U.S. is losing the sympathy of the world

Yes, Phil, but the timing and location of that poll creates a tremendous
bias in the results.

Steve


"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 23:31:30 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:
In article ,
(phil hunt) wrote:

Where's your poll, now that you mention it?

Oh, that's right, you don't have one.


http://www.yougov.com/yougov_website...OMI030101018_2
..p
df

I think you owe me an apology for calling me a liar.

Okay, I'm sorry for being suspicious of this poll that you never quoted
before.

Apology accepted.

Now, if you'd just quote something current, instead of the two month old
one...

Unfortunately YouGov don't have a more recent one. I have to take as
I find.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

For profit polling organization (purpose is to make money by making clients
happy) with a core competency in "Web Based" polling? Yes, that's "iffy"
from a standpoint of trying to get at any kindf of objective approach.

Big-Time "Iffy."

I use the quotes to offset words for which common usage is unrealiable and
subject to misinterpretation. Commonly used in the United States. When
speaking, the use of "Air Quaotes" implies that the common usage of the word
strays quite far from generally accepted interpretation; as when a
politician tries to spin a word.

Like when you reported that half of the Iraquis preferred Saddam, since by
"half" you meant 9%, your use of the word "half" should have been in quotes.

Steve



"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 19:52:24 -0400, Leslie Swartz
wrote:
Hmmm . . .

The website of the for-profit "YouGov" site is a little "iffy" about
how/what they do.

In what sense? They are an opinion polling organisation, mainly know
for conducting Internet-based polls in the UK. What's iffy about
that?

The impression one is left with is that they "commissioned" a news
organization to do "man on the street" interviews back in 8-10 July.

"Why" "are" "you" "quoting" "every" "other" "word"?

And your "interpretations" are somewhat a stretch in many of the cases
you
cite, even if the results were reliable for the limited sub-sub-sample. .
..

That's right, ignore any evidence that contradicts your preconceived
notions.

(how on earth do you convert a 9% "rather live under Saddam" result into
a
"1/2 think the Americans are as bad as Saddam?")

I don't, it's not the 9% figure that counts, it's the 47%: the relevant
part of the poll was:

If you had to choose would you rather live under Saddam or the
Americans:

Saddam 9
No preference 47
Americans 29
Not stated 15


If 47% have no preference between the two, then the two choices must
be as good (or bad) as each other.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 07:11:26 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:
In article ,
(phil hunt) wrote:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 23:31:30 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

Now, if you'd just quote something current, instead of the two month old
one...

Unfortunately YouGov don't have a more recent one. I have to take as
I find.

But you ignored the more-recent Zogby poll...

Because it -- or at least the public bits of it -- weren't useful in
finding out what Iraqis think of the USA.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message
...
The for-profit polling organizations know all of this, of course, and they
know they will not be called to account like a scientist trying to publish
in a peer-reviewed journal would be. Therefore, they can pretty easily
give
their client whaht they are paying for- which is support for one position
or
another; not some objecitve "truth."

That's why the results of these "polls" are generally never to be trusted-
whether Zogby, Roper, CNN, whomever.

Steve Swartz

How about one of those organizations being hired to ask the question:

Should this forum return to talking about military aviation?

Tex

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 15:43:55 +0000 (UTC), "William Black"
wrote:


"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
Coridon Henshaw ) wrote:

:"Jim McLaughlin" wrote in
:news:S2A8b.431325$Ho3.69216@sccrnsc03:
:
: Saudi royal funded Wahabbist crazies
:
:Since they are *Saudi* funded crazies, just why are you doing asking the
:rest of the world to march on Iraq rather than on Saudi Arabia?

Why are Lefties so unutterably stupid?

I suppose you also wonder why we don't invade North Korea and
Pakistan, right?

They know why.

Pakistan is a nasty military dictatorship that needed friends and was for
sale. It was bought for less than the cost of an invasion.

North Korea got nukes.

No, the DPRK is "working on" a nuclear weapon, there is no evidence
that they currently have one. One also has to take into account the
sensibilities of the PRC regarding the DPRK.

Al Minyard

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 18:22:36 +0100, Alan Lothian
wrote:

In article , Leslie Swartz
wrote:

"Absence of Evidence" = "Evidence of Absence?"

Since when?

Since the beginnings of logical thought. One reason why I am reasonably
certain there are no fairies at the bottom of my garden is the utter
absence of evidence for their presence. Which I take, pro tem, as
"evidence of absence". Not *proof* of absence, mind you, but it will do
for the moment. Carl Sagan should never have come out with that one.

For thousands of years there was no evidence (that could be observed)
for the existence of molecules, atoms, neutrinos,etc. That was not
very good "evidence of absence".

Al Minyard

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 19:32:22 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Alan Minyard wrote:

The URL that you give is for "Fair Use", a different section of the
(excellent) web site cover "educational use". For instance, video
taping an entire program for use in the classroom is allowed, as is
the copying of entire poems, short stories, etc.

But making a lot of copies and distributing them randomly around campus
is, most certainly, not.

Like making a copy of a complete newspaper story and dumping it on
Usenet.

I would tend to agree with that, although the law as it pertains to
the internet is, IMHO, still evolving.

Al Minyard

In article , Leslie Swartz
wrote:

Excellent.

So now you are ready to agree that the mountains of evidence we have
accumulated to demonstrate that Iraq had WMD programs, and WMDs themselves,
overwhelms the absence fo evidence that he destroyed them?

That is what you are saying, right?

WTF?

I was harmlessly attacking the foolish concept that "absence of
evidence does not equal evidence of absence", and pointing out that
absence of evidence is indeed evidence (although assuredly not proof)
of absence.

Iraq, or any other country with a name beginning somewhere between A
and Z, had nothing to do with it.

Go, and grind your axe in peace.

--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" Ibn Khaldun

My .mac.com address is a spam sink.
If you wish to email me, try alan dot lothian at blueyonder dot co dot uk

In message , Leslie Swartz
writes
"Absence of Evidence" = "Evidence of Absence?"

Since when?

Prove that there are no fairies living at the bottom of your garden (or
any other damnfool claim). Don't just say "there's no evidence" that you
are the lost love child of Marilyn Monroe and Elvis Presley, show me the
_proof_ or else I'll take the claim as true

Evidence may emerge, but it hasn't yet despite being eagerly sought.
When it emerges, it gets evaluated.

(By the way, *programs" were in violation of the accords, with or without
stockpiles. Are you claiming that we have demonstrated no evidence of
*programs*?)

Nope. But they were pretty poor affairs (equipment for nuclear research
buried in a garden for twelve years is not exactly what I call a clear
and present danger). No production facilities worth a damn (a couple of
canvas-sided trailers is the best anyone's come up with), no stockpiles
of bulk agents or precursors, no filled weapons.

What _is_ interesting is the complete lack of actual weapons. I'm coming
around to the belief that Iraq's WME program had a distinct Potemkin
feel to it: like the Soviet Five-Year Plans that proudly boasted of
record harvests even as most citizens nursed hungry bellies. _Declaring_
vast production of grain, meat and milk is easy for bureaucrats who get
promoted for production; but try finding them when they're actually
called for.


Trouble is, Iraq did its best to act like it _was_ a serious threat and
seems to have lied comprehensively to do so. (And would quite certainly
have resumed active research and production, once able).

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In message , Kevin
Brooks writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
What _did_ the US do to punish Saudi Arabia for funding and enthusing
the 9/11 crew?

You are claiming that Saudi Arabia, as in their government, sanctioned
the 9-11 attack? I don't think so...

Did Iraq?

Saudi funded the madrassas, gave them passports, threw money at them,
and whined that the end result was nothing to do with them.

What, precisely, did Iraq do? (Mildly exasperated by claims that 'Iraq
backed 9/11')

So it must be those Saudi
individuals who have supported AQ that you are carping about.
Otherwise, because the infamous "shoe bomber" was a Brit, we should
"punish" the UK?

Did we fund his particular sect?

Since then, Iraq had no WMEs. They claimed so, they were invaded, and
still no WMEs emerge.

You really think they had no WME, as you call it

Weapons of Mass Effect. Chemical, biological, radiological weapons don't
_destroy_ much of anything unless it's ruined by decontamination: but
they produce major effects (evacuations, mass casualties, isolation,
decontamination...) Nuclear does mass _destruction_, the others don't.

Blame JDCC, not me.

, programs?

Programs aren't weapons - and what programs did they have?

They had plans on hold for when sanctions lifted and would have made a
hard charge for WME once they could get hold of equipment, precursors,
skills,

The mere
existance of such programs would be in violation of the various UN
resolutions, not to mention the ceasefire agreement from ODS.

So, where are the programs? "Bury this in your garden" in 1991 isn't a
program for 2003.

Justification does not require the finding of a horde of prepped and
ready chem rounds.

I'll settle for pretty much any WME at this stage. Still none to be had.

North Korea says they _do_ have WMEs and the missiles to deliver them.

So?

It was a major problem when Iraq were unable or unwilling to prove this
wasn't true: why is it trivial that North Korea has thus tooled up and
stated their intent to use?

One gets invaded, the other doesn't. Clear lesson? WMEs make you safe as
long as your claim is credible. North Korea is believed, Iraq was not..

WME's are not making the DPRK "safe".

The Stars and Stripes flies over Baghdad but not over Pyongyang. Iraq
didn't have findable WMEs, Pyongyang apparently does (and the missiles
to deliver them to sensitive spots) Kim Jong-Il still runs his country
into the ground for personal gain, Saddam Hussein is either dead or
hiding hard.

I'd say WMEs are showing a definite advantage: Kim's claim is credible,
Hussein's was either not credible or an acceptable risk.

It would seem that the
possibility of defanging the DPRK without resorting to armed conflict
is a reasonable one; twelve years of piffling about with Saddam, his
refusal to comply with disarmament requirements, and various
unenforced UN resolutions indicates that avenue was leading nowhere in
the case of Iraq.

The US has been piffling around with North Korea since 1953: I don't see
any prompt resolution in sight. That doesn't seem to be a problem - why
not?

Why are Righties so unutterably stupid?

I believe the extremes of both sides are rather stupid, just as I am
none to impressed with the less-than-cerebral machinations of those
who seem to think that all foreign policy has to be done with a cookie
cutter (the "you went into Iraq, but not the DPRK" blathering being a
fine example).

It's just curious that one scenario can sit and simmer for fifty years
and still be "not a problem", while a dozen years makes the other into a
crisis.


Better to use a diplomatic version of METT-T and
develop an optimal COA for each independent situation.

Funny, even that doesn't lead to unanimous agreement.

(eyeball-deep in how to turn doctrine about 'effects based operation'
into useful facts)
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk