Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
ABC Poll: Iraqi People Optimistic  
User currently offlineKC135R From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 727 posts, RR: 4
Posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1214 times:

Some interesting numbers from a poll conducted in Iraq:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/PollVault/story?id=1389228

Highlights:

Surprisingly, given the insurgents' attacks on Iraqi civilians, more than six in 10 Iraqis feel very safe in their own neighborhoods, up sharply from just 40 percent in a poll in June 2004. And 61 percent say local security is good — up from 49 percent in the first ABC News poll in Iraq in February 2004.

Average household incomes have soared by 60 percent in the last 20 months (to $263 a month), 70 percent of Iraqis rate their own economic situation positively, and consumer goods are sweeping the country. In early 2004, 6 percent of Iraqi households had cell phones; now it's 62 percent. Ownership of satellite dishes has nearly tripled, and many more families now own air conditioners (58 percent, up from 44 percent), cars, washing machines and kitchen appliances.

There are positive political signs as well. Three-quarters of Iraqis express confidence in the national elections being held this week, 70 percent approve of the new constitution, and 70 percent — including most people in Sunni and Shiite areas alike — want Iraq to remain a unified country.

Other views, moreover, are more negative: Fewer than half, 46 percent, say the country is better off now than it was before the war. And half of Iraqis now say it was wrong for U.S.-led forces to invade in spring 2003, up from 39 percent in 2004.

The number of Iraqis who say things are going well in their country overall is just 44 percent, far fewer than the 71 percent who say their own lives are going well. Fifty-two percent instead say the country is doing badly.

There's other evidence of the United States' increasing unpopularity: Two-thirds now oppose the presence of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq, 14 points higher than in February 2004. Nearly six in 10 disapprove of how the United States has operated in Iraq since the war, and most of them disapprove strongly. And nearly half of Iraqis would like to see U.S. forces leave soon.

Specifically, 26 percent of Iraqis say U.S. and other coalition forces should "leave now" and another 19 percent say they should go after the government chosen in this week's election takes office; that adds to 45 percent. Roughly the other half says coalition forces should remain until security is restored (31 percent), until Iraqi security forces can operate independently (16 percent), or longer (5 percent).


So some good and some bad, but overall it seems Iraqis are optimistic about their future, which is good news.

25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1207 times:

It appears that $ 500 billion can buy you a lot, but not in the US.

I wonder if 60% of Ameicans feel good about their own security.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1207 times:

It is good to see, but the worry for the U.S. is the fact we're becoming more and more unpopular. I think the time is right to DISCUSS a timetable for complete withdrawl of forces-not setting a date, but the President needs to start seeing that our continuing and climbing unpopularity is a  redflag  for the future.

I'm still convinced eventually, the Iraqi people will want some form of Islamic government, and, despite some of this good news, they will not be allied with the United States.


User currently offlineUsnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4891 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1203 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 2):
but the worry for the U.S. is the fact we're becoming more and more unpopular.

 redflag 

But that's the whole point, Falcon........we're not becoming more and more unpopular. The numbers show that our presence is shifting the minds of the Iraqi's who are beginning to accept what we have done.



Crye me a river
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1202 times:

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 3):
But that's the whole point, Falcon........we're not becoming more and more unpopular. The numbers show that our presence is shifting the minds of the Iraqi's who are beginning to accept what we have done.

Disagree. From watching that very telecast tonight, it's obvious that the Iraqi's are starting to feel like the U.S. occupation is more a hindrance than a help. From watching the report, they feel THEY are responsible for the improved climate, and the numbers obvious reflect that the U.S. is becoming increasingly unwelcomed as occupiers, as, in fairness, most occupiers end up as-unpopular.


User currently offlineKC135R From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 727 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1197 times:

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 3):
we're not becoming more and more unpopular.

Yeah, despite the good news, I have to disagree with you here too.

From these numbers it appears we are not held in very high regard, but it does appear as if the general Iraqi population is optimistic about the future of their country.

