Quote:
Originally posted by MuadDib
The flaws with these kinds of pollings are obvious. First off, it's only among the Baghdad population. Second, this is a population that is historically prone to agreement with those in power. They have been raised to not question those in authority or risk death. Third, gallup polling mostly targets English speaking people and those with telephones. Obviously, these sorts would be in a more likely position to concede to American actions than former Iraqi.
|
While I agree that the poll is virtually worthless (though it is nice to hear some of the good news slipping past the media filter for once), I have to take some exception to your reasoning. First, the Baghdad (and Tikrit) populations ought to be less receptive, not more, as would be indicated by the number of hostile actions against the US. It would follow that the polling would be vastly higher if taken in, say, the Kurdish north. The further from the Sunni Triangle, the more positive the response.
Second, I think it's an extremely racist statement to say it's a population that is historically prone to agreement with those in power. It's like you are comparing these people to lemmings, mere cattle that meekly follow the one with the prod. There were many Iraqis who bravely risked death and questioned authority. Take it from me, whose home country was under military rule for decades. Just because we were raised not to question the Party does not mean we didn't. Many of us were wrongly imprisoned, or tortured, or worse, executed, but that didn't stop us. Historically prone to agreement, my arse. Just because we and my Iraqi compatriots (I refuse to say "comrades") in oppression were unable to overthrow our oppressors does not mean we agreed with them. Those under military rule don't usually suffer from Stockholm Syndrome.
Third, the article makes no mention that it was conducted by telephone; it was performed by a "survey team" and barring further information I think we should hold off before assuming it was conducted in English over the telephone.
Quote:
Originally posted by MuadDib
This certainly isn't to say that Iraq isn't better off without Hussein or that the conclusions of the study are wrong. It is to say that the study is internally invalid. What's more the "liberals" problem with the action in Iraq is not that they are worse off than they were under Hussein, but rather that our president lied and our soldier died. Our government deceived us and circumvented established democratic means of action (both domestically and internationally) in removing Hussein. The problem is not so much that Iraqi freedoms are lessened because of our action, but that our nation's legitimacy and our political freedoms were.
|
I respect your opinion, though I disagree. What is it with the repetition of the "Bush lied" myth? I've debunked that myth twice now and it's getting old. This is old news, capped off by the original accuser retracting his accusations in front of the whole British government just this past week. I'm resigned to believing that it's going to last as long as the long-debunked myth that "Bush stole the election."
Quote:
Originally posted by Spartak
The other third don't have a gun to their head.
|
(I meant the LOL smilie, but it doesn't look as good!)
Quote:
Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
So is anyone going to argue that ain five years Iraq will be worse?
|
I would. We don't know for sure (there's always the possibility we make a misstep somewhere). I tend to think it wouldn't get worse, but you never know. Maybe $87 billion isn't enough and the US citizenry refuses to fork over more. Maybe Bush loses the election and the next president pulls the US out of Iraq, only to have Hussein come back to power with a receptive UN eager to undo the changes brought about by the US. It's getting better, but we're in no way close to the finish line.
-- Alvin
EDIT: Changed "compatriots" to "Iraqi compatriots," which is what I meant.