Article

2004-06-29 Iraq-Jordan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Zenster 2004-06-29 2:13:25 AM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 A BS poll. There is no indication of how many other alternative were available, how each of the other alternatives were ranked by percentage. Plus, the results are completely confounding with obvious contradictions that would require a professional pollster to resolve.

Posted by Capt America 2004-06-29 2:24:20 AM|| [http://captamerica.blogspot.com/] 2004-06-29 2:24:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 An the other 50% demand that all Iraqis be immediately subjugated and tortured.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-06-29 3:22:18 AM|| 2004-06-29 3:22:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 They really don't get it, do they?

Posted by The Doctor 2004-06-29 8:52:41 AM|| 2004-06-29 8:52:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 From the silly Dudley Moore movie, Crazy People, "And how many want to be a Fire Engine?"

(100% raise their hands...)

I love polls taken in non-logical cultures. They're so, um, faith-based.

Posted by .com 2004-06-29 8:57:21 AM|| 2004-06-29 8:57:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Oxford Research International is a left-wing think tank, which means that they probably dig deep to get the viewpoints they want to get. The survey was probably conducted in the Sunni triangle by Baathist stringers who used to work for Saddam.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-06-29 9:42:38 AM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-06-29 9:42:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 a few months ago most thought the invasion was a good thing. Cause, like, security and reconstruction seemed to be making progress. After two months of insurgency, its like, shit man, we're still really unsafe, reconstruction has slowed to a crawl, and its hard to see how we GET TO democracy. If things improve in the next few months, theyll decide again that the invasion was a good idea. These are people living from crisis to crisis - they judge actions by their IMMEDIATELY visible fruits. Theyre not crazy. They dont have the leisure to take the long view.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-29 9:53:59 AM|| 2004-06-29 9:53:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Or, they expected to be handed civilization on a golden platter and, realizing they have to work for it, are willing to go back to a thugocracy because it was easier.

Admittedly, that's the uncharitable view.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-06-29 10:17:05 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-06-29 10:17:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Interesting phrasing to some of these questions: "Do you prefer breathing to drinking water?" 50% of respondents are opposed to water.
"Do you have confidence in the weather?" 70% of respondents think the weather should be "nicer."
"Are you in favor of being conquered in a war?" Over 90% of respondents would prefer not being conquered in a war.

From this we may conclude that while Iraqis don't like to drink water, they want the UN to provide it, and the want the US to leave immediately.

Posted by Anonymoose 2004-06-29 10:29:04 AM|| 2004-06-29 10:29:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Now how did you come to the conclusion that they want the UN to provide it? I question these poll results! Unfair bias!

Posted by The Doctor 2004-06-29 10:39:52 AM|| 2004-06-29 10:39:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Or, they expected to be handed civilization on a golden platter

cause like man, the americans in the movies can like, do anything, theyre rich, the streets are paved with gold ......

This may have been stupid, but its not particularly unique to Islam. Sadder but wiser, theyll move ahead.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-29 10:59:54 AM|| 2004-06-29 10:59:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 a few months ago most thought the invasion was a good thing
Cite the article that demonstarted that attitude, #6. What I remember from a few months ago was that the poll showed that the Kurds were overwhelmingly positivie about the invasion and the Sunnis & Shiites were their usual dog in the manger selves. In fact someone on this board remarked that the Kurds should be given honorary American citizenship so they could vote in our November election. If truth be told, the rose colored glasses about "liberation" fell off the noses of the Sunnis and Shiites approximately 3-6 months after the invasion. I agree with #7. The Sunnis and Shiites are accustomed to someone, be it Uncle Saddam or America, to provide for them and when it's not, they are p*ss*d.

Sadder but wiser, theyll move ahead.
And your confidence is based on what historical events that show Islamic dominating countries "moving ahead." I'm invariably put down for my doubting that Iraqis, apart from the Kurds, value or will learn to value democracy.

