Iraqi Poll: What they think

Giancarlo · July 19, 2003, 03:11

http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...0149-1765r.htm

Quote:

Americans have been polled plenty about the war in Iraq. Now, the first survey of Iraqis has emerged from Baghdad, revealing a population that is anxious and perplexed, but also sure that the war ultimately will improve their lives.
Pollsters commissioned by Britain's Spectator magazine and Channel 4 television network surveyed 798 Baghdad residents face to face July 8-10, their work sometimes interrupted by gunfire, explosions, sandstorms and gun-wielding assailants.
"The first systemic opinion poll of Iraq," the Spectator stated, "finds a population full of anxiety — but also convinced that war has made their future brighter."
The magazine said the pollsters were hard-pressed "to disengage from a stream of additional comments."
"Far from being nervous about being interviewed, they [Iraqis] wanted to say more and more. This place seemed ripe for some kind of democracy."
The hard-won results, released Thursday and titled "What Baghdad Really Thinks," found that 50 percent of the respondents called the U.S.-led war against Saddam Hussein "right"; 27 percent said it was "wrong"; 23 percent had no opinion.
Five percent of respondents wanted Saddam to return to power. Nine percent preferred life under Saddam's rule, while 29 percent "prefer Americans." Forty-seven percent had "no preference" and 15 percent did not answer.
Iraqis have mixed opinions about when they should regain full control of their country, the poll found.
Forty percent want control immediately, 11 percent within three months, 11 percent within six months and 11 percent within a year. Nearly 10 percent thought regaining control after more than one year was reasonable, and 7 percent thought "Iraqis should not be granted political power" at all. Ten percent had no opinion.
With reference to a style of government, 36 percent want a U.S.-style democracy, and 26 percent prefer Islamic rule "tempered with modern ideals of justice and punishment." Five percent want a presidential ruler, but "not Saddam." Six percent want religious leaders in charge, and 6 percent want a single-party state. The rest were not sure or declined to state their preference.
Thirteen percent want U.S. and British forces to leave Iraq "straightaway." A quarter want them there for a year; 20 percent thought they should leave in less than a year, and 31 percent hoped the troops would stay for "a few years."
A third said their lives were better after the war, while 43 percent said it would be better in a year, and 52 percent said it would be improved in five years.
Just over one quarter said they felt friendly towards U.S. and British forces; 50 percent said they felt neither friendly nor hostile toward the troops. Nine percent said they felt "very" hostile, and 9 percent were "fairly" hostile.
Life has gotten more threatening, the respondents said. Fifty-four percent said it was "much more" dangerous, 21 percent said "a little more," 14 percent said a "little" or "much" safer, and 10 percent said there was no change.
The Iraqis also theorized about American and British motivations for the war: 47 percent felt it was "to secure oil supplies," 41 percent said it was to help Israel, and 23 percent felt it was to liberate Iraq from dictatorship.
Seven percent said the war was fought "to protect Kuwait"; 6 percent thought the war was staged to find weapons of mass destruction, and 18 percent either did not know or would not answer.
Most of the Iraqis' personal travails stem from lack of services, the poll found. Eighty percent cited lack of power, 67 percent noted street violence, 49 percent spoke of lack of drinking water, 33 percent cited lack of medical care, 24 percent said there were food shortages, 21 percent talked of business closings and 17 percent noted school closings.
The poll, which was conducted by the firm YouGov, can be viewed at the Spectator Web site (www.spectator.co.uk).

Kick in the mouth for you anti-war folks.

Mr. President · July 19, 2003, 03:18

That's nice.

I usually remain cautious of polls like this, though. 2.6 million out of 5.2 million is 50%; similarly, 1 out of 2 is also 50%.

Giancarlo · July 19, 2003, 03:19

Well 23% had no opinion.

GePap · July 19, 2003, 03:26

Oh Fez.... No, I will no try to explain basics that have already failed with you....

