Oxford Research-Iraqi Opinion Poll

[dijetlo]

Interesting article:

But only around a fifth of Iraqis questioned said they trust political parties, according to Oxford Research International, the British-based consultancy that led the survey of 3,244 people aged 15 and over...The margin of error was not immediately available and researchers warned that some findings could change following secondary statistical analysis, to be conducted in the coming weeks…Asked how much confidence they had in U.S. and British forces in Iraq, 56.6 percent of respondents said they had none at all and 22.2 percent said they didn't have very much confidence, while only 7.6 percent had "a great deal…Regarding the Coalition Provisional Authority, led by U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer, 43.5 percent of those questioned expressed no confidence, and 29.9 percent said they had not very much confidence.
Some of the survey's findings appeared contradictory. When people were asked to name the best thing that had happened to them in the last 12 months, by far the most common response — with 42.3 percent of answers — was the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime. The second most common answer, with 15.7 percent, was improvements in education.
But when asked to name the worst thing that had happened to them in the last 12 months, 35.1 percent cited the war, bombings and defeat. The second most frequent answer, with 13.6 percent of responses, was the death of a loved one.

Comments?

 

[Sevendogs]

This is a very interesting piece of information and it is makes it more understandable, why there is no security for our troops in Iraq. We must quit there and go home ASAP. Save lives of our soldiers and money. We need them here, at home. Unfortunately, Bush and his administration cannot learn anything from this. Watch those dancers around smoldering ambushed vehicles. These are expressions of their hearts and minds ...

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by Sevendogs
We must quit there and go home ASAP. Save lives of our soldiers and money. We need them here, at home.

At this point, that cure is still worse than the disease. We need to get the occupation internationalized and we need to put the Iraqis in charge of it, everybody agrees. Consider this a little object lesson for those who felt the UN was irrelevant.
The major problem now is we relied on the "Iraqi National Congress" to help us create a "good" Iraqi government, but they are once again, turning out to be mostly vapor. The INC is the source for most of the bad WMD intelligence we went to war on. I would love to see a public investigation of just who and what the INC really is. Who funded them before Cheney and subsequently the defence department adopted them. The guy who is cheif among this pack of foundlings is wanted for bank fraud in Jordan (which sort of precludes state visits now that he is part of the Iraqi Governing Council).
Curiouser 'n curiouser.

 

[Psychoblues]

I think this subject is entirely too complicated for any "average" American" to comprehend. I hope our more enlightened USMB brethren and sistren will show me that I am wrong or at least there are some out there amongst us that really do understand and have comment.

 

[nbdysfu]

Originally posted by dijetlo
At this point, that cure is still worse than the disease.
agreed.


We need to get the occupation internationalized and we need to put the Iraqis in charge of it, everybody agrees.

The only major non-arab countries that have no military forces in Iraq are France China and Russia. Germany aided in training Iraqi police. Iraqis need to be in charge, and there is a realistic plan that has been set in motion for that to happen.

Consider this a little object lesson for those who felt the UN was irrelevant.
Like when they turned tail and ran out of Iraq at the onset of oct-nov attacks against civilian targets in Iraq? I'm sure the Iraqis were really impressed.
The United States spent more than a decade prosecuting the case in the UN. For Contrast look at France's behavior with the Ivory Coast.

The major problem now is we relied on the "Iraqi National Congress" to help us create a "good" Iraqi government, but they are once again, turning out to be mostly vapor. The INC is the source for most of the bad WMD intelligence we went to war on.

Gee, I thought it was the CIA.


I would love to see a public investigation of just who and what the INC really is. Who funded them before Cheney and subsequently the defence department adopted them. The guy who is cheif among this pack of foundlings is wanted for bank fraud in Jordan

With all the anti-privatization stuff that's slinging in that region, who isn't.
Here's a BBC article on Chalabi
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2925785.stm
anti-privatization stuff?
http://www.jamaat.org/issues/viewsindex.html

(which sort of precludes state visits now that he is part of the Iraqi Governing Council).
http://www.jordanembassyus.org/12032003011.htm
http://www.jordanembassyus.org/12012003005.htm
http://www.jordanembassyus.org/new/me/iraq.shtml
So jordan barks at the IGC, other Arab Nations recognized it a month ago at a conference I can't remember the name of.