But the optimists never have any arguments to support their view that Iraqis will just kick up their heels and love democracy. Their only defense is the airy fairy sentiment about all men innately want to be free, which is not fact. So tell me LH, what makes you believe that Iraqis will move ahead and become a functioning democracy?

Posted by rex 2004-06-29 12:44:08 PM|| 2004-06-29 12:44:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 What these sad sacks need is someone to teach them the benefits of the PWE and teach them also the 6 Pee way.

Posted by Ollie Cromwell 2004-06-29 12:54:09 PM|| 2004-06-29 12:54:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 And your confidence is based on what historical events that show Islamic dominating countries "moving ahead." I'm invariably put down for my doubting that Iraqis, apart from the Kurds, value or will learn to value democracy

1. There are no historical precedents for the US taking action like this. But if you want examples of muslim countries moving ahead to democracy, I would cite Turkey and Indonesia at the forefront, and Algeria, Mali,and Albania moving up. But what mainly accounts for my comments is not historical precedent but what I have seen Iraqis doing and saying in the last 14 months.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-29 12:59:47 PM|| 2004-06-29 12:59:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 How many wish Saddam was back in power?

Posted by Mark Espinola 2004-06-29 2:23:18 PM|| 2004-06-29 2:23:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Their actions in the next three weeks will determine how well they do. Let's wait and see what happens.

Posted by Ptah 2004-06-29 2:43:16 PM|| [http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2004-06-29 2:43:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 #14 How many wish Saddam was back in power?

Bingo, Mark. This question should be mandatory as part of a baseline plot on all polls performed in Iraq.

If more than 50% answered "yes" to that it would show the world just how screwed up their heads really are. Something else that concerns me is how we need to establish some way of distinguishing between greenhorn Iraqi government snafus and the incipient incompetence of any UN morons who will be arriving on the scene.

It may be rather difficult to discern Iraq's unfamiliar gropings from the UN's routine inability to function.

Posted by Zenster 2004-06-29 2:51:16 PM|| 2004-06-29 2:51:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 examples of muslim countries moving ahead to democracy, I would cite Turkey and Indonesia at the forefront, and Algeria, Mali,and Albania moving up
Turkey only recently allowed a significant minority group,the disenfranchised Kurds, to be able to read and speak their own language and that was a politically motivated "freedom" given in response to Turkey sucking up to the EU. The current leader of Turkey, a former Islamic "supremisist" to put it politely is kept in power at the wishes of the military. Under the facade of the happy face democracy label, Turkey's democratically elected government has the strong fist of the military behind it keeping order.

As for Indonesia, good one, LH...democracy? belief that all people should have equal rights?...err, well except Jews, that is ...in case you missed the story from October 25 or so, 2003, the "audience to whom Mahathir spoke -- the presidents, kings, and emirs of the nations that make up the Organization of the Islamic Conference -- rewarded him with a standing ovation! The applauders included not only the Muslim world's dictatorial fanatics; but also its reputed moderates, including President Megawati Sukarnoputri of Indonesia, General Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan and Jordan's King Abdullah..."

As for Algeria, puhleaze, a military run country no democracy. Just check Info Please Almanac[unless it's overly biased and pessimestic]:
Abdel-Aziz Bouteflika's ascension to the presidency in April 1999 was initially expected to bring peace and some economic improvement to this desperate war-torn country. Bouteflika, however, has been locked in power struggles with the military, whose support is crucial. Despite the appearance of democracy, Algeria remains in essence a military dictatorship. Bouteflika's plan of national reconciliation, which included an amnesty for Islamic militants not convicted of murder or rape, has done little to heal wounds. In 2001 violence by Islamic militants was again on the rise, and the long-disaffected Berber minority engaged in several large-scale protests. The Berber-speaking region of Kabylia and other regions continued large protests against the government in 2002...In April 2004 presidential elections, incumbent Abdelaziz Bouteflika won 85% of the vote. He stated that his second term would be devoted to solving the three-year-old crisis in the Berber region of Kabylia, to freeing women from restrictive family codes...

