Iraqi majority despise foreign occupation and endorse attacks on coalition troops

[takeo]

It's interesting that France's Ivory Coast has their own civil war, is deadlock over the political future of the war-divided country and has yet to hold simple, basic UN sponsored elections.

The French are truly a duplicidous people -- just read the latest UN report on the "Oil-for-Palaces" programs and find out which nation profitted the most (and has been in economic decline ever since) Our proud forum Saddamite (Saddamite defined: "Desparate to keep Saddam Hussein in power"), submits a poll that is more than a year old, months before any Iragi referendum/election and dated from the height of an mass-murdering insurgancy in which Saddamites in both Iraq and France honestly thought they had a real chance to return Saddam Hussein back to power.

● But this recent Zogby poll of Iraqi business attitudes finds them very optimistic about the future -- and will depress our forum Saddamite and Zarqawi the even further.

http://www.cipe.org/regional/mena/Zogbyreport05.pdf (PDF file)

Unlike the wool our Saddamite tried to pull here – this one is just two months old.

-- This international poll of more than 600 Iraqi business owners and managers says that a majority of them are optimistic about Iraq’s economic and political future.

The Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE) and the Zogby International polling firm, conducted the survey of 641 owners and managers of Iraqi small, medium and large businesses in five Iraqi cities: Baghdad, the capital, Arbil and Kirkuk in the north and Hilla and Basra in the south. The results of the survey were released in September 2005.

Summizing the Zogby poll:

-- More than three-fourths of the business people said they anticipate growth in Iraq’s national economy during the next two years, although 45 percent of them indicated that they do not expect the profits of their concerns to climb during the next six months, according to the survey.

-- 3 percent of the respondents said they believe that the Iraqi economy will shrink.

-- The poll indicated that business has grown throughout most of Iraq since the end of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003. More than four in 10 of those surveyed said they have added employees since that time and about three in 10 said the number of their employees has not changed, for a total of 71 percent saying their employee figures have grown or remained stable.

-- The percentage of business leaders expressing optimism about Iraq’s economic future: 69 percent, is unchanged from the results obtained in a similar poll taken by the same groups a year ago. Optimism was highest in Arbil in the far north (99 percent) and in Basra in the far south (92 percent). The optimism quotient for Baghdad and Hilla was in line with the national figure. In stark contrast, only 9 percent of business people in Kirkuk said they were optimistic about Iraq’s economic prospects.

► As for Iraq’s political future, the poll results indicated that:

-- 60 percent are optimistic, 9 percent pessimistic, 26 percent neutral and 6 percent unsure.

The level of optimism reached 93 percent in Arbil, followed by 73 percent in Hilla, and 71 percent in Basra. Among business leaders in Baghdad, 58 percent expressed optimism about the country’s political future. In Kirkuk, the optimistic assessments accounted for 7 percent, the pessimistic for 24 percent and the neutrals for 55 percent.

The poll turned up a number of other indicators of the state of the Iraqi economy. Almost half the respondents said the new Iraqi government represents and protects their interests. One in five disagreed with that statement.

The Number 1 way the Iraqi government could help the business community was to get the security situation under control, according to 33 percent of the business leaders. That figure rose to 45 percent in Baghdad. Fifty-seven percent of the leaders indicated that security has improved since the fall of Saddam Hussein, but 38 percent said it has worsened.

A huge majority of the business people -- 71 percent –- is optimistic about the prospects for nationwide stability following the elections, scheduled for December. And 84 percent of them said that economic stability in the regions will be enhanced by the elections.

The poll results showed that an overwhelming 82 percent of Iraqi business leaders believe that a democratic and diverse government will bring economic benefits; 62 percent said the business community is able to influence government policy.

In a sweeping change from the results of the poll taken in 2004, most of the business leaders named the political parties they thought best represent them in this year’s sounding. Only 13 percent of the respondents declined to name the party they support. In the poll taken in 2004, 72 percent of the respondents did not express a preference for a political party.