And Besides, Chalabi is no longer the head. It's now this guy:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031204/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_new_leader_2

The thing I find objectionable about this "the people must choose the leadership" propaganda. Is that it is merely an interim government, the constitution will be brought before local community leaders that have been voted for, admittedly with the discretion of chosen citizens selectd by the us government, for final approval. In the beginning of the US, voting was limited to landowners. The final government will take whatever path voters choose for it. So I don't see what the point is. Apples and oranges.

if anything, the U.S. is willing to do its part to be democratic.

"That plan, less than 3 weeks old, has already run into a snag. Influential Shiite Muslim clergy have criticized plans for indirect elections in which caucuses and other local councils would select members of a national assembly. Coalition officials reasoned that indirect elections would be simpler in a nation that has no voting rolls and has never held a democratic election. Indirect elections would also increase the chances of all religious and ethnic groups being included in the new government.

Shiites make up 60% of Iraq's 25 million people, and they are eager to exercise power after decades under the thumb of the Sunni sect, of which Saddam Hussein and top regime officials were members. Shiites would probably benefit from a direct vote because they would be able to put more of their people in the assembly."
http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20031204/5731022s.htm

What's the harm?

If we cut and run all hell will break loose. See the process through as the majority of the population wants it, and if they choose to subject themselves to sharia, it's their loss. If the majority shiites begin treating the Sunni's as a lower class, they will be as accountable to the UN as Saddam was for his actions.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by nbdysfu

The only major non-arab countries that have no military forces in Iraq are France China and Russia. Germany aided in training Iraqi police.

Include Germany on the side that doesn't send troops (cause they didn't). Another way to express that is, of the five most powerful nations on the planet (excluding the US) everyone but GB is refusing to support the Occupation of Iraq.

Iraqis need to be in charge, and there is a realistic plan that has been set in motion for that to happen.

Everybody wants us out of Iraq. After we invested the lives and money to change the regime, I wonder what the return will be?

Like when they turned tail and ran out of Iraq at the onset of oct-nov attacks against civilian targets in Iraq? I'm sure the Iraqis were really impressed.

The Iraqis blamed the US since we are the authority in Iraq. The UN does not provide security there, we do, it was our failing not theirs. Like anybody with any sense, if your unarmed, civilian aide workers are being slaughtered, you have to remove them from the conflagration.

The United States spent more than a decade prosecuting the case in the UN.

To bad we can't prove many of the claims we made while were "prosecuting" this case in the UN.

Gee, I thought it was the CIA.

What makes you think it isn't?
From your BBC link

He initially managed to get backing for the organisation from the American CIA, but there were allegations of corruption and the US pulled the financial plug.

As far as the leadership slot, I was reffering to the INC not the Provisional Council (they rotate leadership, don't they?) Sorry for the confusion nbdysfu.
On the Ivory Coast argument, give me a chance to read up and I'll get back to you. Do you have any sources?

That plan, less than 3 weeks old, has already run into a snag. Influential Shiite Muslim clergy have criticized plans for indirect elections in which caucuses and other local councils would select members of a national assembly. Coalition officials reasoned that indirect elections would be simpler in a nation that has no voting rolls and has never held a democratic election. Indirect elections would also increase the chances of all religious and ethnic groups being included in the new governmen

There's the nub. We want a representative democracy, where elected officials are tied to geographic areas. The Shiaa want a parliamentary democracy, where only the votes, not where they are cast, count. The rest are subsidiary reasonings at best, especially the FUD about "all religious and ethnic groups being included in the new government". If we were a parliamentary government, the Greens would have seats in congress (like the prospect or not, you have to admit that is more representative than the two party system). Fail to give the Shiaa a voice comisserate with their numbers in the government building process and we are dooming our own experiment. We can weather the religious zealots and Baathists. If 60% of the population abandons the process, which is what they are threatening to do, we're finnished. The backdrop to all this is the Shiaa know that if we wont give it to them, the UN will. At the moment they are being reasonable, let's take advantage of that. I think on this point we can both agree.
The other interesting question is the existance of the Iraqi Council after the transition to a provisional government. One of your linked articles went into it in some detail (I think the yahoo article.).
Enjoying the discussion, thanks NB

 

[Mustafa]

I love Dijetlo's Iraqi public opinion poll statistics.

