Massive World Protests Tomorrow - Page 10

Dauphin · February 16, 2003, 12:58

Statistical sampling is better than that.

A poll can be very accurate with 1,000 as the sample size. All you need to do is ensure that it is as random as possible by removing systematic errors.

Demerzel · February 16, 2003, 13:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Big Crunch
Statistical sampling is better than that.

A poll can be very accurate with 1,000 as the sample size. All you need to do is ensure that it is as random as possible by removing systematic errors.

Still don't trust things that use such a small sample as a way of measuring a very large number's opinions. 1000 isn't a lot especially when most survey peeps grab whoever is willing on the street. And we all know that only a select few don't just bypass anyone with a clipboard when in town. Not very random eh?

Dauphin · February 16, 2003, 13:33

That is why the first question I would ask is "How was the data collected?". Its more important than the question and the questioner.

TV audience surveys are pretty good, as are most polls by dedicated organisations (MORI, Gallop, etc)

Urban Ranger · February 16, 2003, 13:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
When poll numbers say 55% are pro war, you think some idiot teens on the street represent the majority?

It's now down to 55% eh? Too bad.

Shi Huangdi · February 16, 2003, 13:41

I heard 61% in favor of war.

Demerzel · February 16, 2003, 13:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Big Crunch
That is why the first question I would ask is "How was the data collected?". Its more important than the question and the questioner.

TV audience surveys are pretty good, as are most polls by dedicated organisations (MORI, Gallop, etc)

IIRC, BARB who collect the "TV Audiences" ratings have a mere 115 households as their sampling data. So ~400 people are used to say 15m watched this and 8m watched that, pretty tenuous I'd say esp. when they use the data to cancel a programme I like because some stupid couch potatoes thought it was too "highbrow".

Bosh · February 16, 2003, 14:01

Quote:

When poll numbers say 55% are pro war

This is conditional pro-war of course, if even the UK doesn't get on board the war (and I have a hard time seeing how Blair could push the war down his country's throat w/o UN approval that's looking a bit tenuos) then its much lower.

Dauphin · February 16, 2003, 14:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Demerzel

IIRC, BARB who collect the "TV Audiences" ratings have a mere 115 households as their sampling data. So ~400 people are used to say 15m watched this and 8m watched that, pretty tenuous I'd say esp. when they use the data to cancel a programme I like because some stupid couch potatoes thought it was too "highbrow".

5,100 households

http://www.barb.co.uk/about.cfm?report=qanda

faded glory · February 16, 2003, 14:17

Vocal Minoritys in larger US cities. Large majorities in Europe. The one is London suprised me, being a million strong. The ones in the US were kinda small. Sure, 500,000 people went. But about 100 million others stayed home.

One thing that bothers me. I see all these signs and stuff the protesters are carrying. Half of them have nothing to do with war. Its about Kyoto, Israel, World Debt, and other stuff. The protest gave the impression it was more Anti-Bush than Anti-War..
which kind of blurred the objective. Either way, the protests had little effect on policy towards iraq. Its a good thing too, foriegn policy and national security shouldnt be attached to poll numbers.

DuncanK · February 16, 2003, 14:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Boshko
This is conditional pro-war of course, if even the UK doesn't get on board the war (and I have a hard time seeing how Blair could push the war down his country's throat w/o UN approval that's looking a bit tenuos) then its much lower.

There is a big difference between being against the war period and being against it unless the UN passes a resolution supporting it. The people who only support it if a resolution is passed are really right on the fence. The will disagree with war without the resolution, but they won't be too upset by it. That's my 2 cents.

Ted Striker · February 16, 2003, 14:23

I'd say the middle states often take a stance that disagrees with the "vocal" opinion. When celebrities take a stance, their opinion often has an opposite effect. Witness Barbara Streisand, for instance, who I believe pretty much lost the last election for the democrats with her dorky song. So yes there is a silent majority.

As for the motives of the protesters, yes I still think alot of them really couldn't really give a damn one way or the other about the actual people of Iraq. They are more interested in making witty signs with funny pictures of Bush and Blair or burning American flags. They are simply there to bootstrap for their own motives.

Why was there no emphasis on the suffereing of the people of Iraq in these rallies?

DuncanK · February 16, 2003, 14:31

Hey Dudes! Let go to the anti-war rally. The're will be some fine babs, and we can bring a sack of buds.

-some 19 year old who decided to go to the anti-war rally

Sava · February 16, 2003, 14:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
Sava: The only one ignorant here is you for making that statement. Several people have tried to explain an idea to you and you keep spouting off with this garbage. Is it possible for you to debate without deliberately misrepresenting the facts of what the other side said?

So you're going to flat out lie? You've said, numerous times, that these protestors are supporting Saddam with their actions. It's one thing to be wrong, Oerdin, which you are, it's another to lie. Misrepresenting? How did I misrepresent that assertion? I simply pointed out how stupid and ignorant it is.

