From the Secret British poll from August 2005:
I still go with my point that many Iraqis are telling the west what we like to hear when western media is doing the polling.
Indeed, the US media pollsters IMHO are getting a rose colored view of what is going on:
If you have the bandwidth, check the BBC 4 report from May 2006:
Iraq: The hidden story.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3519855663545752103&q=Iraq&hl=en
No can do, Amish modem. Be willing to trust a paraphrase from you.
How do you know it’s a “white guy with a translator”? You don’t.
Since you requested:
In the documentary, Channel4 news presenter Jon Snow, questions whether the reports coming from Iraq are being sugar-coated, the scary thing is that he shows how even in Britain the reports are a little bit self censored, the scary thing is that in America we get what it amounts to the Disney version of the occupation.
Snow reports that he only could stay in the green zone. Just last year he could go out to interview Iraqis, not anymore. All the recent footage was obtained from Iraqi reporters getting interviews at the request of Jon Snow.
The documentary shows the bloody reality of war under the US-led occupation. One of the items touched is footage from one massacre virtually no TV viewer in the US has seen:
With the recent revelations of abuses by American troops, a look at this item was missing, the good news was that all American troops were accounted for, the soldiers that were in the burning vehicle were rescued and gone from the area for awhile, this rocket attack had no justification as it looked from the footage of the soon to be dead Iraqi reporter that the rocket attack was made mostly to show a lesson to Iraqis that decided to celebrate. (When you get a crowded celebration wherever there is a burning American vehicle, I would doubt the intentions Iraqis have when they are telling us in polls that they want us to stay in Iraq) In the documentary here Jon Snow reported that the guy in command of the operation claimed they shot at the unarmed crowd to prevent looting. :dubious:
Do we need to guess how the Iraqi families of the dead feel?
If there is one bit that worries me more from the documentary is the POV interviews of Iraqi relatives visiting a new cemetery of Iraqi martyrs did show: as one relative said (Paraphrasing: ) “do not talk to me about Shiite or Sunni differences, in this place we remember Iraqi martyrs against occupation”
While the documentary mostly does show the violence is due to sectarian differences, the reality remains that militias are gaining power, US troops are not looked up for protection, I do think the longer we stay Iraqis will become united all right: but in recognition that they should point the guns at the occupiers/colonizers.
I think it is a distinction without a difference on what the point says: even Abdul as interviewer has to say he is asking the questions on behalf of Time, ABC, CNN, etc. since even taxi drivers’ lives are in danger for only moving western reporters around, I have to conclude many polls are getting the results skewed towards what the west wants to hear, to me it is bad news that even with that skew the results are barely encouraging.
John, what the heck has gotten into you? Isn’t it perfectly clear that I am posing two theoreticals, not suggesting that I know diddly squat about who may or may not be posing questions? No where do I suggest I have any special knowledge, your rebuke is entirely unprovoked. WTF?
Do they?
I’ll certainly agree that polling in Iraq has its problems, but that’s the only data we have to go on.
If you know didly squat then why post anything? You offered two choices (whit guy vs Shiite militia type), and the only thing “perfectly clear” is that you’re just trying to muddy the water. The people at Time and CNN aren’t complete idiots, and I see no reason to asssume they’re only choices are to send out Ditzy Mitzy or Omar the Militant Shiite to do their polling for them.
Who?
Eventually they have to, otherwise the polls should be published with a “this was a secret poll” disclosure, your cited poll was made by Oxford research on behalf of ABC News, Time magazine, the BBC, NHK and Der Spiegel.
Because of the current violence and unrest, the evidence points to the secret coalition poll as being the most accurate.
What happens if they don’t-- do the get the better business bureau of Bagdad after them?
Well, remember that the only thing we really disagree on is whether or not the Iraqis approved of the invasion immediately before and immediately afterwards. In that case the “current violence and unrest” is irrelevant. Seriously, GIGO, I’m not sure what your beef is. I don’t disagree with anything you’ve posted (other than the issue of how the Iraqis felt about the invasion back in 2003). The Iraq war was one of the stupidest, if not the stupidest, policy decisions by a US president in the last 50 years (at least). But I don’t see any reason to think that most Iraqis were not glad to see us get rid of Saddam Hussein. That still doesn’t make it any better of a decsion on part.
:eek: What’s that got to do with the price of sex?! A state is not any the less sovereign because its ruler is evil. If any country with evil ruler is fair game for foreign invasion and regime change, who can be safe?! (Not the U.S., to be sure!) And the U.S. has backed many rulers as evil as Hussein – including Hussein himself; he did not become any worse when he started doing things we did not approve of. As for legitimacy, Hussein was as legitimate a ruler in Iraq as any of his predecessors. The Ottoman sultans, the British Mandate, the Hashemite kings, General Qassim, Colonel Arif, etc. – all came to power by naked force and ruled by naked force.
That is perhaps correct from a legal standpoint, but not from a moral standpoint. We were discussing the latter, not the former. Do you think we were morally correct to interfere in Serbia? I do. If you do as well, then why? Wasn’t Serbia a sovereign nation?
Justified, yes, but not by the mere fact that its ruler was “evil.” It was necessary to stop an ongoing genocide. The invasion of Iraq was not necessary for that or any other legitimate reason.
Saddam Hussein had committed far greater atrocities than Milosevic ever could dream of. He was being stopped from committing futher attrocities only because the US and the British enforced the no-fly zones. I see no reason why we couldn’t have decided that that tactic was no longer desireable and that Saddam had to be taken out. (Again, remember I’m talking strictly form a moral standpoint, not a legal standpoint. Nor am I saying it would’ve been a wise thing to do, just that it would have been moraly justified.)
Can you back that up?
BG: I started a thread on this very subject a few years ago. Rather than repeat that debate here, take a look at that thread. I haven’t changed my mind about any of it. Link.
Sure. Pay particular attention to bullets #7 and #8. Not to mention invading two of his neighboring countries. How many were killed in the Iran/Iraq war-- 500,000 on each side?
And how many Iraqi deaths, military and civilian, can be attributed to the Gulf War plus 12 years of sanctions plus the invasion and all its attendant destruction of infrastructure plus three years of occupation and insurgency?