Quoting KC135R (Thread starter):
Fewer than half, 46 percent, say the country is better off now than it was before the war. And half of Iraqis now say it was wrong for U.S.-led forces to invade in spring 2003, up from 39 percent in 2004.



Quoting KC135R (Thread starter):
There's other evidence of the United States' increasing unpopularity: Two-thirds now oppose the presence of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq, 14 points higher than in February 2004. Nearly six in 10 disapprove of how the United States has operated in Iraq since the war, and most of them disapprove strongly. And nearly half of Iraqis would like to see U.S. forces leave soon.

But I still think the signs are that things are getting better - their displeasure with us might just mean they are ready to get on with the business of running and securing their own country.

So despite our drop in popularity, I still think overall this is positive news.


User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1190 times:

I would think that anyone would oppose another military's forces patrolling their own home town. The good news here is, that things are improving, Iraqis are feeling much better and as the country of Iraq progresses, the number of US service men and women will decrease.

As for a "Timetable" and the need for a withdrawl plan, this isn't a senior year thesis paper with charts and graphs.



"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1188 times:

Some Good News Coming Out Of Iraqi BBC Poll (by WhiteHatter Dec 12 2005 in Non Aviation)

In the thread I highlighted here, there is also discussion that the Iraqi's feel optimistic . . . that is great. But I must concur - they are adamant about their lack of appreciation at being an occupied country.

Like KC135R says, despite the unpopularity of the US at the moment, the Iraqi people have an optimistic view about the Country of Iraq. And that's excellent.

Interestingly enough, this poll is pretty much in concert with the BBC poll in the other thread. I'm glad to see this for many reasons - not the least of which is that it lends credibility to both polls to have similar findings.

And because it continues to refute the claims that some on here that Iraq is a wasted project. They can sit there with their  footinmouth  now and read all about it.

Certainly, there is a very long way to go. Just as certainly, they have come a long way.

Lastly, I look forward to reviewing more  redflag  from the usual suspects. . .


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1185 times:

Quoting CX747 (Reply 6):
As for a "Timetable" and the need for a withdrawl plan, this isn't a senior year thesis paper with charts and graphs.

No, it's not-it's life and death and the future of a nation whom we violated for all the wrong reasons, and we owe it to them to leave as expiditiously as possible, so they can chart their own course.

It's time to start a discussion on when to withdrawl. Bush's speeches, effective as they've been, will only inflate his numbers for so long. The reality is despite some progress, the place is still a mess.


User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1184 times:

ANC, that was a well written post. I whole heartedly agree on everything, especially seeing more  redflag .


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21470 posts, RR: 53
Reply 10, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1175 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 7):
Interestingly enough, this poll is pretty much in concert with the BBC poll in the other thread.

That's because it's the same poll - it has been commissioned jointly by the BBC, Time, ABC, the japanese NHK and the german magazine Der Spiegel. It would make sense to join the two threads.


Of course the removal of Saddam was a good thing and there is cause for optimism - but the (surviving) iraqis have no trust or sympathy for the occupying troops either, it appears.


User currently offlineKC135R From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 727 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1168 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 10):
That's because it's the same poll

I'll be damned, you are right, there it is at the very bottom - I missed that before, up top it just says the poll was "conducted with Time magazine and other media partners".

This poll was conducted for ABC News, Time magazine, the BBC, NHK and Der Spiegel by Oxford Research International.

Well it is still good news overall - I still think it indicates things are going in the right direction.


User currently offlineGilligan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1165 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 8):
The reality is despite some progress, the place is still a mess.

I wondered how many posts I would have to read through before I came across this. Here will be the crux of the liberals argument forevermore. No matter how much good came out our invading Iraq, the people of Iraq are no better off (even thought they think they are) and the place was better off before we invaded. The fact that we took out a brutal dictator and help the people form a government that they determine is of no consequence.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 2):
I'm still convinced eventually, the Iraqi people will want some form of Islamic government, and, despite some of this good news, they will not be allied with the United States.

If they can agree on what kind to have. Sunni and Shitte are like Catholic and Prostestant, both consider themselves to be Muslim, it's the detail work that is different. Then you have the Kurds, I doubt after all the trouble they've been through they would want another level of government above them. I have never envisioned a democratic Iraq being any closer to us than the Egyptians and if it isn't who cares. This was never about the Iraqi nation becoming a satellite nation as many have tried to project.


User currently offlineSearpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4344 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1157 times:

Quoting KC135R (Reply 11):
I still think it indicates things are going in the right direction.

As do I - but I also agree with Falcon that if the desire is to keep it going in that direction we need to start laying out definitive markers as to what will allow us to draw down and eventually leave the country.

My take on the results is that the insurgency is on the cusp of losing it's appeal to the Sunni population, their main support. But if the resentment against our presence grows to any great extent, the insurgents could find new support among the Shia as well as the Sunni.

We need to provide the Iraqis obvious evidence that we do intend to get out as quickly as we can, without leaving them in a bloody civil war (which means I'm not advocating cut and run, before anyone accuses me of it). The first step in that process is defining the measures.



"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21470 posts, RR: 53
Reply 14, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1156 times:

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 12):
The fact that we took out a brutal dictator and help the people form a government that they determine is of no consequence.

Of course it is.

But so is the fact that many thousands of lives have simply been wasted in the progress through ignorance, incompetence, greed for power and commercial interests.

Those lives destroyed without need may be insignificant to you, but that is where perspectives differ.


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1154 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 10):
That's because it's the same poll - it has been commissioned jointly by the BBC, Time, ABC, the japanese NHK and the german magazine Der Spiegel. It would make sense to join the two threads.

Well, that would certainly explain the smiliarities wouldn't it . . .  footinmouth 


I retract this:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 7):
Interestingly enough, this poll is pretty much in concert with the BBC poll in the other thread. I'm glad to see this for many reasons - not the least of which is that it lends credibility to both polls to have similar findings.

This still stands however.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 7):
And because it continues to refute the claims that some on here that Iraq is a wasted project. They can sit there with their  footinmouth  now and read all about it.

And I shall join whomever with the  footinmouth 

I'm glad one of us is awake Klaus . . . thanks


User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1152 times:

THIS JUST IN!!!!!


A new A.NET poll has been released. Lets go to the results:

2% Optimistic
75% pessimistic
23% Don't Care

However, early analysis of the polls may indicate that a.netters such as AeroWesty, MD80, Jaysit and BN747 have slanted the polls in favor of the pessimists. They've done this with their loud mouths and demoralizing doom and gloom talk. Some experts have suggested these individuals may be in the minority - DEEP in the minority - but are hiding it with their loud mouths. We now take you live, to our 'on the scene' reporter, Tricia Takanawa, who has breaking news. Tricia?

"Yes, UH60, I'm standing here in the "Non-Aviation" Thread Board and it appears that certain A.netters have nothing better to do that tear every piece of good news down. And we're getting word that when these doomists have no good news to criticize... they spend their time attempting to blame every piece of bad news as President Bush's fault. Local officials are suggesting that these fringe-wackos are a small minority, and that the vast majority of A.netters are reasonable, well balanced human beings. The only question I have, UH60, is: why aren't they speaking up more? Back to you.

Thanks Tricia. We will bring you more on this story as it unfolds. And we now return you to the thread already in progress, "ABC Poll: Iraqis Optimistic."

-UH60


User currently offlineUsnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4891 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1151 times:

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 3):
we're not becoming more and more unpopular.

The reason I stated this is because the Iraqi people seem to be far more accepting of our forces these days than in the years past. While the poll numbers still may reflect a discontent of us being an occupying force, the majority of citizens want us to stay until they can get stable on their feet. The problem is, you won't see that in any poll.

The turning point now is that the people are starting to think for themselves and are becoming their OWN collective body against the insurgencies. However, the majority still want our presence there to protect from the large amount of attacks occurring until they can regain their own policing and law enforcement bodies into working states again. I believe that the polls are probably fairly accurate in the Iraqi's that they questioned, but I don't agree that it is representative of the entire nation.

Like I said, this is what you won't find in any poll to date......yet.



Crye me a river
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1145 times:

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 17):
The reason I stated this is because the Iraqi people seem to be far more accepting of our forces these days than in the years past.

I think they're more resigned to our presence than "accepting" of it, my friend. They can't do a whole hell of a lot about it, to be honest, and they know it. Most have accepted it and are trying to make the best of it, I have no doubt of that, but I don't think, reading and seeing the report on ABC-and it was a very balanced report, I thought-that they're singing the hosannahs of the United States.

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 17):
The turning point now is that the people are starting to think for themselves and are becoming their OWN collective body against the insurgencies.

Agreed. And that's great to see. But as I said, I think their collective will, once we leave, won't look like what is envisioned in Washington, but that's self-determination for you.  Smile


User currently offlineKC135R From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 727 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1143 times:

Quoting Searpqx (Reply 13):
As do I - but I also agree with Falcon that if the desire is to keep it going in that direction we need to start laying out definitive markers as to what will allow us to draw down and eventually leave the country.

I agree, clear goals need to be set for eventually leaving - progress and victory in Iraq need to be very clearly defined, no murky vagueness.

I think overall this poll indicates the Iraqis are optimistic and ready to begin governing themselves. The numbers indicate that they do not want to be occupied for an extended period of time, but most want us around until the country is secure. Their elections are coming up this week, let them elect a government, work towards taking over their own security, and then we should be able to leave them in relatively good shape.

But I do believe the biggest story to come out of this poll, and this is my interpretation of the results, is that they are optimistic, ready to take charge of their own country, and pushing for us to eventually make our way out. I don't think Iraqis see their future independent and democratic Iraq including a large U.S. presence, which is good.

[Edited 2005-12-13 04:48:27]

User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21470 posts, RR: 53
Reply 20, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1135 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 15):
I'm glad one of us is awake Klaus

If just barely...  tired 

No criticism intended - the shared origin is not always obvious when the same results are reported through separate channels...

Good night!  Big grin


User currently offlineUsnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4891 posts, RR: 52
Reply 21, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1128 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 18):
I think they're more resigned to our presence than "accepting" of it, my friend.

I can agree somewhat, but its just that grey area again. There's no real way to debate this without getting inside the minds of the Iraqi's. Let's just say, the ones that I've interacted with have a very real respect for the United States, despite what ABC and other news sources may publish. There's a fundamental problem with journalists when it comes to publishing the truth about this..............its going to be made public. Most Iraqi's have not come to the point of being able to stand up for themselves without fear of consequencial action. So, its not unusual at all to see the majority claiming that the U.S. is still a bother. However, when you interact with the people on a very real basis, you begin to see what attitudes truly prevail. This comes from my own experiences and from soldiers coming home now. The concensus is that the American forces are very much appreciated.

But, like I said, you're not going to get this in the public eye for a little while to come. The people simply aren't used to the fact that they can speak without fear of being killed or tortured, so it takes some time for word to get around. Although, I have a strong feeling that this will change in time.

Either way, regardless of how they feel towards us, their progress as their own civilization seems to be looking much brighter than ever before. This is what really counts, as they will be the ones tasked to support their newly-found freedom once we leave.



Crye me a river
User currently offlineMD80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2660 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1114 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 16):
However, early analysis of the polls may indicate that a.netters such as AeroWesty, MD80, Jaysit and BN747 have slanted the polls in favor of the pessimists. They've done this with their loud mouths and demoralizing doom and gloom talk. Some experts have suggested these individuals may be in the minority - DEEP in the minority - but are hiding it with their loud mouths. We now take you live, to our 'on the scene' reporter, Tricia Takanawa, who has breaking news. Tricia?

"Yes, UH60, I'm standing here in the "Non-Aviation" Thread Board and it appears that certain A.netters have nothing better to do that tear every piece of good news down. And we're getting word that when these doomists have no good news to criticize... they spend their time attempting to blame every piece of bad news as President Bush's fault. Local officials are suggesting that these fringe-wackos are a small minority, and that the vast majority of A.netters are reasonable, well balanced human beings. The only question I have, UH60, is: why aren't they speaking up more? Back to you.

Cute and funny, UH60.  spin 

But seriously, I have never blamed Bush directly for anything to my knowledge, if so I was plain wrong. I do blame Bush's god (not my God) for what is occurring if that matters any. I think the reason you would try to pidgeonhole me is simply because I do not agree with the right's reasoning on this issue (which would make me "left" by your definition, which I am clearly not).

The l-a-r-g-e voices of the Iraq invasion supporters find it easier to present a "either you are with us or against us" scenario, which helps greatly to galvanize thought. Those that do not wish to be labelled a "subversive" or liberal or peacenik, whatever...are forced into the pro-invasion herd.....while the others are heavily bantered against with a very repetative, almost psyop-like mantra.

It is nice to know that I am so unpopular as to be lumped in with historical heavyweights like those you listed.....but I might suggest a whole new category for me  Wink


User currently offlineGilligan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1084 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 14):
Those lives destroyed without need may be insignificant to you, but that is where perspectives differ.

Tell me, what is the difference between what we are doing in Iraq and what we did in Germany 60 years ago? Hitler did not attack the United States, Japan did. So if we use todays convoluted thinking on whether or not you should take out a brutal dictator we should have left him alone. He had no real way of molesting us other than the way that Saddam did. Yet without hesitation we sent 1000 plane bomber streams over and basically leveled your country. Look at Iraq, we didn't even come close, by any standard of measurement, during that invasion to the destruction we wraught during WW2 and yet you would think by some description on a.net that we were lining up civilians and shooting them in the street. So if we go by the model of modern day Germany, Iraq, in about 60 years ought to be doing pretty well for itself. They don't have to be our ally, Germany, at least its present day government, certainly isn't.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21470 posts, RR: 53
Reply 24, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1070 times:

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 23):
Tell me, what is the difference between what we are doing in Iraq and what we did in Germany 60 years ago?

Wow! Where to begin? You're exhibiting such a stunning level of historical ignorance that I'll need to tackle each point individually.

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 23):
Hitler did not attack the United States, Japan did.

Oh yes, he did! Hitler - after occupying most of Europe, some of Africa and already attacking Britain on one side and Russia on the other - did in fact declare war on the USA, not the other way around!

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 23):
So if we use todays convoluted thinking on whether or not you should take out a brutal dictator we should have left him alone.

Such as Stalin back then and Kim Jong Il today? Right.  Yeah sure

Hitler being an evil dictator was completely irrelevant to the USA entering WW II and Saddam being one (of a different kind) was completely irrelevant to the USA invading Iraq.

The suffering of the Jews and of others was long known in the West without anybody even loudly complaining. As much as the suffering of the Kurds being hushed up and ignored while it actually happened.

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 23):
He had no real way of molesting us other than the way that Saddam did.

You gotta be kidding! Hitler was on its way to a long-term strategic domination of Europe and possibly northern Asia, had a powerful army, was reaching for resources that were (and are) crucial for the USA and was an ally of Japan, the other major strategic threat to the USA (who in turn had occupied much of China and east Asia and had attacked the USA in Pearl Harbour). You would have found yourself wedged in between two major autocratic powers (flanked by additional fascist ones), both intensely hostile towards you and strangling you at will.

That you can't recognize the difference to a two-bit dictator with a demolished and demoralized army and a half-starved population, boxed in with nowhere to go, completely disinterested in a (utterly ridiculous) declaration of war against the US, demonstrates your historical and political cluelessness to an embarrassing degree.

