Here are hundreds of other polls.
Iraqanalysis.org » Info»Opinion Polls in Iraq

I know I'm gonna get heat from this, but here it goes.


I believe it to be cruel and unjust what Saddam Hussein and his followers have done. I saw some of those pictures posted on that link, and I agree that nothing justified such deaths.

We have a strong military and everything needed to liberate countries under oppression, but what gives us that right? Sure, it's the good thing to do, but to put so much responsibility on ourselves? And along with weakening ourselves, we weaken the people we try to save, taking away life's challenges handed to them. Instead of trying to save every country being dictated, the people of those countries need to rise up and above the oppression, and they will benefit more from taking matters into their own hands rather than having us do it for them.

I'm sorry if this sounds cold, but that's just what I think. Every country for themselves. Unless Iraq had something to do with the attacks on 9/11, we should have stayed out.

" I have a very unpopular opinion in that I am for the war, but against the troops"
- Bill Hicks

RIP

Every single poll ever conducted? So you are telling me that the Iraqi's I spoke to were lying because your poll says so? I will admit that my friends dealt mostly with Iraqi's that were allowed within U.S. controlled ares so the opinions they got were slewed. Many polls are taken from specific groups achieving a slewed result.

The majority of civilians killed as a direct result of U.S. action were killed by splash damage from bombing. This does not change the fact that most civilian deaths in Iraq have been caused by insurgent actions. The last I checked car bombs and roadside bombs were not in the U.S. arsenal.

Explain why. How are they not the same. Because you choose to ignore the similar points? They are more alike than you seem to think.

Thank you for posting this link, I will be reading it for a while. I did notice that the front page is rather biased. When I dug a bit deeper, I found that the results were not as simple as it initially seemed.

Finally, after 7 pages, somebody actually address what I posted first. Somebody actually voiced an opinion about my first post.

Where was our right interfering in Europe during WW1 or WW2? We were attacked by Japan, our war was in the Pacific. What about Korea? The list goes on.

Turning a blind eye was what allowed Nazi Germany to gain so much ground before we stepped in to help. Turning a blind eye is what allowed Nazi Germany to murder 10 million Jews. Turning a blind eye is what allowed Japan to murder 17 million "lesser" Asians. History repeats itself when ignored.

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.
But this is not one or a few polls. This is many. I also have links to many more.
Where are your sources to show the deaths attributed to the actions of the insurgents have surpassed the deaths caused by the US forces? Also keep in mind the insurgency is a direct result of US policy.
Nazi Germany was a world power, Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone. How are they alike?
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.
You need to decide whether you are going to discuss Iraq or WW2.

Agreed, agreed, and agreed. However, had we not been attacked we still would've had no business fighting said war. It isn't our job to be the world's police.

Ok, in WWII, as Unfan just said, we were attacked by Japan. We were forced into the war when Pearl Harbor was bombed. What did Iraq do to us? Nothing.

If we go forward and help every nation under tyranny, we weaken the citizens of those country in the long run by taking away that challenge of overcoming oppression. What if we were to establish a government for the Iraqi's to use for themselves? We establish, then we pull out and let them do the job. Sounds good, right? But who's to say they will be able to do the job? They weren't strong enough to overthrow Saddam Hussein and establish their own government, and now they never will be.

The united states isn't every third world countries' mothering nation. We can only nurture so much before our tits are dried out and those nations have to walk on their own, and when they do, they will crumble, because we took away any challenges life had for them.

This is all the opinion of an individualist. Don't think I have no sympathy for the people who are suffering.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.

I am bringing up points from past wars to show the similarities. I'll say it again; history repeats itself.