Mali-what's that? where is it?

Albania:from the CIA Factbook
Between 1990 and 1992 Albania ended 46 years of xenophobic Communist rule and established a multiparty democracy. The transition has proven difficult as corrupt governments have tried to deal with high unemployment, a dilapidated infrastructure, widespread gangsterism, and disruptive political opponents. International observers judged legislative elections in 2001 to be acceptable and a step toward democratic development, but identified serious deficiencies that should be addressed through reforms in the Albanian electoral code.
This is an up and coming democracy? The current leader of Albania is a former military general. And were it not for the US seeding $358.62 million from 1991 and 2003 this "up and coming" democracy would have flopped big time.

my comments is not historical precedent but what I have seen Iraqis doing and saying in the last 14 months
Correction...the only Iraqis who have got off their butts and done something for themselves and who have not harbored terrorists in their midst have been the Iraqi KURDS. Nice try, no sale, LH. Back to the drawing board. Not all cultures can value democracy or embrace it when it's handed to them. I predict the Shiite Iraqis will openly be holding hands with Iran after the January elections. The Kurds if they are smart should ask the Israeli engineers to give them a bid on building a very tall fence starting January/05. The Sunnis-who cares about them-likely they will move closer to hugging their soul mates in Syria. I'll eat my hat if democracy flourishes in Iraq.

Posted by rex 2004-06-29 2:58:07 PM|| 2004-06-29 2:58:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 How many wish Saddam was back in power?
If Uncle Saddam had not invaded Kuwait and then invited our wrath, which transformed him into an anti-West nutball can any of us say honestly that he would need to be removed? If Saddam had stayed the same as the Saudi Princes,ie. not openly anti-American, do any of you believe any President including GWB would have involved the US in a War of Iraqi Liberation? I seriously doubt it. I wouldn't if I were President.

I suspect we may end up having to install-through democratic elections of course-another Saddam-like iron fist to keep order in Iraq in the future.

Posted by rex 2004-06-29 3:08:55 PM|| 2004-06-29 3:08:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 because Sukarnoputri applauded Mahathirs speech, that proves Indonesia isnt a democracy?

Albania - yup, making progress, exactly.

And Algeria is too.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-29 3:11:34 PM|| 2004-06-29 3:11:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Algeriaâs most recent presidential election took place on April 8, 2004. For the first time since independence, the presidential race was democratically contested through to the end. Besides incumbent President Bouteflika, five other candidates competed in the election. Opposition candidates complained of some irregularities on polling day, particularly in the Kabylie, and of unfair media coverage during the campaign as Bouteflika, by virtue of his office, appeared on state-owned television daily. Bouteflika was re-elected in the first round of the election with 84.99% of the vote. Just over 58% of those Algerians eligible to vote participated in the election.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-29 3:20:35 PM|| 2004-06-29 3:20:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Mali (in west Africa)

In 1997, attempts to renew national institutions through democratic elections ran into administrative difficulties, resulting in a court-ordered annulment of the legislative elections held in April 1997. The exercise, nonetheless, demonstrated the overwhelming strength of President Konare's ADEMA Party, causing some other historic parties to boycott subsequent elections. President Konare won the presidential election against scant opposition on May 11. In the two-round legislative elections conducted on July 21 and August 3, 1997, ADEMA secured more than 80% of the National Assembly seats.

General elections were organized in June and July 2002. President Konare did not seek reelection since he was serving his second and last term as required by the constitution. All political parties participated in the elections. In preparation for the elections, the government completed a new voter's list after a general census was administered a few months earlier with the support of all political parties. Retired General Amadou Toumani Toure, former head of state during Mali's transition (1991-92) became the country's second democratically elected President as an independent candidate. President Toure was inaugurated on June 8, 2002.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-29 3:22:23 PM|| 2004-06-29 3:22:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 You are a dreamer, LH, and you also put a spin on reality.

Algeria is not a functioning democracy. The holding of elections does not a democracy make. Remember just 3 years ago Uncle Saddam held elections and he had wonderful voter turn out as well. I had no idea where Mali was located until you told me. I suspect most college graduates would not know either. In other words, it's not a mover or shaker in the world, that's for sure. And you don't quote how much tax $ it's taking from my pocket and yours to help Mali maintain its "democratic" government.

There are 191 countries in the UN. The vast majority are not functioning democracies[elections aside]. And the majority of non functioning UN democracies have Muslim leadership and majority populations. Odd coincidence.

Posted by rex 2004-06-29 3:37:58 PM|| 2004-06-29 3:37:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Besides incumbent President Bouteflika, five other candidates competed in the election.

can you name the candidates who ran against Saddam?

Look, Algeria aint Sweden, as they say, but its making progress. As for movers and shakers, Indonesia is the largest muslim country by far. Much more important than some countries often mentioned here.

No coincidence? I agree with you. I didnt say Islam doesnt have major problems - I agree with Bernard Lewis that its a civilization that has had difficulty adjusting to modernity since 1690 or so. But there ARE plenty of muslims who do want democracy. And particularly in Iraq.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-29 4:02:07 PM|| 2004-06-29 4:02:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 As for my quote about Indonesia's PM giving a standing ovation to a fellow Muslimspouting anti-semetic garbage that America was fighting the war in Iraq as a "proxy" for Israel, I think that is very telling, don't you? Our own President scolded the Malaysian PM, but Indonesia's high profile leader applauded the remarks. A political leader represents the electorate for better or worse, and Indonesia was negatively represented. A country who elected someone who agrees with such disgusting comments is not a stellar example of a "democracy", IMO. Furthermore, a popular military general, who is tainted with allegations of human rights violations in East Timor for one thing and corruption too, is the leading contender in Indonesia's upcoming elections. Is that a good sign for a democracy? Here's a recent article about Indonesia:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/indonesia/Story/0,2763,1184998,00.html"The forces of darkness are ready, waiting in the wings" April 03, 2004.
Alas, it's the Guardian, and no one believes anything in the Guardian because it only prints lies...however, sometimes there is truth...
...In its 53-year history of independence, Indonesia has only voted in free elections twice...Indonesia was borne on a wave of optimism following his fall. For three years, a massive movement of reform - "reformasi" - swept away many of the worst features of Suharto's rule. 1999 saw the first free elections since 1955....Indonesia is caught betwixt and between, half-reformed and half-unreformed. Part of the old regime has been dismantled, but the bulk of it remains intact and extremely influential. The military is hugely powerful, even though its wings have been clipped. The judiciary is riddled with corruption. Suharto is still a free man and, from behind the scenes, is using his vast wealth to pull strings. There is growing nostalgia, especially on Java, for the Suharto era of growth and stability. The threat of an authoritarian backlash and the return of the old regime lurk just beneath the surface...The problems of the new democracy are compounded by the fact that Indonesia is the only country in the region not to have recovered from the Asian crisis...The military, meanwhile, is beginning to regain some of its previous confidence. The greatest problem facing Indonesia is not its Islamic character, but how to govern such extraordinary diversity. The Suharto style was to unleash the army in an effort to destroy any opposition. East Timor may be the best-known case, but there are countless other examples of violent suppression across the islands. The underlying source of the military's power has been, and remains, its ability to pose as the saviour of the nation, the only force that can hold it together. ...In her handling of the movement for an independent Aceh, Megawati has shown no sign of breaking from this practice. On the contrary, she has given the military its head in the province. Until the Javanese elite, who effectively run the country, finds another, more consensual way of governing Indonesia, then force will always lie at the heart of government. It is this which poses the continuing danger to democracy, and which ultimately could lead to a more serious fragmentation of the country. The balance of Indonesian history - before and after independence - is overwhelmingly weighted in favour of the mailed fist rather than the velvet glove. This year's elections are testimony to the strength and courage of reformasi - but Indonesian democracy still hangs by a thin thread. The forces of darkness are waiting in the wings.