-- Two years after Saddamites lost their beloved Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi economy is based primarily on cash, with seven in 10 business owners saying it is the basic means of exchange they use, according to respondents to the poll. Bank transfers are preferred by 24 percent of the business people, and credit cards are used by 1 percent of the respondents to pay for goods and services, the poll showed.

Fifty-three percent of the business people said they never have taken out loans to start or expand their firms, the poll showed. Another 8 percent said they attempted to receive loans but their application was rejected. Twenty-nine percent said they have borrowed money successfully.
More than eight of 10 business people (82 percent) said they welcome opening Iraq’s borders to international business.

-- The Gulf states received the most endorsements (23 percent) as the place that offers the best commercial opportunities. In descending order were Syria (13 percent), followed by Lebanon, Europe, Turkey, Jordan, the United States and Iran.

-- The employment of women in Iraq has surged during the past year, according to the poll. In late 2004, 43 percent of the business people said they employed women. In the 2005 poll, the figure was 63 percent. The percentage is even higher in Baghdad (68 percent) and highest in Arbil (91 percent).

^_^

So far the continuous good news show that we have heard from the White House and its die-hard defenders, things are improving in Iraq, the war was worth it, the war is almost finished, resistance is weakening (that's what they say since 2003) etc. . Now reality: the oil-for-peace program only existed because the US refused to lift a cruel embargo for political reasons, of course the embargo was shredded with corruption, what did you expect, an oil-producing country that can't export its oil and can't import necessary products for the economy? The embargo should have been lifted the moment the inspectors didn't find any more WMD's in Iraq but it didn't happen because the US and GB refused for political reasons. But let's talk about corruption: according to transparency international Iraq today is among the most corrupted countries in the world, several ministers of the US-appointed Allawi-government are accused of stealing billions and many US-companies have obtained contracts in very dubious ways. the poll is indeed one year old but another recent Bagdad university poll published in Le Monde diplomatique is even more explicit.
In Côte d'Ivoire there are still political tentions but at least there is no civil war and people are not dying on a regular base, also living conditions didn't plummet as in Iraq, and Côte d'Ivoire is not a petrol-state but a poor African country.

The poll you mentioned does not represent the Iraqi people but the Iraqi businessmen, and only in Bagdad, the shiite south and Kuirdish north. Iraqi women employment under saddam was among the highest in the Arab world, today it is recovering a bit but still way below the numbers of 2002. Anyway I'll search further to find an internet-link to the recent poll.

[MGB8]

Asim,

First of all, there is NO indication that the majority of the People of Iraq don't want "the will of the people." Thus, it was not "against the will of the people." The great majority of the Shi'ite and Kurds, 80% or so of the population, are very happy that Saddam is gone. The great majority of the Sunnis are not, as they were the ones "on top" when he was there. I, however, would dare say that there is a larger percent of Sunni's who are happy that Saddam and his two butcher-to-be's are gone than Kurds and Shia who are unhappy.

Second, the US has made no pull-out promises. The US has said that as Iraq is more able to defeat the insurgency by itself, the US presence will decrease. Chances are that there will be some level of US presence in Iraq for decades - in that Iraq, even after it is strong enough to defeat the insurgents, will probably by very concerned about the armies of its neighbors and seek the US protective umbrella (ala S.Korea.) Now, that may not happen, but it very well may. Doesn't Pakistan have US troops there for the same purpose - to act as a deterrent against Indian action (an invasion of Pakistan would involve attacking US troops).

[takeo]

MGB8]Asim,

First of all, there is NO indication that the majority of the People of Iraq don't want "the will of the people."

Depends what you understand by "the will of the people". The will of the (majority of the) people may have been to see the back of Saddam but it equally may be to see an Iran-like Islamic state and the back of the US, as polls and eye-witnesses in Iraq indicate. The will of the people in the US is currently to see the back of Bush and withdraw from Iraq. Your rethorics abuse terms like "the will of the people", it is simplistic as the Bush-propaganda in general is.

