posted on September 10, 2003 01:07:52 PM new
Here's an article I found interesting on a survey taken by Zogby International last month. Shows 'What Iraqi's Really Think'.
We asked them. What they told us us is largely reassuring. We all know journalists have a bad-news bias: 10,000 schools being rehabbed isn't news...one school blowing up is a weeklong feeding frenzie.
Working with Zogby International survey researchers. The American Enterprise magazine has conducted the FIRST scientific poll of the Iraqi public.
1) They're not so resentful of the US after all.
2) Iraqi's are optimistic
3) 7 out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives will be better 5 years from now.
posted on September 10, 2003 01:58:10 PM new7 out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives will be better 5 years from now.
Sure, and why not. Thanks to us they'll have universal health care. The poorest of the poor will be able to attend college. Meanwhile, millions here will go without health care and even more will not be able to afford college. Our liberties and our dollars are being sucked out of us and they're doing the happy dance.
Sept. 10 — Canadian Foreign Minister Bill Graham said on Wednesday conditions in Iraq were deteriorating under U.S. occupation and without reconstruction the country risked sliding into despair.
''If Iraq is allowed to deteriorate as it is at the present and slide into poverty and desperation and violence, it will become an incredible source of terror,'' he told reporters after talks with U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, who is seeking international support for the U.S. presence in Iraq.
''So it is a threat to us all and it is a problem and that is why Canada's committed $300 million to help with reconstruction in Iraq,'' he added.
posted on September 10, 2003 03:34:08 PM new
Cheryl - Thanks to us they'll have universal health care. The poorest of the poor will be able to attend college.
I've not read that. Would you mind sharing with me where you read that? Is the US paying for this or will the money the Iraqi's receiving from their oil sales be paying for these two items?
posted on September 10, 2003 03:43:39 PM new
Helen - That's good that Canada is going to help. This part of what he said is true and imo, applies to all free countries:
"So it is a threat to us all and it is a problem and that is why Canada's committed $300 million to help with reconstruction in Iraq,'' he added."
posted on September 10, 2003 04:00:01 PM new
Sorry....forgot one would need to register to read. The reason I like reading these type of reports is because these people were actually there and then share 'how they saw' what was happening.
Here's a full copy and paste.
We've relied on anecdotal temperature-takings of the Iraqi public, and have been at the mercy of images presented to us by the press. We all know that journalists have a bad-news bias: 10,000 schools being rehabbed isn't news; one school blowing up is a weeklong feeding frenzy. And some of us who have spent time recently in Iraq--I was an embedded reporter during the war--have been puzzled by the postwar news and media imagery, which is much more negative than what many individuals involved in reconstructing Iraq have been telling us.
Well, finally we have some evidence of where the truth may lie. Working with Zogby International survey researchers, The American Enterprise magazine has conducted the first scientific poll of the Iraqi public. Given the state of the country, this was not easy. Security problems delayed our intrepid fieldworkers several times. We labored at careful translations, regional samplings and survey methods to make sure our results would accurately reflect the views of Iraq's multifarious, long-suffering people.
We consulted Eastern European pollsters about the best way to elicit honest answers from those conditioned to repress their true sentiments.
Conducted in August, our survey was necessarily limited in scope, but it reflects a nationally representative sample of Iraqi views, as captured in four disparate cities: Basra (Iraq's second largest, home to 1.7 million people, in the far south), Mosul (third largest, far north), Kirkuk (Kurdish-influenced oil city, fourth largest) and Ramadi (a resistance hotbed in the Sunni triangle).
The results show that the Iraqi public is more sensible, stable and moderate than commonly portrayed, and that Iraq is not so fanatical, or resentful of the U.S., after all.
• Iraqis are optimistic. Seven out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives will be better five years from now. On both fronts, 32% say things will become much better.