As for the poll: Yeah! 36% want democracy..Now, if only that 64% that want somehting else stay away from the polls, we will be fine in the future!

Mr. President · July 19, 2003, 03:27

I missed the part where it said how many people were interviewed.

Oops.

Giancarlo · July 19, 2003, 03:29

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
Oh Fez.... No, I will no try to explain basics that have already failed with you....

As for the poll: Yeah! 36% want democracy..Now, if only that 64% that want somehting else stay away from the polls, we will be fine in the future!

Again a very large portion didn't answer and didn't have an opinion.

Alas, a buffoon like you fails to see the fact that they want a better life. And with Saddam that wouldn't happen.

GePap · July 19, 2003, 03:32

Hey Fez, since we are talking about what the Iraqi people think; to quote your quote:

Quote:

Just over one quarter said they felt friendly towards U.S. and British forces; 50 percent said they felt neither friendly nor hostile toward the troops. Nine percent said they felt "very" hostile, and 9 percent were "fairly" hostile.
Life has gotten more threatening, the respondents said. Fifty-four percent said it was "much more" dangerous, 21 percent said "a little more," 14 percent said a "little" or "much" safer, and 10 percent said there was no change.
The Iraqis also theorized about American and British motivations for the war: 47 percent felt it was "to secure oil supplies," 41 percent said it was to help Israel, and 23 percent felt it was to liberate Iraq from dictatorship.

Now why on earth were thse sections not bolded, I wonder?

Oh, and Fezzie pooh, get back to me on your "bafoon" allegation after you get some sort of education, NOT before, OK?

Giancarlo · July 19, 2003, 03:38

They are just as significant. But I think the Iraqi people feel they are better off without Saddam overall... but as the bafoon you are.. you continue to deny this.

You get some education, you Saddam loving freak.

Cruddy · July 19, 2003, 06:31

Bit that interests me most (the sample is too small to be significant) is that most people interviewed had a lot to say about what they do and don't want.

After a long brutal suppression of public opinion, given the chance they do want to talk. They aren't happy now - and they weren't happy before.

Only way is up in that circumstance.

reds4ever · July 19, 2003, 06:42

They polled only 798 people? From only one area of the country?

Anyhow, from those figures it sounds like most of the people didn't give a sh1t one way or the other! Hardly a resounding endorsement for a war that cost thousands of lives

Proteus_MST · July 19, 2003, 07:01

Quote:

Originally posted by reds4ever
They polled only 798 people? From only one area of the country?

Yep, sounds not very representative to just poll less than thousands inhabitants of just one City within the country.

Especially the question about "Do you want an islamic or a secular State" might shift much more to "Islamic" if inhabitants of the cities in the south of the country (specially the smaller cities

) are also polled

Maniac · July 19, 2003, 07:15

There are a lot of methodological mistakes in that article, creating invalidity. You generalize Bagdadians to Iraqis. There's not mentioned how many people refused to take part to the poll before they got 798 respondents. Further:

Quote:

The hard-won results, released Thursday and titled "What Baghdad Really Thinks," found that 50 percent of the respondents called the U.S.-led war against Saddam Hussein "right"; 27 percent said it was "wrong"; 23 percent had no opinion.

That question is biased if they asked people "Was the U.S.-led war against Saddam Hussein right (or wrong, or do you have no opinion)?" Why? Because an argument in favour of the war is already used in the question, influencing the answer of the respondents. They shouldn't have mentioned the "against Saddam" part.

Quote:

With reference to a style of government, 36 percent want a U.S.-style democracy, and 26 percent prefer Islamic rule "tempered with modern ideals of justice and punishment." Five percent want a presidential ruler, but "not Saddam." Six percent want religious leaders in charge, and 6 percent want a single-party state. The rest were not sure or declined to state their preference.

Where's the "not-U.S.-style democracy" option to choose?

Not enough answering possibilities.

I guess there are many more mistakes, but those were the ones I noticed immediately.

Sandman · July 19, 2003, 07:35

Not to mention the fact that a 'U.S.-style democracy' is compatible with moderate Islamic rule.

PLATO · July 19, 2003, 07:44

It seems as if a sizeable minority want an Islamic state. Wonder if our notions of democracy will include their desires?

reds4ever · July 19, 2003, 07:55

Would it be fair to assume that most of those who refused to answer (ie not in the 798 people) or said they had 'no opinion' were doing so based on the fact that the poll was concucted by 'westerners' and/or they didn't want to be seen as being against the status quo?

Maniac · July 19, 2003, 08:00

We should organize a poll to know that.

reds4ever · July 19, 2003, 18:38

A quick bump for Fez?

Giancarlo · July 19, 2003, 18:46

Look, I brought this poll for one reason. It was the first one conducted. Maybe the sampling was not large enough but hey it is the same size of ones done in the US.

MichaeltheGreat · July 19, 2003, 18:50

I wonder if the pollsters in the US were armed with M4A1's?

Maniac · July 19, 2003, 18:51

The size isn't really a problem. But the entire rest of the poll just screams "unreliable".

Kuciwalker · July 19, 2003, 19:04

I'm pro-war, and I don't know if this is just a typo, but I found this interesting:

Quote:

A third said their lives were better after the war, while 43 percent said it would be better in a year, and 52 percent said it would be improved in five years.

33 + 43 + 52 = 128%

Giancarlo · July 19, 2003, 19:07

Okay... then I guess the first poll wasn't great...

And that typo.. well maybe the washingtontimes made that typo...

Nubclear · July 19, 2003, 19:11

Fezzie musters up a pro-war poll and celebrates as he claims victory over the anti-war crowd....When suddenly, the polls credibility disappears

Giancarlo · July 19, 2003, 19:16

Zip it, assadar.

The poll is the first one, and is just a glimmer of the support the US has in Iraq itself, good solid support. Those attacking the US forces are a minority... a rather messed up group of diehard terrorists who speak for nobody but Saddam.

Kuciwalker · July 19, 2003, 19:38

Fez, I'd say the poll is invalid simply because it cannot be collected in an objective way. In a country that is used to having a secret police, I'm sure many people still don't trust the authorities enough to say what they really believe, if it contradicts what the authorities want to hear.

Odin · July 19, 2003, 19:39

All I'm gonna say is f*ck the Islamist state suporters. At leat in Saddam's Iraq women wern't stoned to death if they were outside without a headscarf. an Islamic state would be worse than the Ba'athists when it comes to human rights, Fezzie.

I would be worried that If Iraq becomes islamic the leaders would massacre the Sunni's and become a puppet of Iran. If the Shiites get an Islamic state the US will loose any credibility they had left with Sunni Muslims.

BTW: Al-Qaida is a SUNNI organization, that is why it is bad to tick off the Sunnis, we don't want Osama getting new recruits.

Fez, everything YOU say is illogical.

JCG · July 19, 2003, 19:50

But of course, all this reasonable support may gradually evaporate if the US Army continues to harass innocent people in the middle of the night, to put it lightly (saw an interesting CBS report on the matter today...some sort of torture and largely unexplained arrests/ disappearances are already being discussed)....

Giancarlo · July 19, 2003, 19:54

Hey Odin, screw off then.

I never said I was in support of an Islamic state. In fact that is totally unacceptable. They can have some religious courts, but not the ones like in Nigeria where somebody gets stoned to death for committing adultery.

Odin, you are foolish.

Giancarlo · July 19, 2003, 19:55

Quote:

Originally posted by JCG
But of course, all this reasonable support may gradually evaporate if the US Army continues to harass innocent people in the middle of the night, to put it lightly (saw an interesting CBS report on the matter today...some sort of torture and largely unexplained arrests/ disappearances are already being discussed)....

I think those incidents are rare and sproadic.

Ming · July 19, 2003, 19:55

Some people better chill... or I see restrictions in their future...