You are asking a third world nation which has been in poverty and now going through an insurgency war what they think about political parties and US occupation forces, etc. Why don't you ask Somalians what they think about world starvation and disease?

Iraq, if left to the protection of Cofee Anon and his United (Muslim) Nations which would soon pack their bags and head for home. Saddam would return in triumph and kill all those people who answered those irrelevant polls Dijetlo quoted.

You might even want to poll the Clinton and Rodham families about their trust or distrust of William Jefferson Clinton. That would be just as valid as your original Iraqi poll.

 

[nbdysfu]

[I like it when someone can point out my mistakes dij. I know you feel the same.and I respect arguments that come from reasonable people.

On the Ivory Coast argument, give me a chance to read up and I'll get back to you. Do you have any sources?
_________________________ _______________________
I posted a thread on it in the France Forum under Conquest of Africa. Read the three links in the first post. Sums up france's indescretions which I am referring to.

originally posted by dijetlo
At the moment they are being reasonable, let's take advantage of that. I think on this point we can both agree.
_________________________ ________________________
Totally with you there. To simply declare them in the wrong would be both disastrous and stupid. What is needed is a reasonable
political maneuver that locks them in politically with this tactic of compromise. This will surely alienate the more militant from their ranks.

We want a representative democracy, where elected officials are tied to geographic areas. The Shiaa want a parliamentary democracy, where only the votes, not where they are cast, count.

Herein lies the problem. I don't think the votes they are counting on are representative, even of the 60% majority they claim to represent. If you read that Y! article, you see them saying at the same time they are asking for votes, that they want to preserve the static IGC, with its Shiite majority, in case of 'violence'. Which leads me to believe that they don't in fact represent Shiite Iraqis unanimously.


originally posted by DK
The Iraqis blamed the US since we are the authority in Iraq. The UN does not provide security there, we do, it was our failing not theirs.
_________________________ ________________________

No, it was the UN that refused our offer of security, remember?






originally posted by DK
Another way to express that is, of the five most powerful nations on the planet (excluding the US) everyone but GB is refusing to support the Occupation of Iraq.
_________________________ ________________________
I think we can agree to disagree on how many nations are currently stronger in terms of military than France, and China barring war of attrition, or nukes. Last sign of Russia's military strength I saw was them being asked to pull out of Georgia, beating up on Chechnya, and footage of nuclear subs rotting in a frozen dock.

Like anybody with any sense, if your unarmed, civilian aide workers are being slaughtered, you have to remove them from the conflagration.
_________________________ _______________________
Then what? What about the Iraqi Civilians who need the aid? The UN has MPs and APCs. They should use them.

To bad we can't prove many of the claims we made while were "prosecuting" this case in the UN.
_________________________ _______________________
Actually many of the claims were proven and then never disproved. Resolutions were made, but they were not enforced properly. Saddam was searching for ballistic manufacturing equipment. He was stockpiling money outside of his own country. He had chem & bio and never proved he destroyed it. Selling it off on a black market would be far more deserving of retaliation than keeping it.


As far as the leadership slot, I was reffering to the INC not the Provisional Council (they rotate leadership, don't they?) Sorry for the confusion nbdysfu.
_________________________ _______________________
The INC was shady. That's why Chalabi's not in their any more.
al-Hakim is open to the same criticism actually:

"A Shiite cleric ranked one step below ayatollah, al-Hakim has a relatively modest standing in the complex Shiite hierarchy. That contrasts with his record as an able commander of the Badr Brigade, a militia set up in 1983 as the military wing of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.


The group — the main anti-Saddam group before the war — was founded in Iran in 1982 by al-Hakim's older brother, Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim. In August, however, the elder al-Hakim was killed in a car bomb in the holy Shiite city of Najaf.


Immediately, al-Hakim took over leadership of the group, placing himself at the helm of a powerful Shiite organization whose close ties with Iran's Islamic government have in the past aroused Washington's suspicions.


