U.S. is losing the sympathy of the world

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

Since when?

Steve Swartz

(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*?)


"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Fred J. McCall
writes
Coridon Henshaw ) wrote:
: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?

Pakistan is more fungible, but 9/11 came from Saudi. They paid for it,
they provided the personnel, they made it happen.

Then they watched the US miss the point.

What _did_ the US do to punish Saudi Arabia for funding and enthusing
the 9/11 crew?


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

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

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..



Why are Righties so unutterably stupid?

--
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 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.

--
"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

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 06:38:27 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

Meanwhile, the Iraqis *hate* the UN, are generally welcoming American
soldiers with open arms, and are completely ****ed off at the
Jordanians, Syrians, Saudis and Iranians who are causing all of the
trouble in some parts of Iraq.

Cite? That is to say, do you have an opinion poll of iraqi opinion
that backs up your viewpoint. I have of mine, so put up or shut up.

Here's mine:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=734

If you were correct, then why do almost 70% of Iraqis think they're
going to be better off in five years?

Because they're in a ****ty condition now.

If "the majority" of them are
suspicious of the motives of the US "occupiers," they should be much
more pessimistic, right?

Of course, if you'd used a sensible dataset, rather than the poxy
3-question one you quoted, you'd know that 77% of Iraqis (or at
lest Baghdadis) think the invasion wasn't motived by a desire to
liberate Iraqis. Iraqis think the main reason for the American
invasion was to secure oil. From the poll (URL below):

What do you think were the main reasons for America and Britains
actions (all numbers are %ages):

Secure oil supplies 47
Help Israel 41
Liberate Iraqis 23
Protect Kuwait 7
Destroy WMDs 6
Other reason 10
Don't know/not stated 8

About 1/2 of Iraqis think the Americans are as bad as Saddam; of the
others, more prefer the Americans to Saddam.

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

Saddam 9
No preference 47
Americans 29
Not stated 15

Iraqis are mostly neither friendly nor hostile to the occupiers.

What is your view towards the American and Britian force currently
stateioned in Iraq:

Very friendly 8
Fairly friendly 18
Neither friendly nor hostile 50
Fairly hostile 9
Very hostile 9
No opinion/not stated 6

Not quite "welcoming Americans with open arms", is it?

There were not questions in the survey on Iraqi views towards the
UN, Jordanians, Syrians, etc, but its reasonable to assume that the
assuracy of your thoughts on that issue is about the same as the
accuracy of your thoughts on the issue of Iraqi sentiment towards
Americans, i.e. not very.

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

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

http://www.yougov.com/yougov_website/asp_besPollArchives/pdf/OMI030101018_2.pdf

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

--
A: top posting

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

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 07:37:43 -0400, Peter Skelton wrote:

I wonder how these opinion polls are conducted. The only one I
checked into was a survey of memebers of an association of Iraqi
landed immigrants to Canada, interesting but hardly conclusive.

The one I'm using was done in Baghdad.

--
A: top posting

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

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...I030101018_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.

Now, if you'd just quote something current, instead of the two month old
one... the Zogby poll was from last *week*.

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article ,
(phil hunt) wrote:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 07:37:43 -0400, Peter Skelton wrote:

I wonder how these opinion polls are conducted. The only one I
checked into was a survey of memebers of an association of Iraqi
landed immigrants to Canada, interesting but hardly conclusive.

The one I'm using was done in Baghdad.

....two months ago.

Things have changed.

People get less suspicious when they start getting power and food.

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

. . . but thanks for playing . . .

Steve Swartz


"Alan Lothian" wrote in message
...
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.

--
"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

Hmmm . . .

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

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.

The results are therefore somewhat "interpretable" at best.

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. . .

(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?")

Steve Swartz



"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 06:38:27 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

Meanwhile, the Iraqis *hate* the UN, are generally welcoming American
soldiers with open arms, and are completely ****ed off at the
Jordanians, Syrians, Saudis and Iranians who are causing all of the
trouble in some parts of Iraq.

Cite? That is to say, do you have an opinion poll of iraqi opinion
that backs up your viewpoint. I have of mine, so put up or shut up.

Here's mine:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=734

If you were correct, then why do almost 70% of Iraqis think they're
going to be better off in five years?

Because they're in a ****ty condition now.

If "the majority" of them are
suspicious of the motives of the US "occupiers," they should be much
more pessimistic, right?

Of course, if you'd used a sensible dataset, rather than the poxy
3-question one you quoted, you'd know that 77% of Iraqis (or at
lest Baghdadis) think the invasion wasn't motived by a desire to
liberate Iraqis. Iraqis think the main reason for the American
invasion was to secure oil. From the poll (URL below):

What do you think were the main reasons for America and Britains
actions (all numbers are %ages):

Secure oil supplies 47
Help Israel 41
Liberate Iraqis 23
Protect Kuwait 7
Destroy WMDs 6
Other reason 10
Don't know/not stated 8

About 1/2 of Iraqis think the Americans are as bad as Saddam; of the
others, more prefer the Americans to Saddam.

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

Saddam 9
No preference 47
Americans 29
Not stated 15

Iraqis are mostly neither friendly nor hostile to the occupiers.

What is your view towards the American and Britian force currently
stateioned in Iraq:

Very friendly 8
Fairly friendly 18
Neither friendly nor hostile 50
Fairly hostile 9
Very hostile 9
No opinion/not stated 6

Not quite "welcoming Americans with open arms", is it?

There were not questions in the survey on Iraqi views towards the
UN, Jordanians, Syrians, etc, but its reasonable to assume that the
assuracy of your thoughts on that issue is about the same as the
accuracy of your thoughts on the issue of Iraqi sentiment towards
Americans, i.e. not very.

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
..pdf

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

--
A: top posting

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

Man on the street interviews conducted by a news organization, 8-10 July, in
Baghdad . . .

Somewhat problematic methodology, generalizability-wise.

Steve Swartz



"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 07:37:43 -0400, Peter Skelton
wrote:

I wonder how these opinion polls are conducted. The only one I
checked into was a survey of memebers of an association of Iraqi
landed immigrants to Canada, interesting but hardly conclusive.

The one I'm using was done in Baghdad.

--
A: top posting

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

"John Keeney" wrote:


"phil hunt" wrote in message
...
These statistics aren't the most important. More important, IMO,
are opinion polls of US support for the occupation of iraq.

snort

From http://www.greenleft.org.au/current/547p14.htm:
A Detroit News poll, published on July 23, found that 48% of voters
believe the White House misled the US people about the need to
invade Iraq, while 47% didn't believe they were misled. Seventy-one
per cent were concerned that the US occupation of Iraq would be
"expensive, long and deadly".

Buying a house is enormously expensive, comes with unique &
substantial risk and is only maintained with continuous outlays.
Yes, I'm concerned that the occupation will be "expensive, long
and deadly.

I own my home.
I support the occupation.

Facile and moronic analogy. Another imbecile.

I hate the French.

There you go.


Perhaps I should have simply asked "So?"

d'oh would be more appropriate. Cretin.

Grantland