• The toughest part of reconstructing their nation, Iraqis say by 3 to 1, will be politics, not economics. They are nervous about democracy. Asked which is closer to their own view--"Democracy can work well in Iraq," or "Democracy is a Western way of doing things"--five out of 10 said democracy is Western and won't work in Iraq. One in 10 wasn't sure. And four out of 10 said democracy can work in Iraq. There were interesting divergences. Sunnis were negative on democracy by more than 2 to 1; but, critically, the majority Shiites were as likely to say democracy would work for Iraqis as not.
People age 18-29 are much more rosy about democracy than other Iraqis, and women are significantly more positive than men. •
Asked to name one country they would most like Iraq to model its new government on from five possibilities--neighboring, Baathist Syria; neighbor and Islamic monarchy Saudi Arabia; neighbor and Islamist republic Iran; Arab lodestar Egypt; or the U.S.--the most popular model by far was the U.S. The U.S. was preferred as a model by 37% of Iraqis selecting from those five--more than Syria, Iran and Egypt put together. Saudi Arabia was in second place at 28%.
Again, there were important demographic splits. Younger adults are especially favorable toward the U.S., and Shiites are more admiring than Sunnis. Interestingly, Iraqi Shiites, coreligionists with Iranians, do not admire Iran's Islamist government; the U.S. is six times as popular with them as a model for governance.
• Our interviewers inquired whether Iraq should have an Islamic government, or instead let all people practice their own religion. Only 33% want an Islamic government; a solid 60% say no. A vital detail: Shiites (whom Western reporters frequently portray as self-flagellating maniacs) are least receptive to the idea of an Islamic government, saying no by 66% to 27%. It is only among the minority Sunnis that there is interest in a religious state, and they are split evenly on the question.
• Perhaps the strongest indication that an Islamic government won't be part of Iraq's future: The nation is thoroughly secularized. We asked how often our respondents had attended the Friday prayer over the previous month. Fully 43% said "never." It's time to scratch "Khomeini II" from the list of morbid fears.
• You can also cross out "Osama II": 57% of Iraqis with an opinion have an unfavorable view of Osama bin Laden, with 41% of those saying it is a very unfavorable view. (Women are especially down on him.) Except in the Sunni triangle (where the limited support that exists for bin Laden is heavily concentrated), negative views of the al Qaeda supremo are actually quite lopsided in all parts of the country. And those opinions were collected before Iraqi police announced it was al Qaeda members who killed worshipers with a truck bomb in Najaf.
• And you can write off the possibility of a Baath revival. We asked "Should Baath Party leaders who committed crimes in the past be punished, or should past actions be put behind us?" A thoroughly unforgiving Iraqi public stated by 74% to 18% that Saddam's henchmen should be punished. This new evidence on Iraqi opinion suggests the country is manageable. If the small number of militants conducting sabotage and murder inside the country can gradually be eliminated by American troops (this is already happening), then the mass of citizens living along the Tigris-Euphrates Valley are likely to make reasonably sensible use of their new freedom. "We will not forget it was the U.S. soldiers who liberated us from Saddam," said Abid Ali, an auto repair shop owner in Sadr City last month--and our research shows that he's not unrepresentative.
None of this is to suggest that the task ahead will be simple. Inchoate anxiety toward the U.S. showed up when we asked Iraqis if they thought the U.S. would help or hurt Iraq over a five-year period. By 50% to 36% they chose hurt over help. This is fairly understandable; Iraqis have just lived through a war in which Americans were (necessarily) flinging most of the ammunition. These experiences may explain why women (who are more antimilitary in all cultures) show up in our data as especially wary of the U.S. right now. War is never pleasant, though U.S. forces made heroic efforts to spare innocents in this one, as I illustrate with firsthand examples in my book about the battles.
Evidence of the comparative gentleness of this war can be seen in our poll. Less than 30% of our sample of Iraqis knew or heard of anyone killed in the spring fighting.
