Posted on 04/19/2005 6:46:10 AM PDT by Republican Red
Iraqis Thank America
This is a Haider Ajina two-fer. He also sent us these poll results that appeared today in the Iraqi newspaper Almidhar. The results are based on a survey of 778 Baghdad residents:
Do you support the pull out of foreign troops?
At once = 12.56%
According to a future timetable= 81.80%
Do not know = 5.64%
Has the security situation improved since the start of the new government?
Yes = 55%
No = 35%
No change = 10%
Those results are pretty much self-explanatory. Haider adds these comments:
Most of us read, heard and saw the media's report of the April 9th demonstrations in Baghdad. Most of the U.S. media portrayed it as a massive anti American demonstration in the streets of Iraq. I noticed, however, from Iraqi Arabic newspapers that most the demonstrations were against terrorism & calling for Saddam’s trial & hanging (all these signs were in Arabic). I called my father in Baghdad to confirm this and he confirmed it. My father then confirmed that Al-Sadr had asked his followers to demonstrate for the withdrawal of foreign troops, he also said that this group was very small and almost insignificant compared to the rest who were calling for Saddam’s trial & hanging and those against terrorism. My father said the Iraqi media reported the number like this “about 200000 demonstrators of which 8000-10000 were Al-Sadr & Sunni supporters” (strange bed fellows). He also said that when he listened to the Iraqi elected officials (on live T.V.) in the assembly, that every one (including those Sunnis initially opposed to the elections), every man and woman assembly member, reiterated the importance of foreign and specifically U.S. troops staying in Iraq till Iraq is ready to take over its own security. Most of them expressed their thanks for the troops being there and freeing Iraqis from Saddam. This I did not read, hear or see in any U.S. mainstream media outlet. These are the people Iraq elected, asking us to stay and thanking us. The poll shows only 12% want us to leave at once. This makes a complete mockery of the mainstream media coverage of the demonstrations.
Pretty typical media bias. I am not surprised at all. I think this kind of thing goes on all the time. My brother is currently in Iraq and says it is actually pretty safe. Statistically, it's safer than Detroit and the D.C. metro area. But we'll never hear that in the MSM.
No news here. I was against the war from the beginning but even I don't support leaving "at once" (is that even possible?). I do support a timetable as do more than 80 percent of Iraqis. Bush, by the way, opposes a timetable. I notice that virtually nobody in the bill seems to want the U.S. to stay permanently.
The media won't never report that.
Sorry, I meant "will never".
Yes, in Arabic, as any thinking person would expect to see in an Iraqi street demonstration ... unlike the staged demonstrations under Saddam where signs, in English, indicating that a bombed out building was a "Baby Milk Factory" were broadcast worldwide by the MSM.
A neighbor I am acquainted with returned recently from Iraq. A reservist, he spoke at my son's school. He encountered many Iraqis. Most were gracious, kind and happy to have the troops there, excited about democracy and freedom. Some, the minority, were hostile, the leftover Saddamites not wanting to give up their power and creating dangers for everyone, fellow Iraqi and foreign troops alike. He is deeply moved by the experience and by the reality that Iraqis want freedom and are thankful for and gracious to our troops. It was so uplifting to hear his account because we are bombarded with negative press about Iraq.
The reason Bush opposes a timetable is that is gives the terrorists hope: "We just have to wait it out until..." then once we pull out, they will begin their attacks on a relatively "green" Iraqi security force. Bush made this clear in the debates with Kerry-who supports a timetable after he opposed it.
I, like everyone else look forward to the day that we can bring our boys home, but I think realistically, we will have a military presence in Iraq for years to come. Not the massive amount of troops we have now, but more like we do in Europe after WWII up to the present. We're still there with a military presence.
I guess it's somewhat understandable to have opposed the war at the beginning. But how can one oppose it now? Apparently the Iraqis are grateful, they have been freed from tyranny at it's most evil and now have the freedoms we have taken for granted for so long. Who can be opposed to that? Do you think more U.N. sanctions could have brought about this change? More diplomacy? Should we have listened to France and Germany who had their hands so deep in Saddam's pockets that their votes on the security council were bought and paid for for years to come? Why do you think Saddam thumbed his nose at the U.N. for so long? Why do you think he openly violated sanction after sanction?Sometimes, a show of force is necessary, and in the case of the war in Iraq more than justified.
Nor should we stay permanently. But setting a timetable just tells the Baathists how long they have to last in order to try to takeover once we leave. You don't beat a modern insurgency by killing or arresting every member - you beat it by convincing the terrorists that they can't win and (hopefully) giving them a political alternative. If the Baathists become convinced they can't win with a rifle, they'll turn in the non-Iraqi's in their midst to get a pardon, and the insurgency will be over.
And we thank you for posting it
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.