck college in London said that the poll was good news for the leaders of
countries who began the invasion a year ago this week.
"This poll indicates that Iraqis strongly support a
unified country with strong leadership. They don't want to see the country divided up and they don't want to see
an Islamic government."
Regaining security is rated as by far the highest priority at 85%, followed by holding
elections for a national government (30%), ensuring the majority of Iraqis can make a decent living (30%) and
reviving the economy (28%).
And only just over a third of people report that their electricity supply is good.
A key concern for the Americans as they prepare to hand over power in June is the unpopularity of the people
they are putting in place.
Leaders unloved
Their favoured son Ahmed Chalabi had no support at all,
while Saddam Hussein remains one of the six most popular politicians in the country.
(note: Chalabi has since
fallen out of favor with the U.S. as well.)
Dr Mustafa Alani of the Royal United Services Institute said that
the Iraqis wanted a strong leader, but had not found one yet.
"The main point is that the Iraqis are now
looking for a strong leader who can save the day. "As long as the governing council is considered illegitimate and
illegal in Iraq, I think they will have to work hard to find something more legitimate and more legal before they
disengage from the country."
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
The handover
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
AKA, I thought I implicitly or
explicitly addressed most of your remarks in previous posts, (of course, I would expect you to disagree) which
suggests we might have been starting to go in circles, and that our respective positions are clear enough for
consideration. We apparently agree (again, implicitly or explicitly) on some things, and I'm satisfied with
that for now. I appreciate your input.
So I just posted some news items to ground things in current events.
We'll just have to see how the "handover" unfolds over the next 9 months or so, heading toward the Iraqi elections,
to really understand the extent and manner in which things are changing.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
I believe the high moral ground was taken by France & Germany...not the US and the UK
with the exception of the Spanish who did eventually do the right thing when they elected a new leader & immediately
withdrew their troops.
Both acts are completely horrible, and By the "Law Of Armed Conflict" totally
illegal. POW's are to be treated with fairness. Im sorry, but it is wrong to say one is more okay than the other,
when both acts were completely uncalled for. And what happened at Abu completely brought a disrepectful light to US
Armed Forces.
A1C Adams
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks