What Iraqis Really Think
 

http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.19153...ews_detail.asp

Zogby and AEI conduct as scientific a poll of Iraqis as they can manage. And the news is pretty good:

-- Iraqis are optimistic. Seven out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives will be better five years from now. On both fronts, 32 percent say things will become much better.

-- Asked which is closer to their own view--"Democracy can work well in Iraq," or "Democracy is a Western way of doing things"--five out of 10 said democracy is Western and won't work in Iraq. One in 10 wasn't sure. And four out of 10 said democracy can work in Iraq.

-- Asked to name one country they would most like Iraq to model its new government on from five possibilities--neighboring, Baathist Syria; neighbor and Islamic monarchy Saudi Arabia; neighbor and Islamist republic Iran; Arab lodestar Egypt; or the U.S.--the most popular model by far was the U.S.

-- Our interviewers inquired whether Iraq should have an Islamic government, or instead let all people practice their own religion. Only 33 percent want an Islamic government; a solid 60 percent say no.

-- We asked "Should Baath Party leaders who committed crimes in the past be punished, or should past actions be put behind us?" A thoroughly unforgiving Iraqi public stated by 74 percent to 18 percent that Saddam's henchmen should be punished.

Awesome find UT, thanks. I was just thinking last night how it would be great if someone could conduct a scientific poll of such issues in Iraq, although it would be very difficult. I had no idea one was actually underway.

I'd mentioned before how my experiences with the Iraqi population were at great contrast to what seems to be portrayed in the media -- a country full of Islamic fundamentalists and Saddam loyalists who want us to leave as soon as possible. The media love to play up our problems in the Sunni Triangle, and seem to ignore the leanings of the rest of the country.

I also find it very interesting that this poll came out four days ago, yet I can't remember it being mentioned by any of the major U.S. media outlets.

Interesting, though I'm skeptical, given that:

--It's the AEI (though they are working with Zogby)
--It's just another poll
--They didn't include Iraq's largest city
--UT left this one out: Inchoate anxiety toward the U.S. showed up when we asked Iraqis if they thought the U.S. would help or hurt Iraq over a five-year period. By 50 percent to 36 percent they chose hurt over help.

Perhaps they could do a poll every month or so to see how the attitudes shift. And since we're going to be hanging out with the Iraqis for a while, it makes sense. It could become a "job approval" rating of sorts.

As a news hound, I can vouch. The only way to stay truly informed is through blogs. This link came via the essayist USS Clueless. His current entry is chock full of food for thought.

And then there's Comedy Central's "Tough Crowd", where Christopher Hitchens was a guest last week and described how well things are going, especially with the Kurds.

Also very illuminating is this BBC web chat with "Baghdad blogger" Salam Pax. The guy is not a good enough writer to give us a sense of how things are going, but when people ask him pointed questions, the answers are much better than one might imagine.

      I find it interesting that 40% said democracy wouldn't work but the US govermental model was "the most popular by far." I suppose that makes sense with five choices though.

OK, so if I want to toss out my lifetime reliance on the Traditional Media(tm), what stuff ought I to be reading?

Oh man, everybody's got their own set of favorites. You just have to find the ones that are appealing to you.

Almost all of them point to other sites to check out. That USS Clueless appeals to me because the guy is an engineer, and he approaches a lot of things from an engineering standpoint.

For sheer volume it's Instapundit.

The best writer by far is Lileks, once a day M-F.

Vodkapundit has an appealing voice and is generally sensible.

Winds of Change takes on an awful lot with multiple writers.

But everyone will find their own that is appealing.

