Iraq Update - What does the world think?

[dcentity2000]

Iraq Update - What does the world think?

Well. Poll time.

Some 41,856 people were questioned in the poll for the BBC's World Service.

In other words, it's quite comprehensive.

People across the world overwhelmingly believe the war in Iraq has increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks worldwide, a poll for the BBC reveals.

Some 60% of people in 35 countries surveyed believe this is the case, against just 12% who think terrorist attacks have become less likely.

That's quite major, but not too surprising. Why? We've invaded a country - resistance is inevitable (in the form of nationals) both in and from Iraq. On top of this, you get existing terrorists who will perceive the invasion as yet another reason why we should die.

In most countries, more people think removing Saddam Hussein was a mistake than think it was the right decision.

...

The removal of Saddam Hussein in 2003 is seen as a mistake in 21 countries, compared with 11 countries where more people view it as the right decision. Three countries are divided.

It's interesting to note this; personally I would have expected the opposite; however I can understand the sentiment - Saddam was a crackpot who intimidated his people, keeping the factions under wraps. Removing him had the same effect as restarting a food blender without the lid on.

Alternatives? A rebellion was seen as an eventual certainty, but not in the immediate future. NATO or UN led missions would have calmed the world I guess whilst sanctions were "working" - a "success".

Still, if there had to be one good thing out of this mess, it would have to be: an evil man has been detained. It may have encouraged violence, civil war and terrorism, but we got him. Whether all that was worth it is subjective; most people agree that it wasn't.

In 20 countries, there is overall support for US-led forces to withdraw from Iraq in the next few months.

Only in nine of the remaining 15 countries do more people believe US-led forces should remain until the situation is stabilised. Six countries are divided.

Whilst withdrawal is certainly a good thing, the timing in my opinion is not yet satisfactory. We made this mess - the least we can do is try to help clean it up.

On the other hand, troop presence is fuelling terrorists and their propaganda machines; it is also encouraging violence in Iraq. The majority feels that the latter makes the better case.

However, the picture would be very different should the new Iraqi government ask US-led forces to remain until the situation was stabilised.

In that case, there is support in 21 of 34 countries for the coalition to stay.

No brainer. Better to be invited than to crash the party.

Iraqis themselves are sharply divided over whether US-led forces should leave, with 49% favouring their removal and 49% favouring them to remain.

Support for troops staying rises only slightly, to 53%, if the Iraqi government requests it.

That's a toughie; there's no clear answer here.

Of all the interviewed countries, Iraq was the most thankful for the removal of Saddam, with 74% agreeing with the move, which is good - no-one wants to see him again.

Graphs:

Source of quotes, statistics and visuals: GlobeScan, BBC News (International).



Rich::

 

[kdibattista]

I will start by saying that I was a supporter of Bush. I voted for him twice. I was originally a supporter of this war because I believed (albeit rather naively) that our President knew more then I did and I trusted him. It's getting harder and harder to support him and I find myself quickly dissenting.

With that said, this war is now happening and we can't pull out until Iraq is stable enough... we owe that to them for getting them in this mess. I think this war probably does put us at a greater risk for terrorist acts. I'm sure Osama is looking at us right now and laughing. I'm sure other countries are looking at us and thinking we are not as strong as we once were and that puts the US in a very vulnerable position.

My continued thoughts and prayers are for all the fine soldiers and their families. I pray they come home safely.

 

[eyeoreismyhero]

Let me see, other islamic hardline dictatorships feel it was a mistake to remove Saddam. Who would have known!

European countries who sold arms to Iraq and had huge capital investments and were basically in business with Saddam think it was a mistake. Who would have known!

 

[Kim&Chris]

I will start by saying that I was a supporter of Bush. I voted for him twice. I was originally a supporter of this war because I believed (albeit rather naively) that our President knew more then I did and I trusted him. It's getting harder and harder to support him and I find myself quickly dissenting.

With that said, this war is now happening and we can't pull out until Iraq is stable enough... we owe that to them for getting them in this mess. I think this war probably does put us at a greater risk for terrorist acts. I'm sure Osama is looking at us right now and laughing. I'm sure other countries are looking at us and thinking we are not as strong as we once were and that puts the US in a very vulnerable position.

My continued thoughts and prayers are for all the fine soldiers and their families. I pray they come home safely.

To the letter, this is exactly how I feel. I, unfortunately, voted for him as well.

And now with the mess involving the ports, I find myself more scared and anxious than ever.

 

[Longsx3]

With that said, this war is now happening and we can't pull out until Iraq is stable enough... we owe that to them for getting them in this mess.

I agree we need to stay in Iraq for sometime, but I am not sure what mess we got them into? Iraq was a mess long before we invaded, it just wasn't in the news because the country was run by a dictator!


As far as terriost stirkes being more likely as a result of us invading Iraq, I doubt it The World Trade Center was attacked twice (93, 01,) before we invaded Iraq in 2003.

 

[Teejay32]

That's quite major, but not too surprising. Why? We've invaded a country - resistance is inevitable (in the form of nationals) both in and from Iraq. On top of this, you get existing terrorists who will perceive the invasion as yet another reason why we should die.

If they're in the terrorism business, seems they've already decided that we should die.

 

[dcentity2000]

Let me see, other islamic hardline dictatorships feel it was a mistake to remove Saddam. Who would have known!

European countries who sold arms to Iraq and had huge capital investments and were basically in business with Saddam think it was a mistake. Who would have known!

Actually, this idea is null and void. Tens of thousands of people were interviewed, ie. the populace. Unless each and every one of them had secret dealings with Iraq, I think it is safe to say that this survey is very solid.

Understatement.



Rich::

 

[dcentity2000]

If they're in the terrorism business, seems they've already decided that we should die.

The point, respectfully, was that the terrorism quota of the world was enlarged by the war. People who would, in other words, have had no terrorist aspirations now may, in defence of their nation (as they see it), turn to arms; as one poster put it, some people will do anything to win a war - even turn to terrorism.

Sad but true.



Rich::

 

[Teejay32]

equally respectful: the threat of terrorism was also increased by a few Danish cartoons. "Islam is being attacked." As they see it.

 

[Viking]

European countries who sold arms to Iraq and had huge capital investments and were basically in business with Saddam think it was a mistake. Who would have known!

Should those countries have done it like the USA during the Reagan-era? In case you don't remember: Rumsfeld delivered American arms and money to his buddy Saddam for FREE!!!

 

[dcentity2000]

equally respectful: the threat of terrorism was also increased by a few Danish cartoons. "Islam is being attacked." As they see it.

Totally right. It brings to mind a couple of images I found a little while back:

I'd hold, though, that the war was a greater antagonism than the cartoon was in terms of creating new terrorists.

Either way, the response to the cartoon was (IMO) totally unwarranted. Sure, they have the right to be upset and to voice it and maybe we overstepped the line, but riots? Destroying embassies? Totally out of line.

I think the cartoons gave war dissenters yet more ammo to use against us.



Rich::

 

[dcentity2000]

Should those countries have done it like the USA during the Reagan-era? In case you don't remember: Rumsfeld delivered American arms and money to his buddy Saddam for FREE!!!

Didn't we fund Osama when Russia invaded? I vaguely remember something to do with the CIA and tunnels, although I'm not totally sure... could easily be an unsubstantiated rumour.



Rich::

 

[Teejay32]

I have no idea whether we did or didn't. I don't really trust either of them to give a straight answer...though if you assume we aided both and take the two cases together, Saddam & Osama, it's clear working with militants is a waste of time.