The Supreme Council has abandoned calls for establishing an Islamic state in Iraq since their return to the country in May. And al-Hakim has repeatedly condemned guerrilla attacks on U.S. forces, arguing that they hinder Iraq's return to independence."



If we were a parliamentary government, the Greens would have seats in congress (like the prospect or not, you have to admit that is more representative than the two party system).
_________________________ _______________________
I like the idea of Greens being well represented in the government. They would do a much better job without having to side with the greanies in the DNC. You know not who I am.
The two party system is less representative, but it is also far less volatile, and far more capable of action. And neither party has a garauntee of a seat or votes. That's just how the dust settles.

Fail to give the Shiaa a voice comisserate with their numbers in the government building process and we are dooming our own experiment. We can weather the religious zealots and Baathists.
_________________________ _______________________
They already have one, so only the zealots are complaining.

The backdrop to all this is the Shiaa know that if we wont give it to them, the UN will.
_________________________ _______________________
Only if they go the extra mile they've never gone without the US

 

[dijetlo]

nbdysfu
I respect arguments that come from reasonable people.

Two thumbs up on that one, where we agree, I have to tell you, you're a genius. Where we don't, men of reason and high purpose often must agree to disagree. In either case it is fun and intellectually stimulating (beats the hell out of watching the latest survivor incarnation, doesn't it?)

I don't think the votes they are counting on are representative, even of the 60% majority they claim to represent. If you read that Y! article, you see them saying at the same time they are asking for votes, that they want to preserve the static IGC, with its Shiite majority, in case of 'violence'. Which leads me to believe that they don't in fact represent Shiite Iraqis unanimously.

You might be right, in which case they are protecting the process from the extreme elements within their own (Shiaa) religion that they feel they may not be able to control. All the more reason to deal directly with the Shia clerics and give them what they want. If this is the moderate religious group, we want to encourage it, we want it to be successful in giving the Shia an avenue to acheive their political aspirations because the other option is probably worse.

No, it was the UN that refused our offer of security, remember?... What about the Iraqi Civilians who need the aid? The UN has MPs and APCs. They should use them.

The grounds of the headquarters were not gaurded by US soldiers because the UN thought the threat would be hightened by there presence. It chose instead to contract security privately. The failing that I was reffering too was our inability to suppress the resistance to the occupation, which was what drove the UN out, Iraq was to hot for civilian aide workers to ply their trade safely. It became clear that the US could not protect the UN while it worked in Iraq, and the UN could not protect itself since it has no military authority in the country nor the international authority to establish its' own occupation.

Saddam was searching for ballistic manufacturing equipment... Selling it off on a black market would be far more deserving of retaliation than keeping it.

These two excerpts in particular are troublesome. I've seen the articles claiming he was seeking ICBM technology, and that he was trying to sell Bio weapons on the black market. The problem is there is no objective proof of either. In the end, all you can prove is he failed to account for source and weapons material that he claimed he destroyed.
The INC and the Provisional Council are two seperate orgs. Chalabi is still the head of the INC (as far as I know) and the al-Hakim is the current head of the Provisional Council. Up to this point, it hasn't been the Shia Zealots complaining, its' the grey beards.

Only if they go the extra mile they've never gone without the US

You neo-cons, one minute your bashing the UN, the next your begging for help from them.

 

[nbdysfu]

You might be right, in which case they are protecting the process from the extreme elements within their own (Shiaa) religion that they feel they may not be able to control. All the more reason to deal directly with the Shia clerics and give them what they want. If this is the moderate religious group, we want to encourage it, we want it to be successful in giving the Shia an avenue to acheive their political aspirations because the other option is probably worse.


Hopefully this is true. I hope we've finally bobbed the right apple(s).

It became clear that the US could not protect the UN while it worked in Iraq, and the UN could not protect itself since it has no military authority in the country nor the international authority to establish its' own occupation.

The UN has never set up shop in a semi-active war zone? CPA offered them protection, warned them against not putting some kind of defence in front of their compound, and they did nothing.


The problem is there is no objective proof of either. In the end, all you can prove is he failed to account for source and weapons material that he claimed he destroyed.

I wasn't saying he definitely sold off his stocks to make them disappear. I was just suggesting that as a possibility. And somehow I get the feeling it doesn't take a genius like me to document the proper disposal of weapons.

The INC and the Provisional Council are two seperate orgs. Chalabi is still the head of the INC (as far as I know) and the al-Hakim is the current head of the Provisional Council. Up to this point, it hasn't been the Shia Zealots complaining, its' the grey beards.

I know, I was referring to the fact that al-Hakim and Chalabi share the similar status of having been involved as high ranking members of organizations with ambitions of taking Iraq for their respective groups, the INC(Chalabi) and the SCIR(al-Hakim)

You neo-cons, one minute your bashing the UN, the next your begging for help from them.
Not begging in anyway; I'm saying they've rarely done it right when it counts, without the US pulling some strings. I'd like to see what the UN would look like with China, Putin and Iran pulling all the strings, It'd make a pretty gruesome face. I bet it would get a lot of people thinking.

Hey, I was wrong about Russia. I just saw on the news today that they're doing test launches of their ICBMs.

 

[dijetlo]

Sorry it took so long to reply NB, busy with other stuff.

Originally posted by nbdysfu
The UN has never set up shop in a semi-active war zone? CPA offered them protection, warned them against not putting some kind of defence in front of their compound, and they did nothing.

The CPA had nothing to offer the UN, they are just now producing Iraqi troops. The US army offered to protect them, but the US army is the aggressor in the region so the UN was disinclined to accept thier offer. They didn't come to Iraq to put the UN seal on the invasion, they came to clean up the mess.

I wasn't saying he definitely sold off his stocks to make them disappear. I was just suggesting that as a possibility. And somehow I get the feeling it doesn't take a genius like me to document the proper disposal of weapons.

You could be right, NB. WMDs' may exist in Iraq. As far as him giving them to terrorist groups, I doubt it. The strongest argument I know of against that is, if Al-Qaedda had hemmoragic fever in 3/03, we'd have seen in in DC by now. They wouldn't have hung on to it waiting for...what? I know it's a grim way to look at it, but I think it's accurate. The SOP for terrorist groups is act upon oppurtunity, they don't think strategicaly. If they got the contaminants in place, they might issue demands before releasing them but I think it more likely they'd just take the opportunity to kill.
We may have the misfortune of meeting the fabled "Anthrax-RPG" in the streets of Baghdad tommorow. Who knows? My point is we haven't found it, we can't adequetly explain why.

I'd like to see what the UN would look like with China, Putin and Iran pulling all the strings, It'd make a pretty gruesome face. I bet it would get a lot of people thinking.

NB, we all share this planet, we all gotta live here. If those countries are unwilling to support us, there is generally a reason that goes well beyond personal gain or animosity. The rest of the world is beginning to see us as unpredictable. Our problems in the UN illustrate that perception.
We hear a lot about the war on Terrorism, The War in Iraq, etc. etc. but the US is at war on many different levels all the time. Right now, we're in a bloodbath over economic policy. The WTO just kicked our legs out from under us on the Steel Tarrifs and GWB had to retreat. There is allready noise coming out of the UE to try to dismantled other US protectionist policies. They will, of course, try to do just that, it is in thier economic interest to do so.The economic war progresses very slowly, though our growing isolation at the WTO and in the UN is indicative of a shift in power. The dropping dollar is another strong indicator. Nothing happens in a vacuum, Iraq is just an example. A neo-con would call that equivocation, a conservative would question the usefulness of launching a budget crushing military action in the midst of an all out assault on the dollar and the ongoing trade war. A conservative might also wonder if it might be a better idea to catch Bin Laden (the reason we invaded Afghanistan) before starting the egg hunt for Hussein. Hell, truth be told I like conservatives. They've been an outstanding anchor for the more questionable philosophies of the far left for a long time. You can allways count on them to count the cost and weigh the benefit. True blue through and through.

Hey, I was wrong about Russia. I just saw on the news today that they're doing test launches of their ICBMs.

Aren't they trying to use them to send supplies to the International Space Station? I caught a headline on space.com (I think) about this, if your interested I'll try to dig it up.