Spectator/Channel 4/YouGov poll
 

the first such poll conducted was organised by the Spectator (established, heavyweight political commentary magazine in UK) in partnership with Channel 4 (UK network tv station) and conducted by YouGov (respected internet pollsters). they questioned 800 people at 20 different locations in Baghdad, last June. a selection of the questions/results follow:

Q. Do you think that the US & British Govt war against Saddam's regime was right or wrong?
Right 50%
Wrong 27%
Not stated 23%

Q. What is your view toward the US & British forces currently stationed in Iraq?
Friendly 26%
Hostile 18%
Neither friendly nor hostile 50%
Not stated 6%

Q. Would you prefer to see the US & Britain stay in Iraq or pull out?
Should stay a few years 31%
Should stay about a year 25%
Should stay a while, but leave within 12 months 20%
Should leave Iraq immediately 13%
Not stated 11%

Is Iraq a more dangerous or safer place for you to live since the US & Britain invaded?
Much more dangerous 54%
A little more dangerous 21%
No real change 10%
A little safer 11%
Much safer 3%
Not stated 1%

(There were more questions, but I'm tired of typing them.)

A mixed bag, then, but I'd say largely encouraging.

tasty tidbit here - wonder if they've done a poll like this more recently

What else would you expect from a US backed survey?

When you get the same results from an Iranian backed survey, you might have something to crow about.

Is this because the Iranian survey would only talk to Shia Clergy, sympathetic with Iran?

Maybe I'm reading too much into your statement BeeVee, all American's taking a survey in Iraq can't be trusted?

I wonder if the Iranian government would accept an independent survey company like Zogby to do a survey? I don't trust that they would.

The only way to really know though, is to travel to Iraq and tool around with a pad and pencil. Talk to some Iraqi's. Include Shia, Sunni, Wahabi, Arabs, non Arabs, Christian, Turkoman, Kurds. Travel to each province and see the population grouping. Get a real good feel for what the Iraqi's as a whole are looking for.

Show us the Canadian one. Oh, thats right Canada is too busy ridin on America's coattails to actually do a survey of their own. Go do your own effin survey if you don't like it.

Did you mean to say a UK-backed survey.

Did you mean to say an Iraqi-backed survey.

No surprise; The anxiety or the "leaving it out", which makes me sceptical (but not in total disbelief) of the whole presentation.

Ah! :thumb:

Ah! :thumb:

The rest of the world is either "with you" or "against you"k eh? Truth has very little to do with it, is that it?

Nope not at all. You seem so quick to criticize America , yet offer NOTHING else as a reference.
Cite some other ... anything... offer something to refute what was posted.

"Quick" ? How long is it now that the Americans are in Iraq? You must have just woken up to the news this morning, if you think that my opinion is "quick".

History, my friend, is an on-going thing and it doesn't begin with the swearing in of a new president. He doesn't even create history - he merely makes his own additions. He may try to rewrite it, but there's always someone who remembers the truth.

Turn off the Fox News and put down Newsweek and Time. Take a look around you instead.

You all do realize this poll is from 2003 right? I was reviving this to see if there was any new or compelling info available - instead it looks like the same ole shit. nevermind.

Oh and aretha, I don't watch Fox nor subscribe or read either of those magrags. I think I see plenty. My view just isn't skewed in the same direction a yours.

For latest data, try the Iraq Index from the Brookings Institute. It is updated monthly. It also clearly states when the various data was collected. http://www.brookings.edu/saban/iraq-index.aspx
The Brookings Institute is one of the most respected political think tanks. And no, its not far right; the media usually calls it liberal, although since it provides data that 'supports' Bush, some have accused it of going conservative. It is currently headed by Strobe Talbott, a former Clinton administration appointee.

I see that you missed your first chance to comment on this short list I submitted earlier on American democratic principles. Care to comment now? Or has your "skewed direction" lost its' way without a road map?

1) When the UN has the power to stand on its own to the point that they can dictate and enforce policy to the US then I'll care about that. Not to say that Iraq was a good choice, but the US is free to act in its own perceived best interest regardless how other nations feel about it. It is not a global democracy.

2) Reference please? Look at the airwaves, the internet, publications, clubs and organizations... Their are plenty of voices speaking in favor of alternate paths without fear of prison or death.

3) Americans can travel nearly everywhere in the world and expect the support and assistance of the US gov't if they run into problems. There are certain nations deemed dangerous where those protections end. The nations on the list may be debatable, but the policy seems reasonable.

4) Torture is not condoned. What qualifies as torture is open for debate with loud voices on each side. Personally I believe that Celine Dion's voice qualifies as torture and should be banned.

5) Again, if the effort is not perceived to be in the best interest of the US it would be foolish to support or endorse the effort. The worthiness of specific efforts may be debated, but in the end it is important to recognize that there is no "global democracy".

I have found web pages that list various state "NO American can travel to or from unless they have a rarely granted permit" (listed include Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Serbia, Sudan).
I think that's what being referred to by Aretha's doctor.

However, these sites mislead. The only state with restrictions is Cuba. Check out http://travel.state.gov/travel/ for more info.
"The Cuban Assets Control Regulations are enforced by the U.S. Treasury Department and affect all U.S. citizens and permanent residents wherever they are located, all people and organizations physically in the United States, and all branches and subsidiaries of U.S. organizations throughout the world. The Regulations require that persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction be licensed to engage in any travel-related transactions pursuant to travel to, from, and within Cuba. Transactions related to tourist travel are not licensable. This restriction includes tourist travel to Cuba from or through a third country such as Mexico or Canada. U.S. law enforcement authorities have increased enforcement of these regulations at U.S. airports and pre-clearance facilities in third countries. Travelers who fail to comply with Department of Treasury regulations could face civil penalties and criminal prosecution upon return to the United States. "

Also, the protections don't 'end'. Consular services are always available. The ability to protect may be limited.

But otherwise I agree with what you're stating. Just adding the facts...

Thanks, my wording was poor. or my brain broke, one or the other.

So please correct me if I am wrong but you are from and live in Sweden? Yes or No?

Originally Posted by Aretha's doctor When did the UN ever matter? They have no authority in the world, no one pays any attention to what they say or pass as resolutions, and the US basically supports the majority of all they do with our TAX payers money. Screw the UN. I say kick them out of New York and move their asses to Iceland.

Total and utter bull shit. Prove it.
Total and utter bull shit, well other than Cuba, where else? D:
Life sucks for the rest of them, buy a helmet.
Oh really, like China and India. Don't go there you will lose big time.

These examples deal with the "now" - the "today". There are tons of additional examples to site within the last few years which still effect the situation today but were implemented during the previous decades.

Correct.

The catch is that reading what you've written (from other sources "verbatim" I suppose) one will automatically assume that the "rarely granted permit" might be issued from the afore-mentioned countries. Or putting into other words, that those countries do not allow Americans to vist them, though this is not true. Never-the-less this is the interpretation most commonly voiced by Americans.

Take the point of Cuba for example. There are American agents at airports in such countries as Mexico, where flights go directly to and from Cuba. Those agents are trained in spotting American citizens disembarking from flights originating in Cuba. Once spotted those American citizens are reported to the Armerican government for prosecution.

If you are an American citizen you only need to open your passport and read what country(s) you are not allowed to visit by American law. It will be written in a slightly criptic fashion such as to be a bit unclear but if you read it well, you'll understand.

The list that aimeecc has submitted may not be up to date but the countries on that list (plus many others) either are, or have been "off limits" for Americans by U.S. decree - not by decree of those countries.

From the Brookings link - The Dec 2007 pdf.

Some very informative data on this pdf. Much of which is a little overwhelming and requires more time than I have now to review, but there are some telling graphs.

As I stated, the only current one is Cuba. I'm sure some of the other countries may have been on the list for short durations. Like when we were bombing them. Not wanting our citizens to be in a country were bombing seems like a normal enough practice. I certainly don't have a problem with that.
Cuba is purely political, and there is a large movement to end the restrictions. You are absolutely free to voice your desire to have this regulation revoked. No one will arrest you or fine you. Since you seem so passionate about these issues, what are you doing to change them? Do you write letters to your Congressman? Do you lobby Congress? How about running for office?
Don't complain about regulations if you do absolutely nothing to try to get them changed.

psst aimee - methinks she/he (Aretha's doctor) isn't from America.

The information in Iraq Index, although predominantly from the U.S. government, also gathers information from other sources. And the Brookings Institute clearly identifies where its sources are from.
http://www.brookings.edu/saban/~/med...ex20071221.pdf
They're most recent polling is from September 2007, from liberal media.
Its been released monthly since November 2003, so you can pour through back issues and see that when it was really bad, the Iraq Index was true and gave the straight facts (many killed on both sides, services lacking, negative polls). Even the most recent polls can't be quantified as "good", and sends a mixed message, as seems all polls in Iraq. But it does show that killings and deaths (on both sides) are down, and services are increasing each month.

You are certainly over-simplifying the issue. I can assure you of that. In any case, your country REFUSING you to visit a country doesn't really clear your point.

Congressmen? Regulations? My country has an open political and trade relationship with Cuba. We also have direct charter turists flights to Cuba as well.

It's with a painful twitch of optimism to see that not all of your brain cells have withered and blown away.

She/he may not be... but then why care if Americans can or cannot legally travel to an extremely short list of nations the US has had occasional hostilities with?

Thaaat's great. I'm happy for ya. Glad it works for ya. You go to Cuba, buy some cigars, have a good time.

You obviously have an axe to grind with the U.S. It's understandable, personally, I don't care. I'm not going to argue about, or defend the U.S. with some foreign national about the policies and actions of the country I'm from. I'm sure you can find lots to talk about. Good and bad.

The question at this point in time with respect to Iraq, is not whether or not we should have gone into Iraq when we did. We are there. The question is if we pull out lock, stock, and barrel right now would that be the best course for Iraq as a whole. There is lots to talk about pro and con on this issue as well.

If you have not visited Iraq, I believe that you do not have anything near a qualified opinion on the issue. That's just my opinion.

I have not been to Israel or Palestine. I do not give my unqualified opinion on the issue.

So why do you have an issue on whether I, as an American, can go to Cuba? As I plainly stated, its the only one currently on the list, and although there have been others, those have all been during hostilities with a small time frame. No, its not over simplifying, I can ASSURE you of that. Its stating the facts. With an average lifespan span of 78 years, and Sudan is on the 'no go' list for a year... I still have like 98% of my life to still go see Sudan. But wait, I've been there, its a shit hole, and I'll never go back. Not sure why any one would want to go unless they have a naive idea that they can make a difference in Darfur. Not particularly interested in going to any of the other nations on the list either, although I've been to a few of them as well.

Sounds like sour grapes to me. That's a poor argument.

I think it would be cool to visit Cuba. It pisses me off that my government won't let me go. Are we free, or not?

I've been to Iraq, and my opinion is... There's no easy solution.
If we pull out, the predictable out come is no more Americans killed (in Iraq at least). But what about Iraq? Will it descend further into civil war? I'd bet yes. Can Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki unify Iraq? Um, no.
Fast forward a few more years... more dead on both sides. Slightly improved security. More Iraqi forces trained and equipped... When the US pulls out, will it descend into civil war? I think so. The Iraqi forces will break down by sect, and sectarian violence will return. Hatred doesn't go away just because more security forces are trained. Will whomever the new PM is be able to unify Iraq? Probably not, because he probably got elected by whatever sect he's from. Probably Shi'a, unless they boycott the elections for some reason or another. The Sunnis will be pissed (again, still, always) and they'll start killing the Shia's who in turn will kill Sunnis... sound familiar?

