Re: OT:British Muslims


"ScottW" <ScottW48@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1155671273.858465.207980@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Harry Lavo wrote:
"ScottW" <ScottW48@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:75bEg.16863$RD.3521@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Harry Lavo" <hlavo@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:XfydnWChSvYa8X3ZnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Many of the average people now feel they were better off under
Saddam,
bad as it was. They can't walk down the street today wihout feeling
at
risk, no matter which sect they belong to.

I've yet to see a poll that any other than Sunni's feel this way
in anything close to a majority.


Notice I said "many", not "all" or even "close to a majority". Please
note
that the poll you quote below was taken right after last year's
elections
and before much of the subsequent ethnic strife really intensified to the
point that people consider it the beginnings of a civil war. So the
percentage who feel they are worse off may have grown substantially since
then..

Maybe, I look forward to anyone providing more current data.

So do I.


I've seen other polls that put 2 issues on the top of Iraqis list
of things...security and corruption.


However, your survey does seem to indicate that at that time "many" is
mostly restricted to the Sunnis, and I thank you for introducing me to
the
poll.

Your welcome, Zogbey also did a poll which generally comes to the same
conclusion regarding Saddam.




Well, then, read/listen more widely than the conservative press.

Apparently you can't provide one....how did you come to this
opinion with no evidence? Seymour Hirsh?

No I go out of my way to bypass the "commentary" as much as possible and
listen to / view / read "interviews" with ordinary civilians. I do this
via
media of every type and persuasion when I run across these "man in the
street" perspectives.

Unfortunately... anyone can find a man in the street willing to
offer a perspective and the recent propaganda campaigns
with forged photos and the like show the media can't be trusted
to provide anything more than the perspective they want to show.

Yes...but keep in mind that the same thing can be said for the commentators
and others interviewed by Fox, and the "factoids" spouted by Rush et al.


And BTW, I am no fan of Seymour Hirsh.

I wasn't too familiar with him but I happenned to catch
his pitch on hardball....and I was simply aghast at how
far into lala land he could go and maintain a shred of credibility.


Here's one of the most recent polls I know of.
77% say its worth it.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/jan06/Iraq_Jan06_rpt.pdf

I look forward to your contradicting evidence.

See my comments above.


There is real terror among ordinary Iraqi's, including Shiites, that
their day-to-day activities place them in jeopardy....every day.

In Baghdad and the fear is not limited to Shiites.

Never said it was...I said "including shites" (who have less to fear from
the uniformed services than do the Sunni's)



Imagine how it must feel. Kids can't play. A trip to the local
vegetable
bazaar may result in 50 dead. Praying at the Mosque may result in
unnattached limbs. A visit to the employment center or a sit in a
cafe,
and you may be shredded.

Moreover, you can't refrigerate food or watch TV regularly or escape
the
heat because the electricity is out over half the time.

Often time you need to stand in line to buy gasoline in a country with
potentially plenty of oil output.

And if you are Sunni, in addition you can't trust anybody in uniform
to
not harm you.

How would you feel about the invasion?

Depends how many of my family were killed over the 20 years
of Saddam brutality.
Apparently almost every family non-sunni family in Iraq
experienced Saddams brutality and they don't forget
quite as easily as Americans.


To me, this is the most interesting part of your poll. Again, realize
that
it was right after the election when optimism was at its peak. Despite
that, the vast majority wanted their government to establish a time-line
for
the U.S. to get out, split roughly half-and-half among those who wanted a
gradual two-year withdrawal and those who wanted a faster, six-month
withdrawal. And this was not naive...it was in spite of the fact that
the
Iraqi's knew themselves that they needed help establishing security:

"Respondents were asked what would happen in a variety of areas if US-led
forces were to withdraw from Iraq in the next six months. Majorities of
Iraqis express confidence that in many dimensions related to security,
things would improve. Sixty-seven percent say that "day to day security
for
ordinary Iraqis" would increase, a consensus position among all ethnic
groups-83% of Sunnis, 61% of Shia and 57% of Kurds. " - p8

and in many secure provinces US presence has been greatly reduced
over these last 6 months.


"Even larger majorities, including a majority of Kurds, indicate a
readiness
to follow the government's lead should it choose to pursue a timetable.
Asked if it was a good idea for Iraqi leaders to have agreed at the Arab
League conference that there should be a timetable for the withdrawal of
US-led forces from Iraq, 87% say it was, including 64% of Kurds, 94% of
Sunnis and 90% of Shia. " - p9

"Interestingly, there is a fair amount of consensus that if US-led troops
were to withdraw there would be substantial improvement in the
performance
of the Iraqi state. Overall, 73% think that there will be an increase in
the
willingness of factions to cooperate in Parliament, including majorities
of
Kurds (62%), Sunnis (87%) and Shia (68%). Sixty-seven percent assume that
there will be an increase in the availability of public services such as
electricity, schools and sanitation (Sunnis 83%, Shia 63%, Kurds 54%)." -
p8


"Naturally the question arises, "Why do only 35% favor the US withdrawing
within six months (vs. 67% overall favoring withdrawal - HL) if there
would
be so many assumed benefits?" The answer may lie in the response to
another
question that asked whether in six months Iraqi security forces will be
"strong enough to deal with the security challenges Iraq will face" or
will
still "need the help of military forces from other countries." Overall,
59%
felt that Iraqi security forces would not be strong enough, including 55%
of
Shia, 58% of Sunnis and 73% of Kurds. Thus, the presence of US troops may
be
perceived as an unwelcome presence that produces many undesirable side
effects, but is still necessary for a period. " - p9

"A majority of Iraqis (59%) feel that in six months it will be necessary
for
Iraq to have "military forces from other countries." Just 39% say that
"six
months from now Iraqi security forces will be strong enough to deal with
the
security challenges Iraq will face." Not surprisingly, 55% of Shia and
73%
of Kurds endorse the need for foreign forces." - p11

"What is surprising is that 59% of Sunnis also endorse the need for
"military forces from other countries" six months from now. In the case
of
the Sunnis, this support for help from military forces from unspecified
"other countries" is in sharp contrast to attitudes about the presence of
"US-led forces." An overwhelming 83% of Sunnis favor the withdrawal of
"US-led forces" within six months." - p11



Sounds much like the Democratic consensus to me:

You're one of the few claiming a democratic consensus.

I asked that question just a few days ago..what is the dems
position...and the response was, "there isn't one".

Most did. I didn't. I see a consensus pretty much as stated below. To the
best of my knowledge, Lieberman is the only one seriously at odds with it.



Get the troops out on a negotiated, orderly basis including ultimate
complete withdrawal (a great fear of the Iraqi's is that we don't intend
to
leave; 80% don't believe we will -p5 ). Get the Arab alliance and the
United Nations more actively involved in peacekeeping and
reconstruction.

I think you're missing something... the Iraqis don't want Arab
alliance
troops in charge of peacekeeping as they are concerned for continued
sectarian conflicts,and they don't want Iranian troops (their
historical enemies).
and the UN is useless and corrupt.

That may be, but if the troops are offered by countries and groups sensitive
to their fears and perceptions, they still seem to want multinational
troops.
That's why you have conferences and discussions and why it can't be done
unilaterally and with earmuffs on.

As for the UN, it can serve at least as a conference facilitator. We would
not have achieved a "solution" in Bosnia without such a conference, as
difficult and nerve-racking as it was.


Both Murtha and Kerry have stressed the need for a strong regional series
of
conferences to start to implement the latter, concurrent with the start
of
U.S. troop reduction.

That's just talk...this is much hot air as france committing troops
to
disarm hezbollah....its just useless conjecture.

I don't see the link, nor the logic that says one must follow the other.


.

Loading