Meanwhile, fully half knew some family member, neighbor or friend who had been killed by Iraqi security forces during the years Saddam held power. Perhaps the ultimate indication of how comfortable Iraqis are with America's aims in their region came when we asked how long they would like to see American and British forces remain in their country: Six months? One year? Two years or more? Two thirds of those with an opinion urged that the coalition troops should stick around for at least another year.
We're making headway in a benighted part of the world. Hang in there, America.
credit for the article to:
Mr. Zinsmeister, editor & chief of The American Enterprise magazine and holder ofthe J.B. Fuguer Chair at the A.E. Institute is the author of "Boots on the Ground: A Month with the 82nd Airborne in the Battle for Iraq," just out from St. Martin's Press
Canadian Foreign Minister Bill Graham said on Wednesday conditions in Iraq were deteriorating under U.S. occupation and without reconstruction the country risked sliding into despair.
posted on September 10, 2003 04:03:39 PM new
I believe that's because most of those countries that do provide the government health care are socialists countries Helen. Are they not?
And that doesn't answer my question I put to Cheryl or anyone who can answer. I honestly have never read anywhere that the US is going to provide health care and college to them at our expense. I'm just interested to know where she read that.
Because of sanctions, the situation before the war was horrific. Now, they will need a lot of help.
The situation is not as rosy as you describe, Linda. Over 6,000 mothers, fathers and children have been killed.
Sanctions hurting health care in Iraq
Last Updated Wed Mar 3 08:22:40 1999
BAGHDAD - Ten years ago, Iraq had one of the best health care systems in the Middle East. Now, that system is in ruins because of UN sanctions.
More than 60,000 of those who have died are children according to the UN and other independent agencies. Poor nutrition and disease are not the only factors contributing to the deaths. Dr. Ra'd Aljandi, one of Baghdad's leading pediatricians, also blames shortages of drugs and equipment, necessities that are less available due to sanctions.
"The death rate has been increasing for the last eight years," Aljandi says. "I am the chief resident and I will say for sure if this situation is not improved, about the availability of drugs and instruments and other materials, the death rate will continue increasing day by day."
There's wide agreement sanctions have contributed to outbreaks of cholera, typhoid and malaria. Part of the problem is that aid that does get into the country doesn't go where it's needed. There are serious allegations that Iraq diverts or blocks supplies, hoping prolonged suffering will weaken the UN reserve.
On some occasions the UN itself is responsible for tied-up aid. International inspectors confirm hundreds of drugs requested by Iraq have been blocked by UN committees. Some orders have been delayed for up to two years.
Angry aid directors say this has to stop and that the West must realize it is breaking the UN's own standards like the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Chris Saunders of Save the Children in London says "The convention states very clearly in its articles that children should be protected."
"The countries that have ratified (the convention) should take cognizance of the fact that these comprehensive sanctions are harming children in a very significant way," Saunders says.
The UN Security Council will launch a major re-examination of sanctions by mid-April, thanks in part to insistence from Canada.
Under the current program, Oil for Food, Iraq is allowed to export up to $6 billion of oil every half year. But its war-battered production plant can handle barely half that. Attacks this past weekend knocked out Iraq's only working oil pipeline. Jets destroyed a pumping station needed to keep the oil flowing to Turkey.
The oil that Iraq does manage to sell goes for low prices and the country is getting poorer.
Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy says sanctions should be targeted better so the weakest and most innocent are not the ones hardest hit.
Iraq's deputy prime minister doesn't trust Canada's attempt at reform. Tariq Azziz says "the Canadian initiative is a delaying tactic rather than a solution or a substative process."
"The Americans have not given up their main objective, they will veto it. The will use their power, their influence, to intimidate other members of the Security Council this way or another to keep the situation as it is," Azziz says.
Canada's stance remains that any policy must ensure that people are not suffering unnecessarily. A growing number of countries are saying that, after nearly a decade of sanctions, this human question can no longer be dodged.
posted on September 10, 2003 04:16:22 PM new
::sanctions::
Oh yes sanctions. You never agreed with those did you? They were to try to force Saddam to go along with what the UN agreement said. Didn't work very well as I've read he had a pipeline going into Syria [illegal according to the UN agreement] to make money to build his palaces. NOT to give to nor for the benefit of his people Helen. The much needed health care wasn't even given to them when other countries donation it. The soldiers originally found it just lying around....unused.
Now, they will need a lot of help. We finally found one thing we agree on. And if all the countries chip in they'll get that help. I'm just hoping that President Bush will NOT hand over control to the UN as France and Germany are insisting he do.
The situation is not as rosy as you describe. I didn't describe it helen. The three or four posts I've made have been reports by people there....in Iraq. Not MY description at all.
We always talk about how biased the press is....and I believe most press is written by liberals. So when I have a chance to read first hand the statements by those who WERE there...I enjoy sharing them. Gives some balance to the issue.
posted on September 10, 2003 04:29:38 PM new
It just boggles my mind when you insist that the situation in a war zone, where Americans are killed and wounded daily is just fine.
Why is it Linda that you have very little concern for the poor people in your own country but you are gung ho to provide the people of Iraq with billions. In rejecting help from the U.N. you are indirectly expecting even more funds from Americans. You are expecting Americans to go without health care and good schools and other services while we take care of a poor country that George Bush has bombed all to hell.
posted on September 10, 2003 04:54:54 PM new
That was good helen. You've once again managed to say I've said things I haven't said. You do your party good by 'twisting' so well.
It just boggles my mind when you insist that the situation in a war zone, where Americans are killed and wounded daily is just fine.
I have NEVER said nor posted that. I've said they're better than what the liberal press releases about what's going on over there. I've said it isn't as bad as some work to make it appear.
And soldiers being killed is a sad, but expected part of any war. Didn't you read what clinton said on this subject in his 12-16-98 speech?
Why is it Linda that you have very little concern for the poor people in your own country but you are gung ho to provide the people of Iraq with billions.
Gee helen, I think on each of those issues I've made myself more than clear, over and over and over. What part don't you get? One more time, just for you. I DO support giving people a 'hand up'...not a lifetime of taxpayer support. When you take care of people for long, extended periods of their life, it doesn't help them...it makes them dependent on government. That's not healthy to me.
And on Iraq I think that part of the world has needed some stability for most of my lifetime. Glad we finally have a President that's been willing to at least give it a chance. They Iraqi people will be more rich that we can ever imagine when things settle down and they can have a life like those in Saudi Arabia do from their oil wealth.
In rejecting help from the U.N. you are indirectly expecting even more funds from Americans. You are expecting Americans to go without health care and good schools and other services while we take care of a poor country that George Bush has bombed all to hell.
No it's not. The countries in the UN will either decide to help, because as Canada said, it's in their best interests to do so...or they will choose not to and then American will pay for what is needed. I've never cared for, and would never support American troops being under the command of the UN rather than the US. I also don't like people [or countries like France and Germany] who make threats to us.
::go without health care:: They won't be going without what they didn't have already. We don't have, and I hope we never will, socialized medicine.
::And the schools:: Our country has been POURING millions of dollars into education for a VERY long time. Hasn't helped raise the test scores, hasn't helped to improve much at all. VOUCHERS are what's needed. Then you will see real competition between the schools to educate our children.
::bombed all to hell:: Helen, you obviously haven't read about how saddam hadn't 'modernized' Iraq...except for his few true supporters. Google and see that their water systems, electrical systems were old and in shambles long before Bush ever started the bombing. And he, as with clinton did work to strike at the complexes that weren't related to the everyday needs of the Iraqi people. Some damage was caused by our bombs, just like they were when clinton bomb them. That's Saddams fault...he could have prevented this whole war. He chose not to.
posted on September 10, 2003 05:03:39 PM new
LindaK
There was a link posted a while ago that talked about Bush's plans for universal healthcare in Iraq and about education for Iraqi's. I no longer have that link. Maybe someone here will remember it.
posted on September 10, 2003 05:17:04 PM new
Cheryl - I hope someone can. I wouldn't be surprised to read the Iraqi people wanted that to be a part of their government. I would, however, be very surprised if US citizens were going to be paying for it. That was really the clarification I was seeking.