And it certainly shows how the Iraq disaster could come about.

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 23):
Yet without hesitation we sent 1000 plane bomber streams over and basically leveled your country. Look at Iraq, we didn't even come close, by any standard of measurement, during that invasion to the destruction we wraught during WW2 and yet you would think by some description on a.net that we were lining up civilians and shooting them in the street.

"Without hesitation"? Wrong again. It took several years, Pearl Harbour and a war declaration by Adolf Hitler to get actual US troops over here.

In Iraq the iraqi body count reaches at least into the tens of thousands. For some peculiar reason the Bush administration and their apologists have not been concerned with those deaths in the least - they are completely ignored. The over 2000 US deaths are reluctantly acknowledged (primarily due to the media keeping track, no thanks to the administration yet again), but the iraqi death toll - you remember, of the people you presumably care about so much - is of no concern to you at all.

That is what is simply hypocritical.  gnasher 

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 23):
So if we go by the model of modern day Germany, Iraq, in about 60 years ought to be doing pretty well for itself.

That is so far beyond clueless it would actually be shocking if we all weren't used to it by now.

Germany in 1945 had a population who knew that all the destruction was the ultimate result of their own collective actions and who had to face formerly unimaginable horrors committed in their name and by too many of their own; Germany already had a democratic history and strong democratic forces, a common history and culture reaching back over millenia, a high level of education, lots of experience building and maintaining a functioning infrastructure and industry and above all the strong will to make a fresh start and make the most of this new chance at a fresh start. Allied confrontation and support was very important to the ultimate outcome in western(!) Germany, but on its own it would never have achieved the transformation that has taken place.

Iraq in 2003, on the other hand, had a population who had been reluctantly suffering under Saddam for many years, clearly remembering that the very USA who now attacked them without provocation and with no guilt of the population was the same one who had been in league with their oppressor for many years and who had forsaken them after previously riling them up for rebellion at the last war. The population is deeply divided, has little common culture or history, a relatively low level of education, no experience at all with the organization of democracy and very little with the buildup of infrastructure or industry.

It is positively shocking that you actually manage to believe that those almost directly opposed cases were "the same" as if there was a magic formula á la "Take out dictator, sprinkle democratic fairy dust all over, stir once and watch it bloom!"

Naive nonsense like that is one of the reasons why the invasion has been undertaken at all, and why it has gone all to hell since then.

Great if the surviving iraqis can salvage a better future out of the mess for themselves (and I still hope and expect them to), but trying to hush up the victims of this misguided attack will certainly not make you welcome there (or credible here).

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 23):
They don't have to be our ally, Germany, at least its present day government, certainly isn't.

Clueless yet again. The Bush administration screwed up, the former german government under Schröder correctly called you on it while the new chancellor Merkel would probably have gone along with Bush back then - but she knows better by now and is probably thanking her maker every day that she won't have to make that decision any more (as there would be absolutely zero public support for the invasion now, down from just almost zero before).

Germany is a friend and ally of the USA, just not an unquestioning servant as you seem to prefer. I'm not sure you even recognize a true friend if you should meet one.


I know that you're not representative for all of the USA (just for a shrinking fraction), so I expect your country to recover from this madness in time, even if you yourself may not be able to.

[Edited 2005-12-14 23:35:22]

User currently offlineGilligan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 25, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1036 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 24):
Oh yes, he did! Hitler -

Really? Where, pray tell, did this attack on American soil take place?

Quoting Klaus (Reply 24):
did in fact declare war on the USA, not the other way around!

If I declare war on you and have no way to attack you, what difference does it really make? Our destroyers had been protecting convoys since sometime in 1940 so that is irrevelant.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 24):
Hitler being an evil dictator was completely irrevelant to the USA entering WW II

Which is exactly my point. According to todays convoluted thinking, we had no business having anything to do with the defeat of Hitler. He had done nothing to us as the defeat and retreat crowd says about Saddams relationship to us.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 24):
You gotta be kidding!

In 1941 exactly how would have Hitler struck the United States? He had no naval power save u-boats which are a pretty weak shore bombardment tool. He had no air assets that could cross the Atlantic, and the V-2 was not operational until several years later and had no intercontinental capability. So exactly how would he have struck us?

Quoting Klaus (Reply 24):
You would have found yourself wedged in between two major autocratic powers (flanked by additional fascist ones), both intensely hostile towards you and strangling you at will.

Sorta of like the Soviet Union and Red China? Of course neither had any success since people who are lorded over never perform as well as those that are free.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 24):
That you can't recognize

That you can't recognize that Germany in 1918 was in the same shape as Iraq in 2003 and that 20 years later that same Germany was on the verge of invading all of Europe shows your total lack of understanding history. We could have done what we did in the 1st gulf war in 1945, stop at the border and allow Hitler to remain in power. Would you have liked to grow up in Nazi Germany as a good little Superman or would you have been wishing we had come in and finished the job?

Quoting Klaus (Reply 24):
In Iraq the iraqi body count reaches at least into the tens of thousands.

As in the accusations that Bush lied, where is the proof? Where are the bodies? Why are the Iraqis not pointing them out to every journalist with a camera?

Quoting Klaus (Reply 24):
That is what is simply hypocritical.

Then I guess were just as hypocritical in WW2 when the press did not bother to report French, Belgian, and Dutch deaths by accidental bombing or shelling. Why in the world would anyone outside of the defeat and retreat crowd want to concentrate on the war dead? Most Americans are smart enough to know that if you go to war you are going to take casualties.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 24):
That is so far beyond clueless it would actually be shocking if we all weren't used to it by now.

What is clueless is your nonsensical ramblings. The area called Iraq today is also called the cradle of civilization, I've never heard that term applied to Germany. The populations have little to do with this simply because they were held captive by the dictator in question. Also poll after poll taken since the invasion continues to show the Iraqis grateful that we came in an knocked out Saddam. Also amusing is the fact that the defeat and retreat crowd goes to every bit of effort to ignore these as they do to promote the false impression that Iraq is just a mess today.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 24):
surviving iraqis

Surviving??? Even if we were to believe that tens of thousands died during the invasion that is but a miniscule percentage of the Iraqi population as a whole. LMAO!!!!

Quoting Klaus (Reply 24):
Germany is a friend and ally of the USA,

You would be hard pressed to convince the average American of that given the favorable press any nation anywhere in the world gets if they bad mouth the United States.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 24):
I know that you're not representative for all of the USA (just for a shrinking fraction),

If you believe that then you are sadly mistaken as the democrats and liberals have to continually find out to their dismay every election cycle.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Finally The UN Decides To Back The Iraqi People posted Tue Jun 8 2004 23:31:58 by L-188
Why The Iraqi People Will Not Accept A US Invasion posted Fri Mar 14 2003 22:39:41 by Cedarjet
Iraqi Poll: 71% Want US Troops Out posted Thu Sep 28 2006 10:27:53 by Joni
World's Politest People? Poll Says... posted Wed Jun 21 2006 20:04:28 by FOMEA
Some Good News Coming Out Of Iraqi BBC Poll posted Mon Dec 12 2005 16:31:16 by WhiteHatter
You Know.. There Can Be Good People Out There posted Fri Nov 17 2006 19:48:29 by Kazzie
IMO, Ignorant People Should Not Vote posted Fri Nov 10 2006 19:42:34 by Lehpron
People Playing Music In City Centres posted Fri Nov 10 2006 14:51:49 by Runway23
Why Are People Offended By A Second Grade Riddle? posted Wed Nov 8 2006 19:46:08 by Matt D
Official Poll Results Discussion Thread posted Wed Nov 8 2006 00:02:23 by AerospaceFan