Thus, it was not "against the will of the people." The great majority of the Shi'ite and Kurds, 80% or so of the population, are very happy that Saddam is gone. The great majority of the Sunnis are not, as they were the ones "on top" when he was there. I, however, would dare say that there is a larger percent of Sunni's who are happy that Saddam and his two butcher-to-be's are gone than Kurds and Shia who are unhappy.

Whatever, this was not upon the US to interphere in internal Iraqi matters. Nowadays Saddam has gone and the US are the new butchers AND hated by the majority of Iraqi's.

Second, the US has made no pull-out promises. The US has said that as Iraq is more able to defeat the insurgency by itself, the US presence will decrease.

Who will determine that? Not the US... The moment the government makes a deal with the sunnites the US will be on the way out or they risk an allout war against the entire iraqi society.

Chances are that there will be some level of US presence in Iraq for decades - in that Iraq, even after it is strong enough to defeat the insurgents, will probably by very concerned about the armies of its neighbors and seek the US protective umbrella (ala S.Korea.)

In your dreams, US military presence in Saoudi arabia was the original reason of the Al-Quaida establishment, in Iraq the US seems to be even more hated than in Saoudi Arabia.The US are not viewed as liberators and protectors in this region but as oppressors and aggressors, rightfully so. The Iraqi shiites in the government have asked Iran for military cooperation, the government troops clashed with Brittish soldiers in Basra, not a sign that they are going to tolerate the US and GB for much longer. Most analysers agree the very presence of US-troops in Iraq gives fuel to the rebels and islamism.

Now, that may not happen, but it very well may. Doesn't Pakistan have US troops there for the same purpose - to act as a deterrent against Indian action (an invasion of Pakistan would involve attacking US troops).

[/QUOTE]

So now you are proud to defend yet another dictatorship where the majority of citizens hate your bud as well, a hotbed of islamist terrorism. Wasn't the deposal of a (formerly allied) dictator the only excuse left for your aggression against Iraq?

[takeo]

This is the recent poll (august 2005):

"Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks on US and British troops are justified, according to a secret poll said to have been commissioned by British defence leaders and cited by The Sunday Telegraph.


Less than 1% of those polled believed that the forces were responsible for any improvement in security.

Eighty-two per cent of those polled said they were strongly opposed to the presence of the troops.

The paper said the poll, conducted in August by an Iraqi university research team, was commissioned by the Ministry of Defence.

Britain has more than 8000 soldiers stationed in the south of Iraq, and has had 97 soldiers killed, the most recent killed by a roadside bomb on Tuesday night"

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...A0E2FB085E.htm

Iraq: About That Poll...
A couple of readers wanted to know more about methodology and coverage of the British Ministry of Defense poll of Iraqis, which found 40 percent of respondents saying attacks on coalition troops are justified.

The poll was conducted by ...

... an Iraqi university research team in August before the approval of Iraq's constitution, according to London's Sunday Telegraph. Residents of Maysan province in southwestern Iraq were polled but the newspaper provided no other information about the number or location of respondents.

Absent such information, the credibility of the poll derives from its sponsors in the British military, who would seem to have no reason to survey an unrepresentative sample or to solicit anti-coalition sentiments.

The story was picked up widely in the United Kingdom. "Pressure on Blair as Iraqis back attacks on troops," declared the headline in The Scotsman, whose editors supported the war.

The poll findings were also reported by news sites around the world, including South Africa's apolitical News 24 ("Iraq poll shock hits US, UK"); by Pakistan's antiwar Daily Times ("Iraqis support attacks on British troops"); and Beijing's People's Daily Online ("Iraqis support attacks on British troops"), which opposed the war; and in the United States by The Washington Times ("Poll Finds Support for Attacks on Coalition Troops"), which enthusiastically supported the war.

http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/worl...that_poll.html

[Cato]

takeo since when was the United States all powerfull, and capable of destroying horrible dictatorships with it's magic wand?

Also you did not answer my question, how is it a modern Hitler can possibly be protected from losing power?

You know for a fact that the Kurds see the Americans as liberators, especially since the Arabs are trying to eliminate their existance.

