THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

ican711nm wrote:

revel wrote:

The point is that if they wanted the US to stay until their government can protect themselves without help they would have said so instead of saying they want US forces to leave.

No, they would not have said so unless the poll takers actually asked that question that way.

Yes they would, Ican; they know the conditions on the ground as they live it everyday. If were worried about how conditions would worsen if the foreign forces leave then when they were asked the question if they want foreign forces to leave they would have said yes but not until we are able to secure our own security. The poll was conducted in interviews so chances are they were not confined to specific questions with their answers. Or if they were worried about the security situation if foreign forces left; they could have simply answered no to the question.

ican711nm wrote:

revel wrote:

The point is that if they wanted the US to stay until their government can protect themselves without help they would have said so instead of saying they want US forces to leave.

No, they would not have said so unless the poll takers actually asked that question that way.

Yes they would, Ican; they know the conditions on the ground as they live it everyday. If were worried about how conditions would worsen if the foreign forces leave then when they were asked the question if they want foreign forces to leave they would have said yes but not until we are able to secure our own security. The poll was conducted in interviews so chances are they were not confined to specific questions with their answers. Or if they were worried about the security situation if foreign forces left; they could have simply answered no to the question.

Ican
C I had raised a rational question.
Why the hell your country's media( CNN) WP, NYT, etc etc have no guts to exposed the plight of IRAQ and Afganisthan?
why they are embedded to spread the air with their verbal vomitations?

revel wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

revel wrote:

The point is that if they wanted the US to stay until their government can protect themselves without help they would have said so instead of saying they want US forces to leave.

No, they would not have said so unless the poll takers actually asked that question that way.

Yes they would, Ican; they know the conditions on the ground as they live it everyday. If were worried about how conditions would worsen if the foreign forces leave then when they were asked the question if they want foreign forces to leave they would have said yes but not until we are able to secure our own security. The poll was conducted in interviews so chances are they were not confined to specific questions with their answers. Or if they were worried about the security situation if foreign forces left; they could have simply answered no to the question.

No they wouldn't!
When a poll is taken, the questions asked are those questions the poll takers designed in advance before taking the poll. The answers reported by the poll takers are those answers given to those questions asked by the poll takers.

That is the way polls work. To think otherwise is self-delusion.

ORB and its local partner IIACSS interviewed 4,000 Iraqis in person between February 24 and March 5.

NAJAF, Iraq (Reuters) - Iraqi Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr called on his followers on Sunday to stop battling government forces after a week of fighting in southern Iraq and Baghdad threatened to spiral out of control.

A crackdown on Shi'ite militants in the southern oil port of Basra has sparked an explosion of violence that risked undoing the past year's improvements in Iraq's security.

"Because of the religious responsibility, and to stop Iraqi blood being shed ... we call for an end to armed appearances in Basra and all other provinces," Sadr said in a statement given to journalists by his aides in the holy Shi'ite city of Najaf.

"Anyone carrying a weapon and targeting government institutions will not be one of us."

U.S. forces have been drawn deeper into the fighting, which exposed a rift in Iraq's Shi'ite majority between parties in Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's government and Sadr's populist street movement.

The government welcomed Sadr's statement but said it would press on with its offensive in Basra.

"The operation in Basra will continue and will not stop until it achieves its goals. It is not targeting the Sadrists but criminals," spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh told Reuters.

...

ican711nm wrote:

When a poll is taken, the questions asked are those questions the poll takers designed in advance before taking the poll. The answers reported by the poll takers are those answers given to those questions asked by the poll takers.

That is the way polls work. To think otherwise is self-delusion.

It would depend on the type of poll being run. If it was a quick poll with questions asked and you say whether you agree or not; that is one thing. However this poll was conducted over a period of time with 4000 participants in interviews.

Quote:

ORB and its local partner IIACSS interviewed 4,000 Iraqis in person between February 24 and March 5.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Seven_out_of_10_Iraqis_want_0317.html

Iraq's Sadr orders followers off streets

Quote:

NAJAF, Iraq (Reuters) - Iraqi Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr called on his followers on Sunday to stop battling government forces after a week of fighting in southern Iraq and Baghdad threatened to spiral out of control.

A crackdown on Shi'ite militants in the southern oil port of Basra has sparked an explosion of violence that risked undoing the past year's improvements in Iraq's security.

"Because of the religious responsibility, and to stop Iraqi blood being shed ... we call for an end to armed appearances in Basra and all other provinces," Sadr said in a statement given to journalists by his aides in the holy Shi'ite city of Najaf.

"Anyone carrying a weapon and targeting government institutions will not be one of us."

U.S. forces have been drawn deeper into the fighting, which exposed a rift in Iraq's Shi'ite majority between parties in Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's government and Sadr's populist street movement.

The government welcomed Sadr's statement but said it would press on with its offensive in Basra.

"The operation in Basra will continue and will not stop until it achieves its goals. It is not targeting the Sadrists but criminals," spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh told Reuters.

I believe this new violence is becoming clearer in that is about the upcoming election and the split between Maliki's government and Sadr's group. It is not about "security" or about anyone trying derail the progress of the "surge" but just split between those groups and Maliki's fear that he would lose seats in the upcoming election. It is pretty risky on Malki's part to side with the US in going after Sadrist because soon people will just seen Maliki as a US puppet. From what I can tell after reading about this for the past several days. Maybe others have other thoughts. (or no thoughts)

Six days after the Iraqi government launched Operation Knights' Charge in Basrah against the Mahdi Army and other Iranian-backed Shia terror groups, Muqtada al Sadr, the Leader of the Mahdi Army, has called for his fighters to lay down their weapons and cooperate with Iraqi security forces. Sadr's call for an end to the fighting comes as his Mahdi Army has taken serious losses since the operation began.

"Sadr has sent a message to his loyalists urging them to end all armed activities," the Al Iraqiya television channel reported. Sadr "disowned anyone attacking the state institutions or parties' offices and headquarters."