When I was there, the Iraqi Minister of Interior would not talk to the Iraqi Minister of Defense. The US wanted to have the two coordinate on training and equipping (so the Iraqi police and the Iraqi army would have interoperable equipment), but they refused to even meet. How can reconstruction be done if the top leadership refuses to talk to each other?

Over simplified? Yeah, probably. But the hatred Iraqis show for one another doesn't disappear overnight. Or in 2 years. Or in 10. It doesn't matter how many we train or how stable we make it... once we leave, the hatred will surface and the killings will begin again.

Prior to the UN, most nations just exterminated or drove away whatever minority rebelled the most. Then the other minorities were too scared to rebel. Its harsh, but thats how it worked. Another common method was to kill the men or enslave them and send then to far reaches of the kingdom. Women were married to the soldiers, and the minority 'bred' out. So, the historic traditional solutions aren't going to work in Iraq today.

Iraq has to come to its own solution. Vietnam did. We may not like that they are Communist, but its stable there. Ok, so the quality of life isn't that great either. And they have restrictions on travel for their people (far greater than any restrictions the US has ever put on their citizens, may I point out?). And they don't have fredom of expression. Or too many other freedoms. But its stable at least.

Glatt, if you see my previous post, Cuba is purely political, not for any other reason... and I don't agree with it. But I actually don't particularly care that much because I have no desire to go to Cuba, although I've heard its nice. Just not on my list of places to go.
So, again... if you want to go to Cuba...what are you doing to change the laws? Do you write letters to your Congressman? Do you lobby Congress? How about running for office?

The Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 CFR
Part 515 (the “Regulations”) were issued by the U.S. Government on 8
July 1963 under the Trading With the Enemy Act in response to certain
hostile actions by the Cuban government. They are still in force today and
affect all U.S. citizens and permanent residents wherever they are
located, all people and organizations physically in the United States, and
all branches and subsidiaries of U.S. organizations throughout the world.
The Regulations are administered by the U.S. Treasury Department's
Office of Foreign Assets Control. The basic goal of the sanctions is to
isolate the Cuban government economically and deprive it of U.S. dollars.
Criminal penalties for violating the sanctions range up to 10 years in
prison, $1,000,000 in corporate fines, and $250,000 in individual fines.
Civil penalties up to $55,000 per violation may also be imposed. Please
note that the Regulations require those dealing with Cuba to maintain
records and, upon request from the U.S. Treasury Department, to
furnish information regarding such dealings.

Glatt, get elected. Make some changes. Lobby your elected officials, get involved. No one in the U.S. will threaten your life or liberty for speaking up. Well, no one on the payroll of the U.S. Treasury.

Great, what country? You still have not told us, but you did remove the little flag avatar by your name. Fill us in here.

I said it would be cool to visit, not that I was willing to work my ass off, fighting the system so I can go. There are lots of places I think it would be cool to visit. I'll go to those others first, as it is less effort.

It just pisses me off that my government won't let me go. That's what the East German government did to its citizens. We are not free if our own government restricts our travel. It's the principle of the thing.

Here, here.
:cheerldr:

Glatt, our laws are malleable. Get off of your ass, quit complaining, hell continue complaining....just get off of your ass and change it.

All laws are malleable, our govenment, Constitution, all of it is a living breathing document subject to adjustment as time changes. The next 8 months should be interesting, as will the following 4 years.

Ok, seriously, the only nation we have restrictions on is Cuba. There's still 190 others to go to. Not sure this is really comparable to East Germany not letting its people step foot in any non-Communist nation. We allow our poeple to go to Communist nations, Islamic nations, Socialist nations, Fascist nations...

Also, how often do you hear about people being fined and/or arrested for going to Cuba? You can bet many of the people that go are wealthy and famous, and if they were harassed, it would be front page news. Heck, the liberal media would make a big deal about anyone getting busted for going to Cuba, just to insult the government. So, fly to Mexico, hop on a flight to Cuba.
There are also a ton of other nations we do not have direct flights to. Tonga comes to mind. A nice Methodist nation. Just way too small and too far away for a direct flight. But I wouldn't mind visiting Tonga.

