Iraqi's optimistic about future

[jimnyc]

"In one poll, the Saudi daily Okaz asked people if they agreed or disagreed with the following statement: "Iraq, and the people of Iraq, are today better off than they were in the past." 66 percent of the respondents "strongly agreed" and another 17 percent "agreed." Only 17 percent disagreed. One hundred percent of respondents disagreed with the statement: "It is possible that Saddam Hussein will return to govern Iraq because he is preferable to the Western coalition." In analyzing the results of the poll, the paper concluded that a majority of Iraqis are pessimistic about the conditions in the short term, but optimistic about the long-term situation."

"Iraqis are optimistic. Seven out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives will be better five years from now."

"While they may not like being under occupation, 59 percent of respondents would give the occupation forces and, by extension, the CPA, the additional time of one to two years to initiate political and economic reforms."
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA15003
******

Wow, what a different spin we get when we hear from the Iraqi's directly as opposed to the sometimes biased media.

 

[metanoia2k]

Meryav Wurmser is the co-founder of Memri and she sits on the board of the Hudson Institute whose Trustees include Richard Perle (NOT an unbiased party) and Conrad Black, publisher of the Jerusalem Post.

The Middle East Media Research Institute (Memri) translates and distributes stories from the Arab press that invariably portray Arabs in a bad light. A Hudson colleague is Kenneth Weinstein, who previously headed the Jerusalem- and Washington-based Shalem Center, which has led the charge against the Israeli left. The Shalem Center's current director is Yoram Hazony, a former adviser to ex-Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

My point: "Sooth is only as realiable as the sayer..."

In this case, I would trust the data about as far as I could pitch Rush Limbaugh BEFORE therapy!

 

[jimnyc]

Are you inferring that the poll has been made up? And the polls the USA took as well? And those from the British? I know you'll discount CNN. Now you discount a source from their region. I can only assume you'll discount news from the BBC as well.

If a poll is taken, how can it ever be reported here so that you would believe it? Short of a live interview I don't think liberals will ever be happy, and even then they'll claim it's GW in disguise!

Let me ask this, should we believe all the polls that Dawoud has posted? I assume they are ok since you haven't spoke out against them. Please let me know.

 

[jimnyc]

Here are pretty much the same figures from a Gallup poll, one of the most respected organizations in gathering polls today.

"Nearly two-thirds (62%) of Baghdad's citizens think ousting Saddam Hussein was worth any hardships they have personally endured since the invasion."

"Two-thirds (67%) believe Iraq will be in better condition five years from now than it was before the U.S. and British-led invasion; just 8% think it will be worse off."

http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/bm/Bdc-gallup-organization.R250_DSP.html

 

[metanoia2k]

I have every confidence that Ms Wumser and company are only interested in Truth and not in propoganda...

(Excuse me while a swallow some dramamine)

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by metanoia2k
I have every confidence that Ms Wumser and company are only interested in Truth and not in propoganda...

(Excuse me while a swallow some dramamine)

Funny! But you avoided the question. Do you think the polls are made up? What about the latest one I posted takedn by Gallup? What abou the polls taken by the US government? What about the polls taken by the BBC? They all come back with similar figures, that Iraqi citizens are happy that Saddam is gone and they think the hardships they have to go through are worth it. You can discount the source, but you cannot discount the facts.

 

[metanoia2k]

I DO reject the source. I guess that's the point isn't it.

As for the other sources you mention, I tend to trust BBC more than Gallop more than CNN...etc....

I am certain that most Iraqis are glad that Saddam is gone. I don't need a poll to tell me that. You could assert that on the street and I would accept it. Who wouldn't be glad he is gone?

Do we extrapolate from that that the course of our occupation is a cause celebre or that the 200 Iraqi Exiles* included in the sample are willing to give us a year or two? Ms W and her ilk might read it that way...I don't.



Peace and good night

* Okay, I made that up--but would you be surprised?

 

[dijetlo]

>>Do you think the polls are made up? <<
I think Mark Twain said that there were lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics. In reference to your poll questions, yes some polls are undertaken to get a particular result. Its' done with focus groups and wording of the questions as well as manipulating who gets to take the poll. The poster had a good point that all polls need to be scrutinized and the source of the data considered before accepting the data as true.
Polls aside, soldiers are getting attacked every day in Iraq and I don't see our Iraqi sympathizers rushing to the local barracks to tell us who is doing that, or to turn in the "foriegn fighters" who are living amongst them. The difference between the poll data and the reality on the ground in Iraq might lead one to question the accuracy of this poll.

 

[jimnyc]

This is rich!

You guys don't seem to have a problem with the polls taken that support anything you have to say negatively, but immediately chime in and question the source when it is good news. These polls are taken mostly by the same companies!

Why the double standard?

 

[dijetlo]

I'm not a big fan of polls, for the reason I stated in the prior post. The reference to the continued attacks were meant to illustrate why. Perhaps 70% " support " us, just not enough to turn in the bomb maker down the street, or the next door neighbors kid for shooting grenades at passing convoys. Again, polls only give you the aggregate totals to the questions that are asked. As you can see, the use of the word "support" as in "Support the US efforts" apparently has many shades of grey.

>>You guys don't seem to have a problem with the polls taken that support anything you have to say negatively<<

No, I always try to look closely at the information that I'm basing my opinion on.

>> but immediately chime in and question the source when it is good news.<<

I look closely at the data upon which the opposite opinion is based. I rarely "chime" though.

>>Why the double standard?<<
If you ever see me employing it, I'll thank you for your assistance in pointing it out to me.

 

[jimnyc]

I'm not a big fan of polls, for the reason I stated in the prior post. The reference to the continued attacks were meant to illustrate why. Perhaps 70% " support " us, just not enough to turn in the bomb maker down the street, or the next door neighbors kid for shooting grenades at passing convoys. Again, polls only give you the aggregate totals to the questions that are asked. As you can see, the use of the word "support" as in "Support the US efforts" apparently has many shades of grey.

Agreed. But the point was in reference to the claims that the Iraqi citizens hate us and want us out. Not all Iraqi's feel that way.

I look closely at the data upon which the opposite opinion is based. I rarely "chime" though.

You can put chime in "quotes" all you like, but you did in fact "chime in". You do realize that chime means "to be in agreement or accord", don't you? Of course you did! And thats exactly what you did by following up metanoia's post.

If you ever see me employing it, I'll thank you for your assistance in pointing it out to me.

Why didn't you "chime in" when Dawoud made his post about the un-happiness of the USA soldiers? They give a general statement while polling less than two thousand soldiers, and you would consider that to be accurate? I wouldn't suppose any of the polls YOU DON'T discount are drawn up by liberals? Nah, how silly of me to think that!

And yes, you're welcome.

 

[dijetlo]

>>They give a general statement while polling less than two thousand soldiers, and you would consider that to be accurate?<<

While a 2,000 person poll in a population of 180,000 would give a statisticaly significant sampling, the way subjects were chosen for this poll and the non-standard nature of the questions renders it meaningless, other than to confirm some resentment exists within the troops serving in Iraq.

>>You can put chime in "quotes" all you like, but you did in fact "chime in". <<
I said;
>>In reference to your poll questions, yes some polls are undertaken to get a particular result<<
If it will end this argument, O.K., I chimed.

>>And yes, you're welcome.<<
I should remind you that I did not cite the discredited pole. I'll save my thank you for the moment it becomes appropriate.

 

[jimnyc]

While a 2,000 person poll in a population of 180,000 would give a statisticaly significant sampling, the way subjects were chosen for this poll and the non-standard nature of the questions renders it meaningless, other than to confirm some resentment exists within the troops serving in Iraq.

I'm not so sure I would call 1.1% a "significant" sampling, but I won't dispute the findings either. I agree with everything else you said.

I should remind you that I did not cite the discredited pole. I'll save my thank you for the moment it becomes appropriate.

Fair enough