Monday, March 17, 2008

"Poll suggests Iraqis 'optimistic' "

16 comments:

Arima said...

Optimism is a relative thing..after the last five years, then any sign of improvement should be welcomed with optimism

Nicolas said...

hmm, reading the article I could not actually find any number that support their claim that Iraqis are optimistic... you find some numbers that indicate thou if you download the poll... some interesting and in part surprising numbers (for me) indead.
As Arima already said "... of improvement should be welcomed..", so it would quite make sense if people are more optimistic due to the improved security situation (how un/sustainable this may be).

Anyway i had to laugh when I did read the answer to the last question:
"Again with your security in mind, if you could do so, would you move to a different
country entirely, or are you satisfied living in Iraq?"
answer:
Move to another country 36%

... wow, would the bbc also conclude British people are optimistic if 36% (of the population that not did already had leaved the country) would answer this way?

nadia n said...

Uhh no comment, the sub-headline already said it for me.

Wassim said...

Exactly guys,
There was just something about that headline which was so perverse, so naive. On some technicality I'm sure they can say it is true, but the absurdity of it makes you almost want to cry.

nadia n said...

But at least with the BBC, for every story they have like that, there's 3 that give information that challenges that narrative. For every piece on Iraq that CNN runs that's like that, there's 4 stories about how Mexicans are ruining the country.

DUBAI JAZZ said...

What about the 4 million Iraqi refugees? were they also polled and found to be optimistic?

Lirun said...

i have tried reading about iraq so many times and i dont think ill ever quite understand the exact reason for this divide..

dj - i read not to long ago that the refugees were starting to go back for a mixture of reasons including the shear longing for their homeland as well as a perceived improvement of the security situation..

nadia n said...

Another reason for their going back was that most of them were unable to work in the country they had fleed to and had spent their savings, also these stories of returns started appearing around the same time that Syria imposed visa regulations on Iraqis

Lirun said...

visa regulations meaning that they were limiting intake or that they were better coordinating refugee management?

nadia n said...

Both intake and how long they can stay with their visa, previously you could stay about 6 months and were really easy to renew whent hat time was up, I believe.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iptiXmHa-LLB5IyTRtP2_Gx_ddqg

Iraqis have a really hard time getting into most neighouring countries, most closed their borders to Iraqis almost entirely. Syria and Jordan were two that didn't, though in 2006, when the ethnic cleansing started in earnest and their numbers increased dramatically Jordan started closing its borders as well, chances are very slim of getting a visa to enter, which is unsurprising since they have a much smaller pop than Syria and they made a much larger impact there. They've been cracking down on and deporting the Iraqis already living there as well.

It's not just other countries, 11 or so provinces in Iraq stopped accepting new IDPs late last year unless they were staying with relatives, because they simply didn't have the resources to support them.

Celular said...

Hello. This post is likeable, and your blog is very interesting, congratulations :-). I will add in my blogroll =). If possible gives a last there on my blog, it is about the Celular, I hope you enjoy. The address is http://telefone-celular-brasil.blogspot.com. A hug.

Lirun said...

i love cellphones.. hugs..

thanks nadia - makes me wonder about the whole refugee issue.. when i studied for my masters of international law i focussed on trade but one has to question whether there is an ethic to balance and to what extent a small nation should be required to accept refugees..

hang on hang on hang on.. im not trying to hedge an argument about the palestinian right of return.. if anything im thinking more of iraq and darfur etc.. so hold your horses wassim and feed them some hay while you consider my issue and decide whether you have something to say

:)

Lirun said...

btw this is not about entering on a humantarian basis but rather more a population ratio concern.. ie

(a) to what extent is a nation obligated to support financially and otherwise another nation - merely because its in a state of flight.. extent referring to quantity - duration or any other parametre..

(b) how can one ignore human suffering.. where can one possibly draw a line.. what consideration could possibly ever be valid.. does it require an existential threat to say no?

(c) more specifically what is the role of the Umma.. we;re not talking the mahgreb v iran here.. these are all arab nations..

so confusing.. i should start reading up on this - its very interesting.. at least to me

Wassim said...

Well Lirun, if we're talking Islamically, the answer would be as follows:
a) The concept of nations does not apply, people previously would have just upped and left to a new land.

b)Human suffering cannot be ignored and the ruler is under an obligation to provide assistance.

c)The role of the Ummah as you call it would be quite interesting compared to the reactions we currently see. For one thing, unreserved assistance would be an obligation, whether accepting and assisting refugees or providing all assistance necessary for people going to fight the occupation.

nadia n said...

Well I think part of the reason why Jordan was so welcoming is because they're getting a deal on Iraqi oil. Now they're only welcoming to Iraqis that have a lot of money. None of Iraq's neighbours signed the UN conventions on refugees, and consider Iraqis guests which puts them in a very tenuous position, but I think as human beings we all have a responsibility to do the most we have a capacity to.
....though in this case for obvious reasons the US/UK have a very disproportionate responsibility to show leadership in carrying the bulk of that burden. Untill very recently they were completely ignoring that responsibility
here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/16/AR2008031601784.html

Sorry guys I tend to look at these issues in more pragmatic than abstract ways.

Lirun said...

wassim & nadia

thank you

fair enough.. but im wondering specifically as to what the "extent" of that approach is.. ie should they welcome a few.. many.. all?