We actually do have people who go to Cuba for business and limited trade. My neighbor is one of them. They import food goods and health care items from the US on a regular basis.

So now nobody in the Cellar is allowed to point out flaws in the system that piss them off unless they are actively working to fix those flaws?

I don't want to waste my time fighting an uphill battle with the US Government to change the Cuba policy. It's not a priority for me. It doesn't mean I can't complain about it, or point out the flaws.

Why would I want to do something that would get me busted? When did I ever give you the impression that I was looking to get busted to make a political point?

Glatt, my backlash "do something" really wasn't intended for you (and yes, I did direct it to you). It was more about those who are bashing the US and its policies yet either don't live here or don't do anything to change it.

Yes, we are all allowed to criticize, and most of us do! It just gets to me to read someones continual ranting (and it wasn't yours) when they do nothing.

So, go ahead and sit on your lazy arse and complain. I do it all the time!

Cuz she/he is probably from one of those little bothersome places that need to trash Amereica to make them feel good about their own country. We're America and they NEED us not to be good. Its the only chance their insignificance has any chance at being relevant.

:f207: :f207: :f207: :f207: :f207: :f207: :f207: :f207: :f207:

I wouldn't call it a flaw, personally. Glatt, you have the right to complain! I'd be glad to listen.

Because it demonstrates an anti-democratic principle.

If you, as an American, call your country "the leader of the democratic world" or "leader of the free world" or "introducing democracy to Irak or to wherever ..." then I think you ought to know some of the reasons why you have been misinformed. The fact that I am not an American should definitely upset you. But for the reason that you have a better chance of hearing the facts about your own country from a "foreigner", which brings us to another reason why you've been misinformed about democratic principles - your censorship of the national media.

The truth is that there are a number of countries that practice far better democratic principles than the U.S. Do you disbelieve that?

Huh? What? Eh? Never had one.

Well I certainly have never called our country those things. And the ones who usually are calling us those things are usually idiots from other countries who have some bone to pick with our international policies. Frankly, I could give a rats ass.

This may be the only time that I agree with you Merc - well, partly anyway.

The point is that most of this international back lash is all about Iraq. Well we are stuck with that tar baby and we cannot just leave. And to all of those who think we can I would say let them stand up and be counted, including those who are currently in power or may soon hold the keys to the White House. And when the smoke clears and there is a massive genocide and relocation of people in Iraq you will hold the responsibility for the event, not me. Certainly do not ask me or my family to go back there and fix it after that.

I really believe that if the US is viewed in such a bad way by so many people it is time for us to withdraw a bit from the international scene, esp with our aid programs, and let the chips fall where they will...

Look. The U.N. was actively working on diplomatic leverage to solve Iraks problems WITHOUT war. America said that diplomacy was out of the question because Irak was in posession of WMD's - poised to strike at the world at a second's notice. It wasn't a mistake - THE U.S. LIED! When you're done smoking that pipe you can crawl (on your knees) and beg the U.N. to try to get back on the track that they had started before the United Snakes rushed in with all of their bombs and war machinerery and created a far worse problem then it ever was.

The U.N. was correct from the very beginning. If they are willing to find a solution to America's blunder then you ought to beg them to do what they can. Personally, if I had the say I'd leave the Americans there to stew in their own shit but I don't have the majority vote in the U.N. You can be happy for that.

Screw that and screw the UN. Neither I or anyone I know will "crawl (on your knees) and beg the U.N." for anything. The UN had done nothing, still does nothing, and will not do anything in the future. And last time I checked we pretty much are there in Iraq to "stew in their own shit" {mostly by ourselves with a smattering from the UK} which is why people like you have no say as to how we deal with it and your opinion on the issue is not really relevant.

Huh. AD really IS a twat.

:corn: