The Iraqi Public on the US and the Future of Iraq

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
So you're backpedaling about me supporting Saddam then?

No, your comments are already sealed in infamy. Nice obfuscation attempt though!

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Aisengard
So you're backpedaling about me supporting Saddam then?

No, your comments are already sealed in infamy. Nice obfuscation attempt though!

trying to force someone into a position that they havent taken is not very constructive unless you just like winning online penis comparisons

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: yllus
That's pretty heartening, actually.

Everyone there knows that Al Qaeda is in country because Western troops are there, though they might be blind to the fact that if U.S. forces exit, A-Q will stick around to see what they can set up.

Everyone but the select group of Sunnis who got fat and rich off of Saddam wanted him gone, again no surprise there.

Another year or two and the U.S. can probably make a substantial reduction in forces in that theatre. The Iraqi forces will fill that gap pretty well, and likely actually use the methods the U.S. shies away from in rooting out insurgents - let's be realistic, a lot of people will then be indiscriminately killed, and the country will resemble its old Saddamesque state for a while before starting to relax again. 'Tis the way of these things.

I'm sure whether or not this Iraqi campaign was worth it to the U.S. is debatable, but for the Iraqis themselves in retrospect they'd probably endure it all over again if it meant the possibility for a fresh start. The idea that they'd settle right into a perfect democracy with a strong adherence to a rule of law is pretty harebrained. They're spilling their blood every day to forge the will to create and sustain their nation. They will thank the U.S. for the opportunity to do that one day.

Curious assessment considering Rumsfeld YESTERDAY said he had no idea when US troops could draw down and the heads of the boots on the ground say things are getting worse and that the Iraqi forces sux (paraphrasing).

I think we have to face the political reality that they will not lay out any plan to withdraw troops right before our election. It would give the Democrats a huge issues to use against them. After the elections Bush is a true lame duck and there is a chance that things can change when he no longer has to worry about running for office or trying to increase his parties' power in congress. He may also start looking at the 'legacy' issue and decide what he needs to do, although he hasn't show to be dedicated to people?s opinions of him like Clinton was.

Bush has another year or so to make things right or else the pressure from the Republicans looking at 2008 will force Bush?s hand.

Finally, did anyone see the news about the Hezbollah ?victory? rally in Lebanon last week? How can anyone look at the devastation and destruction that rained down on Lebanon and declare victory. Yet, the terrorist HAVE to declare victory in order to further their movement. That means if we announce a pull back plan for Iraq every terrorist will be making propaganda tapes about how they beat the US out of Iraq. Look at how much the left is bitching about NIE and ?Iraq is creating more terrorists? Imagine how many terrorists will be created if we hand them a victory in Iraq, not because they beat us, but because we gave up and left. Osama is on record as saying that the withdraw of Americas from Somalia shows that we are a paper tiger that will retreat when hurt, do we want to reinforce that image?

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Very interesting polling data from inside Iraq.
A few highlights:
71% would like US forces out within a year.

78% think the US presence is provoking more conflict that it is preventing, only Kurds see it the other way around.

54% think a US withdraw with strengthen their government

It is a near 50/50 split on whether Iraq security forces will be strong enough to stand on their own in 6 months.

61% think attacks on US forces is ok, if the US were to commit to withdraw more than half would change their minds.

94%!!!! have either a some what or very unfavorable view of Al Qaeda, 83% feel same way about Osama

77% want to get rid of the militias

61% still think that getting rid of Saddam was worth it "Thinking about any hardships you might have suffered since the US-British invasion, do you personally think that ousting Saddam was worth it or not" 75% of Shia think it was, only 11% of Sunni not surprising since they lost the most.

They have their own "right direction/wrong direction" polls too, nice
Poll PDF file, interesting to see what they Iraqi people think

It is good to know the opinion that they have of al Qaeda.
And despite all they have been through well over half think that getting rid of Saddam was the right thing to do, how come the MSM doesn't mention this?

My prediction: by this time next year we will see the US start to lay the ground works for withdraw. By Election day 2008 most of the US troops there will be gone, or staying mostly at their bases and providing logistics and training for Iraq forces only.

I can use Bold tag too. It's time to elect Democrats to make sure we leave Iraq next year, as you too think we will.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
I'm not apologizing for anyone. Itt was better under Saddam than it is now, and that's a goddamned fact. How many Iraqis have died in the span of the last 3 years compared to any span of three years under Saddam? Were the economy and living conditions worse than they are now? How many more people are living in fear of the Iraqi insurgents than were living in fear of Saddam? Bush has singlehandedly been a worse ruler of Iraq than Saddam Hussein. That really takes talent.

Let me answer that question with facts:
Number of dead Iraqis since we invaded: 43,000 to 48,000. Let's go high and say 50,000 for the sake of math. (Most surveys place the number between 41,000 and 50,000; only ONE report has that number higher.)
Iraq Body Count
Brooking Report, go to page 10
50,000 divided by 3.5 years = 14,285 per year

Now under Saddam
The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq estimates 600,000 civilian deaths in Iraq And another 500,000 in his war with Iran for a total of a million deaths.
In Iraq, Civilian Deaths Have Fallen Since the Start of the War
The U.S Agency for International Development quotes Tony Blair as saying "400,000" remains have been found in mass graves
U.S. Agency claims 400,000 in mass graves
A web site profiling dictators of the 20th century estimates that as many as 2 million dead because of Saddam, either directly or indirectly.
Saddam Hussein Kill Tally
A report by a Clinton era War crimes ambassador points to 50,000 to 100,000 killed during the Anfal campaign, the 1991 failed uprising caused between 30,000 and 60,000 deaths and ?well in excess of 10,000? killed unlawfully as political opponents.
U.S. War Crimes Ambassador Reviews Saddam Hussein's Criminality">http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/09/iraq-000918.htm</a>

In direct answer to your question "How many Iraqis have died in the span of the last 3 years compared to any span of three years under Saddam?" Ever heard of the Al-Anfal campaign? From 1986-1989, three years, 182,000 civilian Kurds were killed by Saddam. 182,000... that is over 3 times as many that have died since we invaded. Al-Anfal Campaign

500,000 (just civilians) divided by 24 years in power = 20,833
1,000,000 (civilians plus Iraq-Iran war deaths) divided by 24 years in power = 41,666 per year.

Yes things in Iraq are bad now, but to say they are worse than under Saddam is totally untrue.
The fact that 61% of Iraqis think that removing Saddam even after all the deaths was worth it should point that out you lefties.

If you don?t agree, post some facts and links to back up your argument, otherwise you are just blowing hot air.

BTW: I am not even discounting the fact that many of the civilians now dying in Iraq are being killed by other civilians in deaths that have nothing at all to do with the US, while everyone of the deaths under Saddam was a direct result of his policies.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Blackjack2000

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Blackjack2000
I see nothing remarkable in this poll.

There are no Saddam apologists on this forum.

Care to read Aisengard's comments and get back to me about that?

No, I am not ashamed to say that I don't have the time to read every post here. To date, I have not seen any pro saddam posts. If the point is worth proving, and you'd like to post a link, I'd be more than happy to read it. Otherwise I'd be happy to stipulate that while I have not seen any pro saddam posts, it is quite possible that a few exist among the thousands.

How then can you say "There are NO Saddam apologists on this forum." ??

 

[Aisengard]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Aisengard
I'm not apologizing for anyone. Itt was better under Saddam than it is now, and that's a goddamned fact. How many Iraqis have died in the span of the last 3 years compared to any span of three years under Saddam? Were the economy and living conditions worse than they are now? How many more people are living in fear of the Iraqi insurgents than were living in fear of Saddam? Bush has singlehandedly been a worse ruler of Iraq than Saddam Hussein. That really takes talent.

Let me answer that question with facts:
Number of dead Iraqis since we invaded: 43,000 to 48,000. Let's go high and say 50,000 for the sake of math. (Most surveys place the number between 41,000 and 50,000; only ONE report has that number higher.)
Iraq Body Count
Brooking Report, go to page 10
50,000 divided by 3.5 years = 14,285 per year

Now under Saddam
The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq estimates 600,000 civilian deaths in Iraq And another 500,000 in his war with Iran for a total of a million deaths.
In Iraq, Civilian Deaths Have Fallen Since the Start of the War
The U.S Agency for International Development quotes Tony Blair as saying "400,000" remains have been found in mass graves
U.S. Agency claims 400,000 in mass graves
A web site profiling dictators of the 20th century estimates that as many as 2 million dead because of Saddam, either directly or indirectly.
Saddam Hussein Kill Tally
A report by a Clinton era War crimes ambassador points to 50,000 to 100,000 killed during the Anfal campaign, the 1991 failed uprising caused between 30,000 and 60,000 deaths and ?well in excess of 10,000? killed unlawfully as political opponents.
U.S. War Crimes Ambassador Reviews Saddam Hussein's Criminality">http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/09/iraq-000918.htm</a>

In direct answer to your question "How many Iraqis have died in the span of the last 3 years compared to any span of three years under Saddam?" Ever heard of the Al-Anfal campaign? From 1986-1989, three years, 182,000 civilian Kurds were killed by Saddam. 182,000... that is over 3 times as many that have died since we invaded. Al-Anfal Campaign

500,000 (just civilians) divided by 24 years in power = 20,833
1,000,000 (civilians plus Iraq-Iran war deaths) divided by 24 years in power = 41,666 per year.

Yes things in Iraq are bad now, but to say they are worse than under Saddam is totally untrue.
The fact that 61% of Iraqis think that removing Saddam even after all the deaths was worth it should point that out you lefties.

If you don?t agree, post some facts and links to back up your argument, otherwise you are just blowing hot air.

BTW: I am not even discounting the fact that many of the civilians now dying in Iraq are being killed by other civilians in deaths that have nothing at all to do with the US, while everyone of the deaths under Saddam was a direct result of his policies.

Thanks for answering my question, and I'm certainly glad we're better than Saddam's absolute worst years. Though the fact that we have to make comparisons to Saddam's most brutal years in office to make us the 'good guys' just goes to show how f'ed up this war really is.

How then can you say "There are NO Saddam apologists on this forum." ??

Because it's true. Do we really need to bring out this mantra again? You-can-be-against-Bush-and-not-be-for-Saddam/terrorists/treason/whatever Bush wants people to believe his detractors are.

I thought we got over this childish mentality after Nazi Germany. Man you people have really gone to the dogs.

 

[Jaskalas]

I?m starting to believe Saddam was a weak and opportune target for us. Which means he was not a real threat when compared to Iran?s nuclear ambitions and direct command of terrorist groups.

I do believe the war in Iraq has strengthened Iran?s nuclear blackmail.

So you may want to label me up there with the ?Saddam apologists? if we?ve gone into stereotyping everything.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Thanks for answering my question, and I'm certainly glad we're better than Saddam's absolute worst years. Though the fact that we have to make comparisons to Saddam's most brutal years in office to make us the 'good guys' just goes to show how f'ed up this war really is.

How then can you say "There are NO Saddam apologists on this forum." ??

Because it's true. Do we really need to bring out this mantra again? You-can-be-against-Bush-and-not-be-for-Saddam/terrorists/treason/whatever Bush wants people to believe his detractors are.

I thought we got over this childish mentality after Nazi Germany. Man you people have really gone to the dogs.

Aisengard... not only are we better than his worst years, but we are better than his average over 24 years!!!!
His worst years saw the death of 180,000 people, at the rate we are going now it would take another 9 years to match just that 3 year period.

Do you still think overall that the people of Saddam would be better off if we had left him in power? And if so then why do 61% of the people actually in Iraq not agree with you?

And for the "you can't ask someone who is dead if they think they were better off with Saddam" the 50,000 people who have died represent .25% of the entire population. That means they even if they were counted as as "no" vote it would not change the poll results by much, about 1%.
And don't attack me for dismissing the deaths of 50,000 people, I am just point out that the "dead can't vote" arguement is false and meaningless.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Thanks for answering my question, and I'm certainly glad we're better than Saddam's absolute worst years. Though the fact that we have to make comparisons to Saddam's most brutal years in office to make us the 'good guys' just goes to show how f'ed up this war really is.

How then can you say "There are NO Saddam apologists on this forum." ??

Because it's true. Do we really need to bring out this mantra again? You-can-be-against-Bush-and-not-be-for-Saddam/terrorists/treason/whatever Bush wants people to believe his detractors are.

I thought we got over this childish mentality after Nazi Germany. Man you people have really gone to the dogs.

Aisengard... not only are we better than his worst years, but we are better than his average over 24 years!!!!
His worst years saw the death of 180,000 people, at the rate we are going now it would take another 9 years to match just that 3 year period.

Do you still think overall that the people of Saddam would be better off if we had left him in power? And if so then why do 61% of the people actually in Iraq not agree with you?

And for the "you can't ask someone who is dead if they think they were better off with Saddam" the 50,000 people who have died represent .25% of the entire population. That means they even if they were counted as as "no" vote it would not change the poll results by much, about 1%.
And don't attack me for dismissing the deaths of 50,000 people, I am just point out that the "dead can't vote" arguement is false and meaningless.

So if you were a mass murderer who killed 10 people your defense was that you didn't kill 15? Nice.