-----
Oh Helen....now you know exactly how I feel when I read all the posts from those on the far extreme left. What I think when I read the posts of those who enjo all the benefits of living in this GREAT country siding with statements and issues from other governments. It works both ways...always has...won't ever be any different.
posted on September 10, 2003 05:21:23 PM new
In searching for the healthcare link, I came across this. I don't know if this has been posted before but though it interesting:
There are signs that politicians are finally starting to pay attention to the crisis. At every stop the nine Democratic 2004 presidential hopefuls make, they stump on health care. So far, three of the top-tier candidates have released their own universal or near-universal insurance plans.
And President Bush has done the same. The only problem? It's for Iraq. Part of the $74.7 billion initial allocation for the war in, and reconstruction of, Iraq contains a provision for "rapid, universal health service delivery to the Iraqi population," according to the Washington Post. For Americans, Bush has offered slightly less visionary proposals for medical savings accounts and market-based Band-Aids.
posted on September 10, 2003 05:27:40 PM new
Thanks for the links, Cheryl - That I'm aware of President Bush hasn't given an accounting to Congress for what each $$ item is to be used for. I would be very surprised if it was to set up a socialized medicine, especially at OUR expense. I find it VERY hard to believe. Maybe another twisting of the words again, from some Bush hater?
BUT I would not support that in any way, shape or form, should than end up being the case.
posted on September 10, 2003 05:46:17 PM new
cheryl - Don't waste your time, play here. If the US is paying for this I have no doubt someone's going to bring it up again when the line item costs are made public. I have NO doubt about that.
KEY WEST, Fla. – With Washington fixated on the looming war between the departments of State and Defense, almost no one has noticed an even stranger development within the Bush administration – its sudden, and apparently wholehearted, embrace of socialism.
Echoing sentiments expressed in an earlier era by Eugene V. Debs and Woody Guthrie, Colin Powell declared recently, "Iraq's oil belongs to the Iraqi people." There's been no comment yet from Exxon Mobil on the possible application of this principle to the homeland, but Powell's words seemed sincere – unlike those other feel-good phrases the right is always tossing off, like "compassionate conservatism" and "free elections."
In addition to spreading the oil wealth around, the Bush administration has committed itself to generous public services – though only, so far, in Iraq. Schools will be repaired, damaged infrastructure rebuilt and education made available even to the poorest. There will be quality health care for all. Imagine: A universal health program, of the kind that has eluded Americans for at least half a century, will be created with a snap of the imperial fingers in Iraq.
posted on September 10, 2003 06:04:11 PM new
Thank you, Helen! I knew it was somewhere but this worn out brain of mine just could not remember! Now I will relax. It's like having something on the tip of your tonque. Until you can remember, you go nuts.
posted on September 10, 2003 06:31:59 PM new
I do not accept the words of someone [Barbara Ehrenreich] who's political beliefs are MUCH further left than socialism...close to communism, imo... 'take' on what was said. I'd believe a quote from the President though.
The way she words her article, it could be taken [and I take it this way] that this administration believes all Iraqi's should have medical care available, just like we have here in the US. That is not socialized medicine, but rather medical care for the poor.
And on the school issue. I'd believe that Bush supports having schools available in Iraq, just like we do here. Again, Barbara giving her 'take' on what Bush means is like Helen rewording what I say. Never *quite* the same thing.
So....if and when it can be shown as a quote from our President OR when we hear how our $$ are going to be spent there, proving this point....then I will believe it. Until then...it's just another democrat taking something said and adding their own twist to it.
Like you guys really believe it when Barbara says the President is leaning left. Now THAT'S a GREAT joke.
And if all the countries chip in they'll get that help. I'm just hoping that President Bush will NOT hand over control to the UN as France and Germany are insisting he do.
