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.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... wirq23.xml
Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq ... over_x.htm
About 90 percent of Iraqis feel the situation in the country was better before the U.S.-led invasion than it is today, according to a new ICRSS poll.
http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelli ... 1021-1168r
Support for attacks against US-led forces has increased sharply to 61 percent (27% strongly, 34% somewhat). This represents a 14-point increase from January 2006, when only 47 percent of Iraqis supported attacks.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/27/iraqis-poll/
It is hard to say whether pulling out of the region will decrease the violence (much of which is anti-coalition violence), or further ignite "sectarian violence" - a synonym for civil war. It would also be irresponsible to invade a country, overthrow and kill its ruler, leave the country in shambles. "Securing" Iraq will not change anything in United States' national security. In fact, I think the arrogance the U.S. government has shown in its policies regarding this war has done far more harm than good. Our agenda is not to help the people, IMO. Business is playing the most important role here, not the sake of humanity.
We constantly hear about the numerous deaths of soldiers and their life-stories, but there is an intentional failure to mention the high numbers of Iraqi civilian deaths. Depending on the source, the civilian deathtoll ranges anywhere from 40,000 to over 100,000. If you compare this number to the total Iraqi population, and then to projected American civilian casualties as an equivalent percentage of civilian deaths (roughly estimated and using 50,000 as the Iraqi deathtoll); 88 9/11 attacks would have to take place, or 444,000 American lives lost.
The U.S. is also well aware of the toxicity of depleted uranium shells - which are being dropped across Iraq. Effects of this toxic substance have caused unthinkable birth defects where intestines are located outside the body and children are born without mouths or eyes as well as high percentage increases of cancer throughout the country.
The public is also ill-informed about the support the U.S. gave Saddam in the Iraq-Iran war. The U.S. backed Saddam's war with Iran and supplied him with munitions, technology, and military intelligence.
If the U.S. was interested in saving people, why did they prevent medicinal aid, water, and food from reaching the country post Gulf War resulting in thousands upon thousands of deaths of children under 12 years of age? Why are they dropping cancer-causing DU shells on civilians?Statistics: Posted by irkone — Sat Feb 03, 2007 10:37 am
]]>