The fact is that the Iraqi Arabs have the same racist views Hitler did, it was not Saddam Hussein that caused them to hate the Kurds so much it was their own racist culture.

Would you have been willing to have the war criminals of Rowanda stay in power after the end of the genocide?

Answer that honestly.

I don't think you realise that Arab Nationalists and Islamists want France to come crumbling down over the Battle of Tours, and still mourn "Losing Spain".

[takeo]

Secret MoD poll: Iraqis support attacks on British troops
By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 23/10/2005)

Millions of Iraqis believe that suicide attacks against British troops are justified, a secret military poll commissioned by senior officers has revealed.

The poll, undertaken for the Ministry of Defence and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, shows that up to 65 per cent of Iraqi citizens support attacks and fewer than one per cent think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country.


Andrew Robathan: Government policy 'disastrous'
It demonstrates for the first time the true strength of anti-Western feeling in Iraq after more than two and a half years of bloody occupation.

The nationwide survey also suggests that the coalition has lost the battle to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, which Tony Blair and George W Bush believed was fundamental to creating a safe and secure country.

The results come as it was disclosed yesterday that Lt Col Nick Henderson, the commanding officer of the Coldstream Guards in Basra, in charge of security for the region, has resigned from the Army. He recently voiced concerns over a lack of armoured vehicles for his men, another of whom was killed in a bomb attack in Basra last week.

The secret poll appears to contradict claims made by Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the Chief of the General Staff, who only days ago congratulated British soldiers for "supporting the Iraqi people in building a new and better Iraq".

Andrew Robathan, a former member of the SAS and the Tory shadow defence minister, said last night that the poll clearly showed a complete failure of Government policy.

He said: "This clearly states that the Government's hearts-and-minds policy has been disastrous. The coalition is now part of the problem and not the solution.



"I am not advocating a pull-out but if British soldiers are putting their lives on the line for a cause which is not supported by the Iraqi people then we have to ask the question, 'what are we doing there?' "

The Sunday Telegraph disclosed last month that a plan for an early withdrawal of British troops had been shelved because of the failing security situation, sparking claims that Iraq was rapidly becoming "Britain's own Vietnam".

The survey was conducted by an Iraqi university research team that, for security reasons, was not told the data it compiled would be used by coalition forces. It reveals:

• Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;

• 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;

• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;

• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;

• 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;

• 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.

The opinion poll, carried out in August, also debunks claims by both the US and British governments that the general well-being of the average Iraqi is improving in post-Saddam Iraq.



Under the heading "Justification for Violent Attacks", the new poll shows that 65 per cent of people in Maysan province - one of the four provinces under British control - believe that attacks against coalition forces are justified.

The report states that for Iraq as a whole, 45 per cent of people feel attacks are justified. In Basra, the proportion is reduced to 25 per cent.

The report profiles those likely to carry out attacks against British and American troops as being "less than 26 years of age, more likely to want a job, more likely to have been looking for work in the last four weeks and less likely to have enough money even for their basic needs".

Immediately after the war the coalition embarked on a campaign of reconstruction in which it hoped to improve the electricity supply and the quality of drinking water.

That appears to have failed, with the poll showing that 71 per cent of people rarely get safe clean water, 47 per cent never have enough electricity, 70 per cent say their sewerage system rarely works and 40 per cent of southern Iraqis are unemployed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../23/wirq23.xml

I think this poll doesn't fit in the good news show of illumus MG and others, at all.................................

[takeo]

takeo since when was the United States all powerfull, and capable of destroying horrible dictatorships with it's magic wand?

Also you did not answer my question, how is it a modern Hitler can possibly be protected from losing power?

You know for a fact that the Kurds see the Americans as liberators, especially since the Arabs are trying to eliminate their existance.

The fact is that the Iraqi Arabs have the same racist views Hitler did, it was not Saddam Hussein that caused them to hate the Kurds so much it was their own racist culture.

Would you have been willing to have the war criminals of Rowanda stay in power after the end of the genocide?

Answer that honestly.

