Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Iraqis say invasion worth it

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Iraqis say invasion worth it

    61% of Iraqis say the war to oust Saddam Hussein was worth it, though about half say that the war and subsequent events have done more harm than good. The respondents who replied said that the expulsion of Saddam Hussein and his henchmen made the hardships worthwhile. See Iraqi poll. So, what have all the nay-sayers, all the gloom-and-doom preachers, and the other moaning masses to say. That the Iraqi people have suffered is absolute. That they would be far worse under the Hussein regime is likewise absolute - the proof of it comes from their lips. That they understand and appreciate that life in general will get better, increasing exponentially as the extremists and terrorists are brought to heel, and the country is rebuilt, is likewise a fact of which they are aware, and which they surely appreciate. Even the thought of the return of a Hussein-style government would, I believe, bring widespread unrest. No rational Iraqi, having tasted to first of freedom and democracy, would care to return to despotism, depravity and subjugation.

    So, now that the Iraqi people have declared where they stand, what will Kerry and his ilk whine about now.
    Mens Est Clavis Victoriae
    (The Mind Is The Key To Victory)

  • #2
    I think it's interesting that you point out what you do and not the negative aspects of the poll (negative from the U.S. stand point).

    These are just the highlights as I see them:

    39% say that the US and British Military actions (until April 9th when this was done) cannot be morally justified.

    46% say the coalition has done more harm than good in Iraq, and 16% say about the same amount of harm and good.

    57% of people want coalition forces out ASAP.

    58% of people say that the coalition has performed fairly bad or very bad since the invasion.

    Number 24 is interesting, most people say that in many humanitarian areas that US is only trying "a little."

    71% of people see the coalition forces as occupiers instead of liberators, which if you look at the next question show a huge increase when there was an even split between seeing the US as an occupying force or a liberating force.

    64% say that the CPA has done much worse than they expected.

    I think it's interesting to see that 48% think that most Americans do not support what is going on.



    Honestly, I've had to re-read your paragraph 3 times just to make sure I read it correctly. I see far, far more negative in the poll than I see good.
    “To discriminate against a thoroughly upright citizen because he belongs to some particular church, or because, like Abraham Lincoln, he has not avowed his allegiance to any church, is an outrage against that liberty of conscience which is one of the foundations of American life.”

    Comment


    • #3
      Aye, I see what overseer sees. I do see more bad then good, but it is a very mixed public opinion. It is very mixed actually, but we can't force the half that doesn't like us to like us. We just have to try and get them to see the good we have done. But trying is about all we can do. And either way you take it, we have gotten ourselves in a quagmire with this war.
      Keenan K.

      "Anything worth living for is worth dying for and anything worth dying for is certainly worth living for."
      -Catch-22

      "We're the airborne, we're supposed to be surrounded."
      -Maj. Richard Winters, Bastogne

      http://www.warmovie.com/top/gif/bob_banner.jpg

      http://specialforces.low-ping.com/us...images/smg.gif

      Comment


      • #4
        And I do apologize, I somehow missed that you did point out the fact that around half said more harm than good.

        Ghost, you're right that it is a very mixed public opinion. And with a situation many complications in polling. I remember not long after the war phase concluded that some Iraqi said something about, "Before we had to praise Saddam because he had the guns, now we have to praise the U.S. because they have the guns."

        I wonder how many people were comfortable giving their real opinions in this poll. I was interested to see that most Iraqis said that the US acted very well in regards to religious activities and sites. Although a surprising number said very poorly toward the women (not a majority though).
        “To discriminate against a thoroughly upright citizen because he belongs to some particular church, or because, like Abraham Lincoln, he has not avowed his allegiance to any church, is an outrage against that liberty of conscience which is one of the foundations of American life.”

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Overseer
          And I do apologize, I somehow missed that you did point out the fact that around half said more harm than good.

          Ghost, you're right that it is a very mixed public opinion. And with a situation many complications in polling. I remember not long after the war phase concluded that some Iraqi said something about, "Before we had to praise Saddam because he had the guns, now we have to praise the U.S. because they have the guns."

          I wonder how many people were comfortable giving their real opinions in this poll. I was interested to see that most Iraqis said that the US acted very well in regards to religious activities and sites. Although a surprising number said very poorly toward the women (not a majority though).
          The salient point is that 61% of those polled (and certainly more of the "silent majority" believe the current situation to be better than its predecessor. Never will you have 100% satisfied, in Iraq, America, or anywhere. As far as Americans, maybe 20% have educated themselves enough to be able to form a rational opinion. Far too many Americans think with their emotions rather than their brains - that's how degenerate scumbag sexual predators like Clinton get elected.
          Mens Est Clavis Victoriae
          (The Mind Is The Key To Victory)

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Overseer


            I wonder how many people were comfortable giving their real opinions in this poll. I was interested to see that most Iraqis said that the US acted very well in regards to religious activities and sites. Although a surprising number said very poorly toward the women (not a majority though).
            Yeah, you would think after a regime like Saddam's people may not feel comfortable speaking out against people with firearms. But who knows?
            Keenan K.

            "Anything worth living for is worth dying for and anything worth dying for is certainly worth living for."
            -Catch-22

            "We're the airborne, we're supposed to be surrounded."
            -Maj. Richard Winters, Bastogne

            http://www.warmovie.com/top/gif/bob_banner.jpg

            http://specialforces.low-ping.com/us...images/smg.gif

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by hogdriver
              The salient point is that 61% of those polled (and certainly more of the "silent majority" believe the current situation to be better than its predecessor. Never will you have 100% satisfied, in Iraq, America, or anywhere. As far as Americans, maybe 20% have educated themselves enough to be able to form a rational opinion. Far too many Americans think with their emotions rather than their brains - that's how degenerate scumbag sexual predators like Clinton get elected.
              Exactly how can you be sure about this so called "silent majority?" I could see it if you actually looked at the methods used in the poll and found some significant flaw, but where do you get this evidence supporting what you're suggesting? And I don't think the issue is that it isn't better than being under a harsh dictator, but the vast majority (except for maybe this special "silent majority") seem to think that the policies that have been executed have been quite poor.

              Also, I never asked for 100% satisfied. I'm in quantitative political science, you don't have to give me a lecture about that.

              And I've yet to see much of anything in your posts on this subject that suggested any kind of balanced, unemotional, and unbiased analysis.

              This poll if any wide conclusions can be made from it shows that while the majority are shedding no tears about having Saddam out, there is absolutely no vindication of any of Bush's policies.
              “To discriminate against a thoroughly upright citizen because he belongs to some particular church, or because, like Abraham Lincoln, he has not avowed his allegiance to any church, is an outrage against that liberty of conscience which is one of the foundations of American life.”

              Comment


              • #8
                A majority in a poll simply means one more person said 'yea' or 'nay' than the opposite. Statistics can almost be better liars than the politicians (or groups) announcing them. That being said, I think most agree Saddam being gone is good, but less than most want us around anymore to 'help' them.
                If voting could really change things, it would be illegal.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by hogdriver
                  The salient point is that 61% of those polled (and certainly more of the "silent majority" believe the current situation to be better than its predecessor. Never will you have 100% satisfied, in Iraq, America, or anywhere. As far as Americans, maybe 20% have educated themselves enough to be able to form a rational opinion. Far too many Americans think with their emotions rather than their brains - that's how degenerate scumbag sexual predators like Clinton get elected.
                  Again, though not my business.... I can't help but ask you, what is wrong with Pres. Clinton? ye.. maybe he did have something wrong with his wife or other women, but how does that affect his efficiency and ability of being a leader? If you just like a president who won't "mess" up with women, easy, elect him and then have his organ removed or something... but how the heck does that relate to anything of being a good leader (or bad one)?

                  I only know that when Clinton was there, the US economy grows at its fastest rate for years, there were far more firm allies of the US and far more favorable international enviornment, and even the gas was cheaper...
                  Attn to ALL my opponents:

                  If you sent me your turn and after 24 hours, you still did not get anything from me, please be sure to post in the forum to ask for what is going on.

                  Remember, I ALWAYS reply within 24 hours, even if I do NOT have time to play my turn, in which case I will at least send you email to tell you that I will have to play it later, but I DO receive your turn.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Polls

                    There's an old saw......figures don't lie, but liers figure. The poll is a worthless piece of data as all polls are. They reflect only what they're paid to reflect. They're momentary excursions into the mind that is subject to change the very next moment. So they mean nothing. Its one of the reason while good leaders don't use polls. And why as students of military science, the men and women on this web site should know better than to place much value or virtue in their numbers.

