Poll Results: Target Iraq
Monday, October 14, 2002 by Frogboy | Discussion: WinCustomize News
There were 6 options:
1) Going to war with Iraq needs to be done.
2) Hopefully a peaceful solution can be found but if Iraq doesn't let the inspectors back in unconditionally (really) then the US/UK needs to be able to launch military action even without the UN.
3) The UN needs to be the mechanism in which all dealings with Iraq are handled.
4) Bush and his cowboy diplomacy is the problem here.
5) This is just a scheme by Bush to help out his oil buddies.
6) Iraq is a sovereign nation and hence inspections and other nonsense shouldn't apply to it.
Put another way you could say:
1) Advocates military action as necessary
2) Supports military action if all else fails
3) Supports military action only if the UN okays it.
4 and 5 and 6 are against any kind of military action.
Option 1 received 30% of the votes
OPtion 2 received 23% of the votes
Option 3 received 6% of the vote
Option 4,5,6 combined received 40% of the vote.
Interpreting poll results can be tricky. There was definitely a large enough sampling (1017 respondants) for it to be statistically valid. By what does this mean?
Well, 30% of WC users believe Saddam has to go no matter what. That is, unconditional support of military action.
Another 23% support military action as well but only if UN resolutions are truly obeyed. That's a thin majority of people who could be described to support military action against Iraq in some form (53%).
You also have 40% of people who are solidly against military action.
The remainder feels that the whole thing should be handled by the UN.
So it's pretty evenly divided with those who are open or advocating military action having a slim majority.
Now what would be interesting would be to see a breakdown of American users, European users, and others.
1) Going to war with Iraq needs to be done.
2) Hopefully a peaceful solution can be found but if Iraq doesn't let the inspectors back in unconditionally (really) then the US/UK needs to be able to launch military action even without the UN.
3) The UN needs to be the mechanism in which all dealings with Iraq are handled.
4) Bush and his cowboy diplomacy is the problem here.
5) This is just a scheme by Bush to help out his oil buddies.
6) Iraq is a sovereign nation and hence inspections and other nonsense shouldn't apply to it.
Put another way you could say:
1) Advocates military action as necessary
2) Supports military action if all else fails
3) Supports military action only if the UN okays it.
4 and 5 and 6 are against any kind of military action.
Option 1 received 30% of the votes
OPtion 2 received 23% of the votes
Option 3 received 6% of the vote
Option 4,5,6 combined received 40% of the vote.
Interpreting poll results can be tricky. There was definitely a large enough sampling (1017 respondants) for it to be statistically valid. By what does this mean?
Well, 30% of WC users believe Saddam has to go no matter what. That is, unconditional support of military action.
Another 23% support military action as well but only if UN resolutions are truly obeyed. That's a thin majority of people who could be described to support military action against Iraq in some form (53%).
You also have 40% of people who are solidly against military action.
The remainder feels that the whole thing should be handled by the UN.
So it's pretty evenly divided with those who are open or advocating military action having a slim majority.
Now what would be interesting would be to see a breakdown of American users, European users, and others.
Tarkus
Reply #2 Tuesday, October 15, 2002 1:20 AM
Reply #2 Tuesday, October 15, 2002 1:20 AM
"There was definitely a large enough sampling (1017 respondants) for it to be statistically valid."
Valid for what? Online polls are basically only good for entertainment purposes. The networks gets tens of thousands (if not more) online poll respondents, and even they don't claim for it to be for anything other than entertainment value.
Valid for what? Online polls are basically only good for entertainment purposes. The networks gets tens of thousands (if not more) online poll respondents, and even they don't claim for it to be for anything other than entertainment value.
T-Man
Reply #3 Tuesday, October 15, 2002 8:52 AM
Reply #3 Tuesday, October 15, 2002 8:52 AM
Frogboy,
I really must disagree with your interpetations of the results. First let me repost the original question and possible answers:
What are your feelings about Iraq?
1: Military action is probably unavoidable, a regime change is needed to prevent Saddam from acquring weapons of mass destruction.
2: The US needs to work through the UN to reinstitute inspectoins.
3: I am hopeful that a peaceful resoltuion can be found but the US/UK needs to be free to use military action if Iraq doesn't fully comply with the UN resolutions.
4: American cowboy diplomacy will just lead to more terrorism and solve nothing.
5: Iraq is a sovereign nation and should not be required to submit to inspections in the first place.
6: I pretty much think this is just a scheme by Bush and his buddies to secure more oil for their friends.
You interpert answer#1 as people agreeing that we must go to war with Iraq. I on the other hand interpet it as being that military action is most likely to happen based on the state of affairs as it exists today. I personally placed a vote for answer 1 believing that military action will most likely happen but I am not in favor of military action.
Look at the actual wording of the question and answer 1. They do not even come close to your interpetations. Please keep the facts straight. I for one am against war. War should be avoided. In no way does that answer say that I am in acceptance of war. Please do not try to twist the meanings around to fit your beliefs and views.
I really must disagree with your interpetations of the results. First let me repost the original question and possible answers:
What are your feelings about Iraq?
1: Military action is probably unavoidable, a regime change is needed to prevent Saddam from acquring weapons of mass destruction.
2: The US needs to work through the UN to reinstitute inspectoins.
