Yes, the question is about the future, I’m not saying it’s not. I’m saying that I think that if they have hope for the near future, it must mean that they see good changes happening around them. On what else would they base their hope? Is it just blind hope that something will change, with no evidence?
All that they are saying is that they think things will be better in five years. This’s insufficient grounds, (in and of itself), for inferring that they think things are going well now. All that they are saying is that they think now is worse than the future. The rest is only, (in your words), “I’m saying that I think…”
If an elephant was sitting on your kneecaps and someone asked if you thought things would be better in five years, you’d likely expect that things would. However, it doesn’t at all mean that your current situation was a good one.
It may well be taht these Iraqis think that everything is grand right now and that this the basis of their expectations; however, from the question results you presented, there’ not enough evidence to conclusively draw that conclusion. The only conclusion you can draw is whether or not they think things will be better or worse compared to now in five years. It’s not evidence to say if they think things will be acceptable in five years; they’re just saying that they think it’ll be better than now.
The reality is that we exterminated the entire population of Iraq by digging out their internal organs with rusty spoons and holding them over our heads, doing a little dance, and shouting “Halleluja!”.
Then we import extras from Hollywood for the news stories.
A story in today’s Guardian:
"It was the middle of the night when the crack paratroopers from America’s 82nd Airborne Division arrived outside Ali Khalaf’s farmhouse in the parched fields of central Iraq.
Some of the family were asleep on mattresses in the dirt yard outside the single-storey house. Ali’s brother Ahmad lay there with his wife, Hudood, 25, and their two young sons and so they were the first to hear the soldiers as they approached the house at around 2am yesterday. . . . . "
Let’s say North Korea invaded the U.S. Joe Schmo sees the invaders coming down his street and takes some shots at them. Seem pretty clear he’s a civilian. That he might have deserted the military earlier doesn’t seem to change anything.
It may be that they think things now just suck so badly that they’re bound to get better.
47% said that their live were worse now than one year ago.
Mind you this poll is exclusively Baghdad.
Seems pretty clear he’s also a combatant. To lump together as “civilians” 1) A former Ba’ath party enforcer who starts firing on US troops and 2) the carpet salesman who just wants to be left alone, but who is killed when a bomb hits his house … well, “disingenous” is putting it mildly.
**
If he runs away, then gets his nerve back after an hour and starts shooting at Marines, he’s a civilian?
In re: the OP, the complications Paul enumerated, as well as the fact that everyone’s biased (yes, including the NGOs) are going to make any definitive count very difficult; and I think the mentality may be “we’ll just never know.”
Which is true, but still pretty weak.
If we use that standard (that any person shooting at the invaders is a part of levee en masse and so part of the Iraqi military the number of “civilian” deaths would go way down.
I am not saying you are wrong, as I said it is a very complex problem.
I should also note that I said “I think”, because what I saw was evidence that could go either way, but I thought was leaning more to the positive side. I never said it was conclusive, in fact I even explained why I said stuff like “I think”.
Despite the hijack here, I’m looking for an answer for you, Capt.. I think a exact or nearly exact answer will be difficult to find, but I think that I can get you a rough figure and compare it with figures of other wars. I suspect the answer to the “why” will be “because relative to other wars, given the amount of territory that had to be taken, the population of the invaded country and the size of the opposing armed forces, the total was startling low.” But again, that’s just a suspicion now.
Oh, good. You can help with the research. Since the reason the government isn’t counting or estimating civilian casualties is to bolster their propaganda about the reasons for the invasion, it should be pretty easy to come up with U.S. government estimates of civilian casualties in other wars they’ve fought. Korea, Viet Nam, the various wars in central Europe, Panama, etc. But I was unable to find them. Could you post them please?
Don’t bother going back to WWII; the civilian casualties inflicted by the allies in that war were just horrendous and would make almost any subsequent war waged by a western power look humane – it’s not a fair comparison.
Since almost two-thirds of Baghdad residents believe the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s regime was worth the hardships they have endured that means that Iraq is not a “disaster”? Is that what you’re saying?
Not originally, considering I didn’t know the results of that survey. The last survey backed up my original (and not conclusive, I freely admit that it could have gone either way) analysis of the other survey, to the point that I don’t think there’s any real argument for Iraq being a disaster.