                    The proof is in the pudding. The time is rapidly drawing near when the Iraqi's are going to speak with one voice. On June 30th their new interim government will either ask the US to stay....or tell Bush et al to get the hell out. If they do the later...world opinion is not going to be too favorable toward a US that wants to stay, and in all likelihood neither is a rather large number of Americans. We simply don't like staying where we're not appreciated. So rather than run our mouths over preferred outcomes, lets sit back and watch the end game unfurl itself. Who knows, as Hogdriver says maybe they really do love and appreciate us and the terrible cost we're paying for their future!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Overseer
                      I think it's interesting that you point out what you do and not the negative aspects of the poll (negative from the U.S. stand point).

                      These are just the highlights as I see them:

                      39% say that the US and British Military actions (until April 9th when this was done) cannot be morally justified.

                      46% say the coalition has done more harm than good in Iraq, and 16% say about the same amount of harm and good.

                      57% of people want coalition forces out ASAP.

                      58% of people say that the coalition has performed fairly bad or very bad since the invasion.

                      Number 24 is interesting, most people say that in many humanitarian areas that US is only trying "a little."

                      71% of people see the coalition forces as occupiers instead of liberators, which if you look at the next question show a huge increase when there was an even split between seeing the US as an occupying force or a liberating force.

                      64% say that the CPA has done much worse than they expected.

                      I think it's interesting to see that 48% think that most Americans do not support what is going on.



                      Honestly, I've had to re-read your paragraph 3 times just to make sure I read it correctly. I see far, far more negative in the poll than I see good.
                      This only proves that adage that "perception is 9/10ths of reality"
                      Mens Est Clavis Victoriae
                      (The Mind Is The Key To Victory)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        This only proves that adage that "perception is 9/10ths of reality"
                        Only presenting on side is valid? My main issue was that you barely attempted to show the other side of the poll. If anyone just read your post and didn't actually look into the information themselves, they would walk away thinking that all in all, this big poll conducted was highly supportive of Bush and disproved anything that the other side was arguing.


                        As for the use of polls. A properly conducted poll is incredibly useful. You simply have to be intelligent enough to look at the poll, study the wording, look for bias in the polling method, etc. If it passes certain checks than in the case of this poll, there is a less than .05% chance that the results of this poll are not indictative of the population in question.


                        As for good leaders not using polls, what you have understand is that scientifically developed polls have only come into being in the last 40 or 50 years. It's a huge misperception that polls and statistics are inaccurate. Mathematically and scientifically, statistics are incredibly accurate, however, you have to be willing to read the fine print on methods, something that most people don't seem willing to do. They either buy 100% into the poll, or they remain ignorant of what the poll suggests and just pass it off as useless information. I find that which one people do tends to vary on what side of the issue they're on.
                        “To discriminate against a thoroughly upright citizen because he belongs to some particular church, or because, like Abraham Lincoln, he has not avowed his allegiance to any church, is an outrage against that liberty of conscience which is one of the foundations of American life.”

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Overseer...the problems with polls is that they are momentary exercises. Your comment to a pollster constitutes a decision made in that moment in time with the data available at that time. It does not take into account that facts presented to you in the very next moment could render you first decision either invalid or certainly inaccurate. Life is not fixed, our minds are constantly changing.

                          It is the age old problem of mandate and what that means. In political systems, particularly in a democratic western system, leaders like to claim that they have received a "mandate" from the voters as a result of winning an election. But like your poll, there is no real absolute mandate because the views of the voters on an issue can change in the very next instant. So, for political purposes the use of the term "mandate from the people" is at best an imprecise claim. Scientific polling is simply the application of mathematical "norms" applied to the numbers, they do not lay claim to factual honesty and must be held suspect because the so called "scientific pollster" is usually in the pay of someone wanting specific results....in other words we're back to the original problem....figures don't lie, but liars figure.

                          So while it might be convenient to claim this poll or that poll means something.....the reality is quite the opposite. They provide guesstimates, nothing more and nothing less. A good leader takes them with a grain of salt for the same reason.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            They provide useful tools. I never said they provide a mandate or any absolute fact. And the poll says many times this doesn't take into account recent events.

                            My point is a poll is a good measure if you read it and look for bias. There's nothing magical about them, they present accurately for a population exactly what's presented in front of you.

                            My main issue with this thread from the beginning was how a poll that shows more sentiment against what Americans have been doing over there was presented as a mandate (to use your word Churchill) to support Bush.

                            And, of course, now the results in this poll are completely useless because of the recent allegations of abuse.
                            “To discriminate against a thoroughly upright citizen because he belongs to some particular church, or because, like Abraham Lincoln, he has not avowed his allegiance to any church, is an outrage against that liberty of conscience which is one of the foundations of American life.”

                            Comment

                            Latest Topics

                            Collapse

                            Working...
                            X