Posted by rex 2004-06-29 4:08:54 PM|| 2004-06-29 4:08:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 democracies are gonna vote for people we dont like or agree with. Yup.

And yes, on this the Guardian has an agenda. They dont like the military, cause it was right wing and pro-US. And anti-Islamist btw. So to them a candidate who hearkens back to the military era is "the forces of darkness".

Not surprising that Al-guardian only approves of elections in which people they like win.

But youve got it made all around - if the Islamists win, well that proves you letem vote, they vote for Islamists. Sukarnoputri wins, well theyve elected her of the evil handclapping. Not that she SAID what Muthahir said, but dammit she applauded. And if the rightist wins, well youve got your pals at the Guardian to tell you that its the forces of darkness.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-29 4:22:01 PM|| 2004-06-29 4:22:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 What strange interpretation are you super- imposing on my rebuttals to you, LH?

Look, I'm the one who said a couple of posts ago that Muslims are unable to embrace or enjoy democracy and that a strong fisted dictator is the only kind of government that can keep Muslim populations from falling under the spell of religious extremists. I used the Guardian article to debunk your Kumbaya schtick about Indonesia being a moderately successful democracy. The Guardian may think military rule is bad, but I don't and in fact, I think it's often necessary in countries with significant Muslim populations.

Turkey, Albania, Algeria - they are all still afloat, and barely, because of the iron fist of the military keeping the regular folks in line and out of jihadic mischief.

It's you who thinks everyone, regardless of the culture and their religion, will flourish if they have access to democracy. I'm merely pointing out to you the fallacy of those idealist dreams. I think eventually Iraq will need a strong fisted Iraqi military leader or a leader backed by the Iraqi military to keep Iraq intact - kind of a benign Uncle Saddam, if you will. I think elections will merely be a facade.

Posted by rex 2004-06-29 4:40:24 PM|| 2004-06-29 4:40:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Fine, ridicule to your heart's content the symbolic significance of the Indonesian PM applauding the Malaysian leader's anti-semetic words...have your laugh...but I think your bleeding heart tolerant forgiving self better get some reality glasses on and start understanding that there is a growing Muslim population in the world and leaders applauding anti-semetic words may not be such a wonderful "free thinking, democratic" thingie...

Posted by rex 2004-06-29 4:49:13 PM|| 2004-06-29 4:49:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 But you, like al Guardian, seem to think that electing a right wing candidate with ties to the military = military rule.

And in Egypt and elsewhere strong fisted dictators have dismally failed to keep muslims from the spell of islamist extremists. Indeed the strength of Islamism in Iraq is itself a legacy of Saddam, who prevented the rise of civil society.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-29 4:49:29 PM|| 2004-06-29 4:49:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 the strength of Islamism in Iraq is itself a legacy of Saddam, who prevented the rise of civil society.
Saddam was a secular albeit cruel ruler. Up until recent times when Saddam saw the propaganda value of taking on some "religious" ruler trappings, he could care two hoots about religion. Duh.

That's why he repressed Shiites with such "vigor." Saddam saw that practising Shiite Muslims could be dangerous to his rule and his health and Swiss bank account. I remember reading in Macleans magazine that Christians in Baghdad, interviewed after Saddam's fall, felt safer under Saddam's rule than they are now because they fell below his anti-Islamic radar. As for the Kurds, Saddam hated them for being Kurds like many Sunni dominated countries do - Turkey and Syria come to mind. Also, the Kurds were sitting too close to oilfield territory that Saddam wanted developed for future personal "investments."