I don't think you realise that Arab Nationalists and Islamists want France to come crumbling down over the Battle of Tours, and still mourn "Losing Spain".

What are you trying to tell me? First you say the US can't stop all dictatorships (no they can't, but they can stop supporting them, for a start...) then you start about Hitler (everyone knows the comparison between Saddam and Hitler is fake, you can as well compare Bush and Hitler, or Mao and Hitler, or mother Theresa and Hitler... Hitler was a unique dictator, unique in evilness, not comparable to anyone else, and if you're a Jew you should agree with me), possibly to make clear dictators should be stopped, at all costs? Than you start about islamists, well let me tell you, nowadays Iraq is ruled by islamists, but the Baath-regime wasn't islamist, actually the second in rang was a christian... And about Kurdish "genocide"... Saddam massacred some Kurdish villages, as did the Turks, who are still considered good allies of the US... About Arab nationalism, I have never heard an Arab nationalist or Baathist to reclaim Spain, ever... your rethorics don't make any sense.

[Cato]

takeo I have a good comparison of the Iraq War for you.

The Bangledeshi War of Independence.

No Pakistanis wanted Indian Intervention, but virtually every Bangledeshi did.

When India intervened it defeated the Pakistanis, and liberated Bangledesh.

Try comparing that to the Iraq war.

I will provide you with links to prove my point, the sources are going to be mainly Kurdish.

[Illuminatus]

● Obviously, we can have “competing” polls forever and ever…..(it is noteworthy that prior to the Liberation of Iraq, no such discussion took place) – let’s remember that there’s only one poll that really counts. It’s done on election day. You can choose

1) The only poll that forum Saddamites and the French really love,

16 October, 2002: President Saddam re-electied and 'wins 100% of vote'

were Saddamites and Ba’athists endorsed the result,

or

2) a U.N. sponsored and endorsed election

deemed free, trustworthy and where 80 percent of the Iraqi people electorate basically crushed the Saddamites (French) and the terrorism they celebrate -- to endorse an Iraqi constitution.

● Meanwhile, I’ll let an Iraqi living in Iraq decide this time whether a UK MOD “secret poll” merits the even the time of day. Omar writes:

Bottom line, I will personally ignore the results (the “secret” MOD poll) as a whole as I think it cannot add anything of value to a view of the situation here in Iraq, which is a shame, as it might have done so, had they framed the questions in a more scientific manner. I tend to recommend that you not take it seriously as well for these reasons.

Omar: Iraq the Model: ‘Polls: can we rely on them?’

● re: the issue of WMDs

I love it when Saddamites continue to believe in its failed ideology.

Post # 31
[..The embargo should have been lifted the moment the inspectors didn't find any more WMD's in Iraq ..]

The problem and flawed logic of Saddamites has its roots in its refusal to actually read any of the 19 UNSC resolutions against Saddam Hussein for it’s invasion of Kuwait: The sole mandate of the UN Inspectors was not “find”, “hunt”, “seek, “search for” WMDs but to verify proof of disarmament.

-- no proof? Then he hasn’t disarmed. It doesn’t matter if our Saddamites and the terrorists don’t get it - history already has. And the Iraqi election prove it.

Every vote cast in Iraq on Dec. 15th is yet another nail into the coffin of the hope and dreams of those those demanded that (and still fight for) Saddam to remain in power.

ps: there’s a professor of economics from Stanford University who is coming out with a paper shortly of the direct correlation between France’s accelerating unemployment rate/industrial decline and the Liberation of Iraq. I’ll post as soon as it’s published – should be interesting from a historical perspective and provide further the understanding to students of history on why France fought so hard to keep Saddam Hussein in power.

pss: blame the Bush tax cuts ^_^

[takeo]

● Obviously, we can have “competing” polls forever and ever…..(it is noteworthy that prior to the Liberation of Iraq, no such discussion took place) – let’s remember that there’s only one poll that really counts. It’s done on election day. You can choose

1) The only poll that forum Saddamites and the French really love,

16 October, 2002: President Saddam re-electied and 'wins 100% of vote'

were Saddamites and Ba’athists endorsed the result,

or

2) a U.N. sponsored and endorsed election

deemed free, trustworthy and where 80 percent of the Iraqi people electorate basically crushed the Saddamites (French) and the terrorism they celebrate -- to endorse an Iraqi constitution.