I worded that particular quote poorly.
Anyway, I’m not going to argue over semantics (what qualifies as a disaster). If you want to say that because aspects of the invasion were executed poorly Iraq is a disaster, that’s fine. I’ll just call that imperfect and save disaster for something more dire.
Ack. This forum takes forever to load 
btw, what do I have to do for it to let me edit my own messages? Is that something only moderators can do? I wouldn’t think so, considering that it asks me if I’m trying to edit someone elses message, implying that it would work if it was my own… which it is.
Oh yeah, Welcome to the SDMB GD.
You’ll never be able to edit your messages until you become a mod or admin.
Well, in a city of 5mil:
there’re 2.5mil who don’t have clean water to drink;
2.5mil fear attack in their homes.
sounds pretty dire to me.
Not having clean water to drink is serious business.
Would it be anti-American to wish for a poll that didn’t depend on a carefully pre-selected cross-section of preselected inhabitants, conducted by a truly impartial authority with nothing to gain from distortion of the truth?
FYI
89% of people who are me wouldn’t trust a “poll” as far as I could spit.
53% of people who may be either you or me have no empirical evidence of the veracity of either the polls or the pollsters.
62% of people who may be someone either of us knows but isn’t aware that the other knows the same person would say “Maybe” if asked if polls were a reasonably reliable source of public opinion given the fact that political context, location, and demographic targetting practices of polls are rarely (if ever) disclosed.
An ASTOUNDING 88% of people whom both of us know through second- and third-hand acquaintance only have responded that they may or may not be swayed into a previously unrealized frame of mind by polls in general, depending on the particular political persuasions of the owners of the polling authority and the slanted context thereof.
We bombed them back to the stone age, now we have the oil, they can go jump. Deosn’t that sum it up?
So, if Joe Schmo shooting at North Koreans is a policeman, is it disingenuous to call him a civilian? Of course not.
Yes, they’re civilian combatants, that’s what you get when you invade a country. I’m not sure why you think “civilians” should only include people innocently standing around minding their own business, though.
Possibly, but I’ll grant their could be some consideration of how long he’s AWOL and therefore no longer benefitting from the organization and resources of the military. Perhaps someone can enlighten us on how the US military handles deserters and when they’re officially out.
Like I said, darn tough question.
(Lemme see, he was AWOL for thirty days but was fighting for three days before he was killed, giving him credit for only 27 days of AWOL so I refer to the chart on Page Nine and figure in his body weight… aha he was military!)
-thanks
-rats
-There are worse places to be in the world… plus now there is no fear of being killed for expressing views (or rather, there’s a much smaller chance considering the relatively few remaining Saddam loyalists), the largest religious group in Iraq is free to practice its faith, and now there is hope of aid coming in (instead of being funnelled into palaces and weapons). Life wasn’t grand before the war, many people lacked power and water in the first place, others had power for only a few hours a day. Of course, when I said more dire, I meant taking into consideration that the place has just been through (or is most of the way through) a war and it is to be expected that there are problems like this, but it could have been much worse. To sum that up, something like this was to be expected, and if this is roughly what the US expected when they planned this, I don’t see how the operation could be a disaster, bad though the situation may be.
Now I’m going to kick myself for arguing semantics 
They say it’s accurate to within 3% I think, and I believe them. I’m a pretty cynical person, but there is no real basis for you to say that they were purposefully dishonest. Unless you know something I don’t? I’m sure there are plenty of people out there who would love to see a scandle involving their survey, considering the opinions of most of the people in the western world. If there were something dishonest going on, I’d bet that it would be found out rather quickly. Not that I take anti-Americanism personally, as I’m Canadian. (Although senseless America bashing from Canadian politicians ticks me off the no end, they have a right to an opinion but it’s not it’s not like we can afford to throw away trade money, to say nothing of professionalism and courtesy - in other words, keep it away from the media and in private!).
Yes, oil is important to the US. You know what else though? The oil industry is going to be a huge asset to the economy of Iraq, once it recovers from Saddam’s years of neglect and the recent sabotage. Of course, feel free to ignore the reconstruction going on.
I think most of the “civilian” fighters belong to a paramilitary group organized by (I think) Uday, so I don’t think it’s totally accurate to lump them in with the rest of the civilians. I could be completely wrong though.