As for civil society, Iraq had colleges, schools, hospitals, a judicial branch[albeit corrupt]-aren't those indicators of a civil society. As long as you didn't try to practise Shiite, Jewish, Catholic religion and you were not a Kurd, everything was happy under Uncle Saddam.

Posted by rex 2004-06-29 5:08:42 PM|| 2004-06-29 5:08:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 schools, hospitals etc indicate a civil society - no, theyre an indication the place is developed is all. Civil society means institutions not under the control of the state - in Iraq, as under Communism, the schools, hospitals, etc WERE under control of the state. The only institutions with some degree of independence were the Mosques (though some more than others) - which is why the only "internals" with full credibility were the clerics.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-29 5:24:20 PM|| 2004-06-29 5:24:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 Saddam was a secular albeit cruel ruler.

What a splendidly massive understatement.

As long as you didn't try to practise Shiite, Jewish, Catholic religion and you were not a Kurd, everything was happy under Uncle Saddam

You left out "...or become a moderately competent combat leader, run an independent newspaper, engage in currency exchange, have a beautiful daughter or wife that caught Uday or Kusay's eye, or annoy Saddam, his sons, or any other senior member of the Baath Party..."

Posted by Pappy 2004-06-29 9:52:32 PM|| 2004-06-29 9:52:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 #23 But there ARE plenty of muslims who do want democracy. And particularly in Iraq.

And I say they don't want democracy enough, Liberalhawk. It is quite apparent to all what democracy entails compared with dictatorship. The entire (and quite disgusting) "hands-off" stance taken over Muqtada al Sadr should be adequate proof of just how generous American military and democratic processes continue to be. Iraqis d@mn well know the difference between Saddam's treachery and the relative freedoms they now enjoy after being liberated. No rocket science is involved. They have television and cellular phones, so communication is not a problem.

While I do feel a bit more gratitude should be shown, neither side should contemplate the other having to bow and scrape. And this is the matter's heart. Even if Iraq's government and people have the wisdom to see how resisting America is futile, there may be far too many who still envision making the Jews bow and scrape. It is that Fundamentalist core of Islamic Anti-Semitism which forms the nucleus of Militant Jihad.

I equate Militant Jihad with flat-out Nazism and global cultural genocide. Is anyone here at Rantburg willing to argue that basic comparison? Both are death-cult promoters of genocide that vary only in scale. I'll take the liberty of assuming this is the same diseased meme that .com fired at in his opening salvo.

I can only concur with much of the programmed insanity model being mentioned here. Psychopathic hatred, bigotry, theocracy and many other ~~vampiristic~~ parasitic elitist doctrines, be they held by the KKK, Nazis, Stalinists, Maoists or Islamists all represent the same irrational worldview that civilized people are obligated to defend against and overthrow whenever possible. No exceptions made or expected from others. And therein lies the rub. So many other allies and enemies alike indulge the continued existence of such hostile entities (or memes) and yet we Americans simply cannot do so any longer because our very survival hinges upon it. This being due solely to the United States' preeminent role as combined military superpower and pinnacle of secularism.

[Steve Martin]

Weeelllllllll Exxxxccuuuuuuuussssseeeeeee meeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!

[/SM]

Posted by Zenster 2004-06-29 10:25:02 PM|| 2004-06-29 10:25:02 PM|| Front Page Top

01:16 Anonymous5539
11:36 jules 187
11:10 ConservativeView
12:43 The Doctor
09:22 Anon1
09:15 Anon1
09:05 Anon1
08:58 Anon1
03:09 Super Hose
01:16 Anonymous4617
01:08 Rafael
01:05 Rafael
00:54 Aris Katsaris
00:40 Rafael
00:26 Rafael
00:04 Fred
00:00 Frank G
23:47 joy
23:41 Frank G
23:40 Frank G
23:32 Pappy
23:27 OldSpook
23:27 Aris Katsaris
23:15 OldSpook