● Meanwhile, I’ll let an Iraqi living in Iraq decide this time whether a UK MOD “secret poll” merits the even the time of day. Omar writes: Omar: Iraq the Model: ‘Polls: can we rely on them?’

● re: the issue of WMDs

I love it when Saddamites continue to believe in its failed ideology.

Post # 31
[..The embargo should have been lifted the moment the inspectors didn't find any more WMD's in Iraq ..]

The problem and flawed logic of Saddamites has its roots in its refusal to actually read any of the 19 UNSC resolutions against Saddam Hussein for it’s invasion of Kuwait: The sole mandate of the UN Inspectors was not “find”, “hunt”, “seek, “search for” WMDs but to verify proof of disarmament.

-- no proof? Then he hasn’t disarmed. It doesn’t matter if our Saddamites and the terrorists don’t get it - history already has. And the Iraqi election prove it.

Every vote cast in Iraq on Dec. 15th is yet another nail into the coffin of the hope and dreams of those those demanded that (and still fight for) Saddam to remain in power.

ps: there’s a professor of economics from Stanford University who is coming out with a paper shortly of the direct correlation between France’s accelerating unemployment rate/industrial decline and the Liberation of Iraq. I’ll post as soon as it’s published – should be interesting from a historical perspective and provide further the understanding to students of history on why France fought so hard to keep Saddam Hussein in power.

pss: blame the Bush tax cuts ^_^

So you just decide to ignore reality? Fine for me, but every day less people are following you...
Elections are not a poll on what Iraqi think about Americans, they elected shiites in power who are not necessarily pro-american. Actually all of their leading members have close links to Iran and no close links to the US. Despite strong American pressure (still very powerfull in this country despite popular hate against them and Iraqi government resistance to American influence) not to do so they have concluded a military agreement with Iran. If any other state would have done so the White House would have screamed death and destruction. However in Iraq they can't do so, since they have few options left and are cornered. Iran is not exactly a friend of the US...

One side of the Iraqi's decided to have elections as a strategy to end American rule (they rejected the pro-American Allawi-government) an other part choose the armed struggle, but both are anti-american. Both have different strategies since they have different goals, however one goal they have in common, end the American influence. The shiites and sunnites hate eachother but they both also hate the US and GB. The incidents in basra show the shiite militia's are ruling, enforcing shariah in a way Iranian mollahs would be envious, and they don't tolerate interpherance from the Brittish... The polls at the very least show what the majority of Iraqi's think about you. You can always find an exception but I equally can find millions of Americans who hate Bush and reject the war, actually an ever growing majority... actually even high ranking officials who have been key-players in the whole conflict, such as William Odom (see another item) or Clarke.

The arguments you found are old stuff, that have been refuted a million times and considered untrustworthy even by Colin Powell, who esteemed that his speech for the UNSC about WMD's was the lowest moment in his carreer. The invasion of Kouweit happened 13 years earlier and had long been finished and undone, Iraq always kept itself to the armistice agreement unlike the US who regurlarly bombed Iraq. (which in turn gave Iraq the right to defend itself). chief-inspector Blix himself said that Iraq was acting according to the UN-resolution, and his words were supported by reality afterwards, while all the Bush-accusations proved to be utter lies. Of course the work wasn't finished yet, but the US invaded anyway and told the inspectors to get out or get bombed...

Face it, illumus, you may still support the decision to invade Iraq, but you are belonging to an endangered species of TRUE BELIEVERS...