3: I am hopeful that a peaceful resoltuion can be found but the US/UK needs to be free to use military action if Iraq doesn't fully comply with the UN resolutions.
4: American cowboy diplomacy will just lead to more terrorism and solve nothing.
5: Iraq is a sovereign nation and should not be required to submit to inspections in the first place.
6: I pretty much think this is just a scheme by Bush and his buddies to secure more oil for their friends.
You interpert answer#1 as people agreeing that we must go to war with Iraq. I on the other hand interpet it as being that military action is most likely to happen based on the state of affairs as it exists today. I personally placed a vote for answer 1 believing that military action will most likely happen but I am not in favor of military action.
Look at the actual wording of the question and answer 1. They do not even come close to your interpetations. Please keep the facts straight. I for one am against war. War should be avoided. In no way does that answer say that I am in acceptance of war. Please do not try to twist the meanings around to fit your beliefs and views.
GoatRider
Reply #5 Tuesday, October 15, 2002 12:51 PM
Reply #5 Tuesday, October 15, 2002 12:51 PM
I strongly agree with T-Man!
You not only interpret the results quite poorly. You even alter the content of the questions after they're answered:
"Put another way you could say:
1) Advocates military action as necessary
2) Supports military action if all else fails
3) Supports military action only if the UN okays it.
4 and 5 and 6 are against any kind of military action."
Rule number one: you don't "put it in another way" AFTER the questions are answered. But you were joking, right? RIGHT?
4 and 5 are mainly stating the Americans (Bush, actually) are at fault. They're not statements against war.
Besides, why don't you show the individual results for the last three questions? According to your data 39,9% COULD have shosen #4 (and they should, IMHO)
You not only interpret the results quite poorly. You even alter the content of the questions after they're answered:
"Put another way you could say:
1) Advocates military action as necessary
2) Supports military action if all else fails
3) Supports military action only if the UN okays it.
4 and 5 and 6 are against any kind of military action."
Rule number one: you don't "put it in another way" AFTER the questions are answered. But you were joking, right? RIGHT?
4 and 5 are mainly stating the Americans (Bush, actually) are at fault. They're not statements against war.
Besides, why don't you show the individual results for the last three questions? According to your data 39,9% COULD have shosen #4 (and they should, IMHO)
Frogboy
Reply #6 Tuesday, October 15, 2002 1:39 PM
Reply #6 Tuesday, October 15, 2002 1:39 PM
You're certainly free to disagree with my interpretation. I stand by my interpretation.
GoatRider
Reply #7 Tuesday, October 15, 2002 1:52 PM
Reply #7 Tuesday, October 15, 2002 1:52 PM
Sure. And so you should.
My comment was nothing personal. No offence I hope.
My comment was nothing personal. No offence I hope.
Frogboy
Reply #8 Tuesday, October 15, 2002 3:48 PM
Reply #8 Tuesday, October 15, 2002 3:48 PM
No problemo. The whole point of these discussions is to exchange ideas.
Tryzub
Reply #9 Wednesday, October 16, 2002 6:42 PM
Reply #9 Wednesday, October 16, 2002 6:42 PM
There are many writings in circulation that deal with the people, places and events of the various religions in which peoples believe. These writings have been interpreted by many over the years, but it's always up to each individual to choose with which interpretation he/she chooses to subscribe.
Attacking Frogboy with your opinion on how well he interprets the poll and its results was unfair. Disagree with someone's interpretation, fine. But don't redicule that person just because you don't agree. The admins wrote the poll; they knew what they meant by each option.
However,
Initially I agreed with Frogboy's interpretation, but after reading T-Man's comments, I could see how some respondents may have chosen #1, but are still against war. So the poll is flawed, not anyone personally or their interpretation.
Statements such as "Please keep the facts straight", "Please do not try to twist the meanings around to fit your beliefs and views" and "you...interpret the results quite poorly" are uncalled for and are cheap shots.
Attacking Frogboy with your opinion on how well he interprets the poll and its results was unfair. Disagree with someone's interpretation, fine. But don't redicule that person just because you don't agree. The admins wrote the poll; they knew what they meant by each option.
However,
Initially I agreed with Frogboy's interpretation, but after reading T-Man's comments, I could see how some respondents may have chosen #1, but are still against war. So the poll is flawed, not anyone personally or their interpretation.
Statements such as "Please keep the facts straight", "Please do not try to twist the meanings around to fit your beliefs and views" and "you...interpret the results quite poorly" are uncalled for and are cheap shots.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
Reply #1 Tuesday, October 15, 2002 12:52 AM
1. Percentage of resondents in each category that have performed military service,
2. Histograms of age in each responding category.
3. Percentage who would be willing to give up their current employment to enlist for service in combat against Iraq.
4. Percentage who support sending their own children into combat against Iraq.
In the end you have to ask, what are the anticipated benefits and the risked losses involved in such an action. Be realistic and don't be a sheep.
Just who does Iraq threaten? Who are the bad guys? Is Saddam the bad guy all by himself? What are the chances? Who are the cronies and what are the chances that ousting the top dog will prevent the underlings from regaining power in the future when they change their own skins? Think about the breakup of the former Soviet Union and what is still transpiring there...