Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums

[Diana]

On June, 2003 a poll was conducted in Bagdad showing that a 65% of the Iraqis did not want the United States to leave their country until an interium government was established while only 17% insisted that all foreign troops should leave Iraq. In July, 2003, the number of Iraqis insisting that US and other foreign troops leave Iraq dropped to 13%.

Below is another interesting survey by Karl Zinsmeister on what the Iraqis really think. This survey was conducted in August, 2003 in Iraq, and the findings are very favorable toward the United States. I think that it's important that people learn to listen to the Iraqis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Karl Zinsmeister on What Iraqis Really Think?"

Posted by Cinnamon Stillwell
Sunday, September 14, 2003

Karl Zinsmeister, writing for OpinionJournal.com, bypasses the media's quagmire reporting, with the results of a poll conducted in Iraq. And guess what? It turns out that the Iraqis don't hate us after all, and that they're much more optimistic than is typically portrayed. You can bet that this is one poll the liberal media won't be pushing.

America, some say, is hobbled in its policies toward Iraq by not knowing much about what Iraqis really think. Are they on the side of radical Islamists? What kind of government would they like? What is their attitude toward the U.S.? Do the Shiites hate us? Could Iraq become another Iran under the ayatollahs? Are the people in the Sunni triangle the real problem?

Up to now we've only been able to guess. 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.

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.

Mr. Zinsmeister, editor in chief of The American Enterprise magazine and holder of the J.B. Fuqua chair at the American Enterprise 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.

http://chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=4203&catcode=10

[Hala]

And what about American think????
Why Bush wants to help Iraq while the homeless and jobless increase every day at America????

[Diana]

Well, according to the news report, economists are saying that the US economy is recovering, but it's recovering at a very SLOW pace. One of the good news is that the Labor Department report that the number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits declined last week after rising in the three previous weeks in August. Naturally, jobs are usually the last ones to pick up when the economy starts to recover. As more people feel the economy getting stronger, then employment usually kicks, according to many economists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sep 18, 5:07 PM EDT

Economy Shows More Signs of Recovery

By ADAM GELLER
AP Business Writer

Stovall says with a strengthening economy, it stands to reason that earnings should be improving. (Audio)

NEW YORK (AP) -- The nation's long-stagnant economy again showed signs of recovery in August, though the job market continued to be a damper, according to a closely watched gauge of future business activity.

The Conference Board reported Thursday that its Index of Leading Economic Indicators rose 0.4 percent in August to 113.3, in line with analysts' expectations. The rise in the August reading followed a revised 0.6 percent increase in July.

But the improvement in the economic outlook was tempered by stagnation in the board's reading of the current business climate, weighed down by continued weakness in the job market.

Analysts said the report points to an economic recovery that continues to strengthen, albeit one where the lack of job creation is a problem.

"Everything is showing us growth except for employment and it's the one area where we're having a little trouble seeing recovery," said Gina Martin, an economist with Wachovia Corp. in Charlotte, N.C.

Latest News

Dow Ends Down 151, Nasdaq Closes Down 58
Big Movers in the Stock Market

Monday's Wall Street Glance

Investors Gain Confidence in Tech Stocks

Even with that drag, the Conference Board's reading is a sign of a business environment that should improve in coming months, economists said.

"The economy is improving, although the road will remain bumpy," board economist Ken Goldstein said. "With export growth still months away, the growth burden remains on consumer spending and business investment."

Stocks were higher following release of the two reports. The Dow Jones industrial average rose 113 points to close at 9,659. The Nasdaq gained 27 points to finish at 1,910. The Standard & Poor's 500 index rose 14 points to 1,040.

The leading index measures where the overall U.S. economy is headed in the next three to six months. It stood at 100 in 1996, its base year.

Four of the 10 components of the leading index rose in August, including improvements in the interest rate spread, vendor performance, real money supply and building permits.

The coincident index, which measures current economic conditions, was flat in August, although three of its four indicators increased. The lagging index was also unchanged.

Meanwhile, the latest snapshot of the labor markets was slightly better than economists were expecting. The Labor Department report Thursday that the number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits declined last week after rising in the three previous weeks.

The government said that for the work week ending Sept. 13, new claims for jobless benefits fell by a seasonally adjusted 29,000 to 399,000. Last week's level of claims was not only the lowest since the week ending Aug. 23 but also marked the first time since then that claims dipped below the 400,000 mark.

Analysts were forecasting claims to fall no lower than 410,000 in the latest week.

The more stable four-week moving average of claims, which smooths out week to week fluctuations, however, rose last week to 410,750, an increase of 2,000 from the previous week, and the highest level since the middle of July.

Although other parts of the economy are improving, the labor market is expected to be the last to heal. Some economists believe that by the end of the year, businesses will begin to step up hiring. Others don't think that will happen until next year.


http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/ECONOMY?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME

[ilya]

It`s difficult to say now what will be with economy of USA. Yeah, there is a good economics growth - about 2% GIP per year, but there is a very big level of unemployment (actually it goes down if economics grows because new working places appear on developing plants).
But what George W. Bush does? He rises a shortage of budget by increasing military expenses for Iraq. Deficit of budget is a very large barrier for economics growth.
So, I wonder what he really wants.
He wanted to fight with terrorists in order american citizens won`t be killed by terrorists. But what we have now in Iraq?
If he wants his economy to grow, so why he increase expenses knowing that is bad. Evil is everywhere around the world, so may be you will give money there too. As i said he is very, very cool guy. But president of the most powerful country affected to every country now is ........

[Diana]

So far, it has been two years since the September 11th attacks, and there haven't been any major attacks on US soil. According to some of the news I've read, terrorists cells have also been broken up inside the US and terrorists trying to enter the US have been turned away due to the policies of homeland security.

I think the US armed forces in Iraq are capable of handling the terrorists. They've already captured many of them that the terrorists are now attacking innocent civilians such as the humanitarian workers at the UN building. The best thing for the US to do is to quickly establish an Iraqi government as soon as possible, train and equip their army and law enforcers, and leave the country.

[sunking814]

Hi Diana, and Ilya and Hala!

I've seen this topic before, Diana!

While some people tout the might and technological strength of the US military. always remember that throughout history, the mighty have been felled at the hands of the meek. The Mujahadeen, with help from the CIA, made the USSR suffer and drove them from Afganistan. The experience was not much different for the US during the Vietnam War. Did not the poorly equipped and trained American revolutionaries defeat the might of the British Empire? Sometimes "low-tech" can defeat "high-tech", especially when defending one's own homeland against an invader from overseas.

The victory may not be won in direct battle...but through the infliction of small but costly defeats, prolonging the conflict and the need to keep a long and costly supply line going...that and the effect on those back home...the families and the politicians.

There are many weapons in warfare.

Pres. Bush probably hopes that there will be more jobs due to the arms and supplies used up in the war in Iraq. However, more and more jobs are going to other countries, like India, where there is an educated and skilled worker base.

[Diana]

[waslord]

Hello Girls!
I think Bush i the s****** and the f******* man on the world

[Diana]

And I suppose Saddam was a better man? Perhaps, you also support Kim Jung II?

[rigi_bbi]

who was Kim Jung II?

[ilya]

Diana, thinking about USA i don`t recall what happent in Afganistan and Vietnam 20-30 years ago, what relationships were between USA and USSR. Why? USSR was completly another country, and if you think that russians still think in sovet way, you are mistaken.
In my opinion, Bush, jr. is a very bad president. He acted like a cowboy on the Wild West. Terrorism is bad, we know that, tyranny is bad we know that. We (Russia) have some tyrants amoung neighbours in Turkmenistan, Belarusy, but we haven`t bombed them. Why people must die because of one man? We make them to develop in democratic way. But i`m not happy with speed of that activities.

[Diana]

Ilya, the Soviets and Americans were arch-enemies during the Cold War. We have interfered too much into each other's affairs mainly because we didn't trust each other. You and I agree that terrorism is bad. I know about the Chechens that your people is fighting. I also know that it was the Chechen terrorists who started the bombing after Russia first withdrew from Chenchya.

I don't want to get into another argument with you about World War II, but understand this, we both were fighting on the same side but against different axis powers. The Russians fought against the Germans while my people who were not even American citizens at that time were being massacred by Japan. If there is one thing we learned from World War II is that there is only one way to get rid of a ruthless tyrant and that is NOT to ask him politely to give up his crown and throne and allow his country to become democratic. No dictator would do that. In my opinion, the less dictators we have in this world, the safer this world would be.

Also, if you had read my previous comments I did say that I had hoped that it would be the United Nations (not the US) to take out Saddam. It is the UN's job to do that. The recent report by David Kay showed that even in 2002 Saddam was still deceiving the UN. The UN had suspected all along that Saddam was being deceitful, and David Kay's three month report only confirmed it. Yet, the UN still wanted to give Saddam more chances, which in my opinion doesn't make any sense. For 12 years, it was Saddam who made the UN look weak and ineffective.

[BG]

DIANA...COULD YOU PLEASE BE KIND ENOUGH AND STOP YOUR LONG BORING POSTS.

[Diana]

BG, you don't have to read my post if you find it too long and boring! DUH!!!! I guess you've never heard of Freedom of speech! JEEZ!!

[Nemesis]

Diana. Look up cogent, pithy, concise, precise, to the point.

Diana, what could American taxpayers done with their tax money being spent in Iraq? [and paid to Halliburton, Brown and Root, etc]

And please give us in 25 words or less, why young American soldiers should go to a foreign country unprovoked to die for people they don't know and who didn't ask them to come?