Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombeels
Well you answered most of your question. Also if an armed US soldier asks an Iraqi asks them a question about the invasion/occupation the Iraqi will most likely give a positive response from fear of reprisal.
|
Let me share a story told to me by a friend. About 3 months into his first deployment he was hit by a roadside bomb. He took a lot of shrapnel to his face, neck and arms, his torso was protected. He was evacuated for treatment and returned to his unit 2 weeks later. He was of course angry about what happened, but not in the way you might think. He was talking to another soldier saying that it was bull**** that they were even there. If Iraqi's wanted us gone bad enough to attempt killing them, maybe they should just throw in the towel leave. He was approached by a civilian that was hired to work in the dining hall and told that he was wrong. He and most of the people he knew were thankful that we were there. He came to them to say thank you, he was being ignored while they were talking. He approached unarmed soldiers when he could have ignored them. But one person doesn't represent an entire country. He is simply a voice with a face, not a number on a poll.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombeels
But this is not one or a few polls. This is many. I also have links to many more.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombeels that I moved from the bottom to address the same point.
Did you expect some pro-Bush or Pro-war site to post this. This is a site that posts all the data on polls with reference to Iraq. Where's the bias? They make no comments or opinions on them.
|
When you read further into some of these polls, you get a different picture than the quick description. They didn't change any information, only show what would support the point they want seen. A few examples.
Quote:
# Mental Health Survey of US soldiers & Marines serving in Iraq (05 May 2007)
A team of US army mental health specialists surveyed (anonymously) 1320 soldiers and 447 Marines serving in Iraq, and conducted focus groups with US military personnel. The study, completed in November 2006 but released in redacted form in May 2007, found high levels of mental stress and ill-health, and high tolerance of ill-treatment and torture of Iraqis; and also fears about safety risks posed by Rules of Engagement perceived to be restrictive.
Approximately 10% of Soldiers and Marines report mistreating non-combatants (damaged/destroyed Iraqi property when not necessary or hit/kicked a non-combatant when not necessary)
20% of soldiers and 15% of Marines were diagnosed as suffering from a mental health problem (depression, anxiety, acute stress or other)
39% of Marines and 36% of soldiers believed "Torture should be allowed in order to gather important information about insurgents"
17% of soldiers/Marines believed "All non-combatants should be treated as insurgents"
only 38% of Marines and 47% of soldiers believed "All non-combatants should be treated with dignity and respect
|
They chose to show things that would show U.S. soldiers to be heartless. Did they bother show the percentage of soldiers that are worried about their marriage? Or the number that have stood up to other soldiers doing the wrong thing? They are in the poll, just not shown in the quick blurb.
Quote:
Opinion poll for BBC, ABC News and NHK (10 Sept 2007)
About 70% of Iraqis believe security has deteriorated in the area covered by the US military "surge" of the past six months.
Suggests that 'the overall mood in Iraq is as negative as it has been since the US-led invasion in 2003'. Only 29% think things will get better in the next year, compared to 64% two years ago. Nearly 60% see attacks on US-led forces as justified. This rises to 93% among Sunni Muslims compared to 50% for Shia. Growing disparity between Shia and Sunni satisfaction levels.
|
With as religiously divided as Iraq is, they would need to ensure that a true cross section is taken. 93% of Sunni Muslims agreeing with attacks on troops is not a shocking number. Of course you know that Saddam was a Sunni Muslim. Sunni's were living the good life with Saddam in charge. Shi'a of course don't see things the same. What about the results from the Kurdish population polled? They also didn't bother to show the trend of improved quality of life. In 3 years, the polls show mobile phone ownership increasing 14 times over. Of course why bother showing that.
Quote:
Nov 2006 poll of 2000 people in Baghdad, Anbar and Najaf by the Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies, finding that:
95 per cent of respondents believe the security situation has deteriorated since the arrival of US forces
Nearly 66 per cent of respondents thought violence would decrease if US forces were to leave
Thirty-eight per cent were also "unconfident" that Nuri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, would be able to improve the situation in Iraq and nearly 90 per cent described the government's implementation of its commitments and promises as very poor
36.5 per cent said they felt the official security forces were unable to keep control in the country
|
Does this bother to mention that 81.9 percent of respondents were in Baghdad? How about the fact that most of Baghdad is Sunni Muslim?
Picking and choosing what to show is as unethical manipulating the results.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombeels
Nazi Germany was a world power, Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone. How are they alike?
|
Nazi Germany was not a world power until they had already murdered at least 2 million Jews. Not until they had already invaded and secured other nations were they considered a threat.
Iraq was a threat to neighboring nations.
Iraq was guilty of genocide.
Iraq was attempting to secure nuclear weapons and had, at different points, chemical weapons. They had them in the past and would not allow inspectors to verify that they did not have them prior to the invasion. These made them a threat to the entire world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombeels
You need to decide whether you are going to discuss Iraq or WW2.
|
I am bringing up points from past wars to show the similarities. I'll say it again; history repeats itself.