Agathon · February 16, 2003, 14:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

And there is no "silent majority" - there never is - it's just a conservative creation.

Um... what have you been smoking?

When poll numbers say 55% are pro war, you think some idiot teens on the street represent the majority? Ya gotta be kidding me!

Nixon gets elected to the White House and you think there is no silent majority? What are you nuts?!

Quote:

I'd say there is a silent majority. The big media states like California and New York create alot of what people precieve to be American public opinion but then theres all those people living in the states in between who often don't agree with the stances taken in the media.

Living in the South now allows me to apprechiate this much better. People just don't agree with "New York" and "Hollywood".

Oh, hurrah for the inbred KKK members south of the Mason-Dixon line; most of whom don't know where Iraq is. Prove it. And there is definitely no "silent majority" in Europe.

I can't believe I'm going to have to ask this question again: "Whose poll and what was the question?"

Unless the question is: "Do you agree that the US should wage a series of agressive, pre-emptive wars to protect and advance its position as the sole global superpower, irrespective of the will of any other state, states, or the United Nations?", then the answers of most respondents are going to be based upon a false conception of what is actually going on.

It's like Hitler taking a poll asking, "Do you agree that there should be a solution to the Jewish problem: namely that we Germans don't seem to like them much?" and then arguing that it justifies the Holocaust.

PS. I formulated the question by taking it from Bush's "pre-emptive strikes" policy.

DinoDoc · February 16, 2003, 15:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon
Oh, hurrah for the inbred KKK members south of the Mason-Dixon line

It's stupid stereotypes like this that hurt your case and make you look like a jackass.

Sava · February 16, 2003, 15:03

With fools like Lott in government, and Strom Thurmond not so far removed, Agathon is more correct than you give him credit. But at least a lot of that racist furvor has gone away. But only because it isn't as socially acceptable. How wrong can Agathon be when some Southern States still have parts of the Confederate flag in their State flags?

Agathon · February 16, 2003, 15:06

Quote:

Originally posted by faded glory
One thing that bothers me. I see all these signs and stuff the protesters are carrying. Half of them have nothing to do with war. Its about Kyoto, Israel, World Debt, and other stuff. The protest gave the impression it was more Anti-Bush than Anti-War..

Ah, the penny's dropped. All these issues are connected and the protestors are smart enough to see that:

Kyoto and the World Court are institutions that most people think should be given a try for all our sakes. The United States thinks differently for completely selfish reasons. Ditto with regard to obeying the UN Security Council. So the protest is in part about US unilateralism which is, correctly in my view, seen to be motivated by nothing more than selfishness.

Israel is the US chief vassal in the Middle East. It is a country that habitually defies the UN Security Council and harbors weapons of mass destruction. There is a double standard here - which furthers the impression that the US is acting from self interest and discounting the interests of everyone else.

It shouldn't be too hard to see why globalisation and third world poverty are relevant to international relations. After all we could feed the world tomorrow and cure most ailments if we really wanted to, but the greed of the powerful gets in the way.

Agathon · February 16, 2003, 15:07

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc

It's stupid stereotypes like this that hurt your case and make you look like a jackass.

Can't take a joke, huh?

DanS · February 16, 2003, 15:13

Unless the question is: "Do you agree that the US should wage a series of agressive, pre-emptive wars to protect and advance its position as the sole global superpower, irrespective of the will of any other state, states, or the United Nations?"

The question is fairly muscular and has 66% support...

"Would you favor or oppose having U.S. forces take military action against Iraq to force Saddam Hussein from power? Would you say you favor/oppose military action against Iraq strongly or only somewhat?"

The following has 50% support...

"What if the United Nations opposes such action - in that case would you favor or oppose having U.S. forces take military action against Iraq?"

The following has 57% support...

"What if the United Nations opposes such action but some U.S. allies such as Great Britain, Australia and Italy support it - in that case would you favor or oppose having U.S. forces take military action against Iraq?"

DinoDoc · February 16, 2003, 15:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon
Can't take a joke, huh?

Yes, I can. I also know when someone is backing away from a childish and stupid remark they made.

General Ludd · February 16, 2003, 15:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Why was there no emphasis on the suffereing of the people of Iraq in these rallies?

What? That's the entire point of these protests, to try to stop the people of Iraq from having to experience another war.

At the Toronto march, one of the first speakers was a 15 year old girl who's family fled Iraq during the first gulf war, and there where a number of other refuges marching aswell. Many of the signs emphasised this, and there where very few that wheren't specifically about the war.

SlowwHand · February 16, 2003, 15:17

Ready for use.

Andydog · February 16, 2003, 15:27

Goodness me there are many posting on this thread who seem to be missing several important points. Here's a Kiwi perspective on things:

It looks ominously like Bush and his cronies are going to war - with or without the UN. Whilst we in NZ are half a world away from this problem in distance we are of course going to be caught up in whatever transpires.

We are feeling just as concerned and insecure as most others around the world. When we saw the terrible events of 9/11 we felt for the victims and their families, and all the other people involved. We struggled to understand why those people were prepared to sacrifice their lives and so many others by flying those planes into the twin towers. We understood Bush's wish to track down and deal with the terrorists who were behind this attack. We sent some of our troops to seek out Bin Laden and his men in Afghanistan. Most New Zealanders supported this because what was done on 9/11 can never be justified and so many innocent lives were lost.

But now we see this imminent threat of war with Iraq and we cannot see the connection. Saddam is undoubtedly an oppressive, cruel dictator, with much blood on his hands. It is a pity his own people haven't been able to rise up against him, or that he wasn't taken out at the time of the Gulf War. But there have been others like him in other countries and the US has not seen fit to attack their countries.

I see little connection proven between Saddam's regime and Al Quaeda - in fact it would appear that Bin Laden has been openly critical of Hussein in the past. The UN inspectors seem to be finding nothing of any substance and, if anything, they seem to be refuting all the claims from the Bush regime that he has all these weapons of mass destruction. And even if he did have some is there any evidence he has any intention of using them against any other country? He got a tremendous beating the last time he tried that - he must know he would be on a hiding to nothing. It seems to me that it's a major arrogance and a great hypocrisy for Bush to be itching to use his weapons of mass destruction to crush another regime that is already on its knees, with so many of its people suffering tremendous hardship from the sanctions in place.

I see Bush as a far bigger problem in the world than Hussein is right now, simply because he is hell-bent on using his war machine to prove his power and gain more control in the world. He says that he must protect the US from terrorism, but he hasn't clearly shown that Hussein or his people are behind the terrorism. It seems that he must make an example of someone - he cannot find Bin Laden, so Hussein will do. Quite frankly I don't think he knows how to deal with terrorists - he doesn't know where they are, or what they are doing, and more importantly, he doesn't seem to understand the factors that breed terrorism. Wouldn't it be great if Bush could use all the wealth and power at his disposal to do more to counter the causes of terrorism in the world - the differences between the haves and the have nots - famine, disease, ignorance, religious oppression, trade sanctions, and so on. Instead he is creating a wider chasm between the different peoples in the world, he is fanning the flames of fear and resentment.

If he strikes Iraq he will be doing more than any other person in history to provoke terrorism, because his actions will be seen by millions around the world as unfair, unjust and the actions of a playground bully boy who can only get what he wants by brute force.

The vast majority of New Zealanders agree with our Prime Minister when she says that we do not support a pre-emptive strike against Iraq by the US and their handful of allies. She has said that the UN should decide what to do about Iraq, once the inspectors have had time to complete their work, and she has said that New Zealand, as a member of UN, will support its decisions on how to deal with the Iraq situation.

If the UN does intervene in Iraq it is likely New Zealand will send in supplies, medical assistance and be involved in peacekeeping, as they have done in other trouble spots of the world. So we are prepared to play our part as a member of the world community, BUT: We are not willing to be dragged into an unsanctioned war.

SlowwHand · February 16, 2003, 15:33

Sava · February 16, 2003, 15:41

I stand behind my stupid, childish remarks!

Comrade Tribune · February 16, 2003, 15:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Andydog
The vast majority of New Zealanders agree with our Prime Minister when she says that we do not support a pre-emptive strike against Iraq by the US and their handful of allies.

'Handful' is precious.

LOTR was made in NZ, wasn´t it? Wonderful country. If I *ever* considered moving to somewhere else, NZ would be top of my list.

Agathon · February 16, 2003, 16:25

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Yes, I can. I also know when someone is backing away from a childish and stupid remark they made.

Apparently, you don't.

Are you familar with the English concept of a "wind up"?

Imran Siddiqui · February 16, 2003, 17:47

Quote:

Yes, I can. I also know when someone is backing away from a childish and stupid remark they made.

Can't face the fact that whatever he thinks there most definetly IS a silent majority.

Agathon · February 16, 2003, 18:21

If you say so, IS then is must be true. But some proof would be nice. All you fascists (sorry, "conservatives") seem to be genuinely annoyed that the majority of world opinion is against you - as it should be - after all, you're nuts. This seems to be the underlying cause of the whining on this thread.

Anyway, polls on the war question aren't up to much unless the polled persons are informed about the events concerning which they are being polled, which they aren't (esp in the US). After all a significant proportion of the US population think that SH was responsible for 911. In any case, no one has asked my poll question, which adequately represents what's going on IMHO. If the so called majority of US citizens did answer yes to my question, I (and many others) would start sending OBL and hsi friends donations as they would then be the lesser of two evils.

Nuff said.

devilmunchkin · February 16, 2003, 19:16

here is something that bothers me:
the majority of the WORLD (and that is ALOT of people, to put it mildly) is against war and for peace. How is it, then, that a few old, male farts can pull the entire world's reign's and command that we go create mass destruction and blood shed? what gives this FEW guys this RIGHT? and can it be stopped?