[Cato]

What are you trying to tell me? First you say the US can't stop all dictatorships (no they can't, but they can stop supporting them, for a start...) then you start about Hitler (everyone knows the comparison between Saddam and Hitler is fake, you can as well compare Bush and Hitler, or Mao and Hitler, or mother Theresa and Hitler... Hitler was a unique dictator, unique in evilness, not comparable to anyone else, and if you're a Jew you should agree with me), possibly to make clear dictators should be stopped, at all costs? Than you start about islamists, well let me tell you, nowadays Iraq is ruled by islamists, but the Baath-regime wasn't islamist, actually the second in rang was a christian... And about Kurdish "genocide"... Saddam massacred some Kurdish villages, as did the Turks, who are still considered good allies of the US... About Arab nationalism, I have never heard an Arab nationalist or Baathist to reclaim Spain, ever... your rethorics don't make any sense.

Well Saddam believed all of Hitler's anti-semitic beliefs, and had his wish to kill all the jews in Israel and their friends well known. He also held Hitler's belief in commiting genocide.

http://www.kurdmedia.com/articles.asp?id=2766

http://www.kurdmedia.com/reports.asp?id=2203

http://www.kurdmedia.com/reports.asp?id=1491

http://www.kurdmedia.com/reports.asp?id=2754

http://www.kurdmedia.com/reports.asp?id=1583

Just a few out of many examples.

Saddam Hussein was a modern Hitler dedicated to the elimination of the Kurds, and yes the jews. Had he the power to destroy Israel he would have, and then he would have killed the jews.

The difference between him and Hitler, was that he was stopped. Had Saddam Hussein won the only Kurds he could reach that would be alive would be the young women and girls that he sold into sex slavery.

Yes Hitler was uniqely evil because he was the first in a line of extrodinariliy evil people who actively sought the destruction of all ethnic groups not his own, but Saddam Hussein definately followed in his footsteps.

[Illuminatus]

A duplicidous thread (acting as if it was "new") starts out with a poll that is more than a year old, months before any Iragi referendum/election and dated from the height of an mass-murdering insurgancy in which Saddamites in both Iraq and France honestly thought they had a real chance to return Saddam Hussein back to power.

the only polls that really matter


^_^

[takeo]

A duplicidous thread (acting as if it was "new") starts out with a poll that is more than a year old, months before any Iragi referendum/election and dated from the height of an mass-murdering insurgancy in which Saddamites in both Iraq and France honestly thought they had a real chance to return Saddam Hussein back to power.

the only polls that really matter


^_^

Because I couldn't find the new poll on the internet right away, yet I found it already, as you know... which indicates hate against Americans is growing compared to the last poll one year ago... Really I don't mind if you criticise me, this is what this forum is all about, but please use interesting arguments that haven't been proven false already.. you knew as well as I do I posted the new poll on this thread...



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...0/23/wirq23.xml

[Cato]

takeo do you live in Paris?

Has your car been destroyed by angry Muslims yet?

[takeo]

Cato]

Well Saddam believed all of Hitler's anti-semitic beliefs, and had his wish to kill all the jews in Israel and their friends well known. He also held Hitler's belief in commiting genocide.

nonnsense, there were still a few Jews living in Iraq (altough most migrated to Israel in the early 50's), and he never called for the extermination of all Jews.

Saddam Hussein was a modern Hitler dedicated to the elimination of the Kurds, and yes the jews. Had he the power to destroy Israel he would have, and then he would have killed the jews.

Not only Iraq wanted to destroy Israel, Iran wants it as well, as well as other muslim states, and the new Iraqi government refused to recognise Israel as well.

The difference between him and Hitler, was that he was stopped. Had Saddam Hussein won the only Kurds he could reach that would be alive would be the young women and girls that he sold into sex slavery.

Saddam and Kurds had a very difficult and complicated history. At some point there were negociations about autonomy. It were however the Kurds that started the war to get autonomy, as in Turkey and Iran as well. As the Turks Saddam didn't exterminate the Kurds, he just wanted them in a state of submission to the Arabs, as the Turks want the Kurds in a state of submission to the Turks, and as the Turks he responded with brutal force to any insurgeancy. However note that the US supported Turkey during its most brutal oppression of the Kurds (and helped to capture kurdish leader ocallan) and supported saddam as well during his most brutal oppression of the Kurds. (in the '80's).