(no subject)

[jfb]

The major media outlets now provide a daily scorecard of which governments have agreed to a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Are there any countries, aside from the U.S., where the public supports a war?

(I just checked the latest polls to make sure we're still pro-war. Apparently, Americans still favor a war but will oppose it if Iraq destroys some missiles tomorrow, a result that I find bewildering. Lots of other fascinating numbers in this poll.)

Comments

[dongle.livejournal.com]

I propose a new poll, that will ask:

Do you believe that poll results accurately reflect the view of the demographic group they are intended to capture?

I'd be very interested in how many people believe that to be true.

[greyaenigma.livejournal.com]

"Intended" is a tricky word there -- I wish there were stronger controls (or, indeed, any) on polls to adhere to decent testing methology and report their methods. Although maybe they do and we just don't get to hear it through the grapevine.

I just can't help getting the feeling that these polls are full of statistical slants: "we asked 100 people in Texas", "we asked 100 people who happened to be home when we called at noon", "we asked 100 college students", etc. Not to mention how small samples and the tendency of reporters to leap to the wrong conclusions mess things up. (Remember when "better results within the African/Asian population" in the AIDS vacine got blown out of proportion? The sample in that case turned out to be something like 13 people, and yet some news services briefly seized on it as a cure for those areas.)

[jfb.livejournal.com]

I'm sure there are sample errors, although I would expect Gallup to avoid the more obvious ones. Also, as they state, "question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias".

But even among this sample, 40% of those who favor a war think their support for it rests on Iraq not destroying "certain missiles" this weekend!

I guess that's a pretty safe statement, though, for people who are sure Iraq won't disarm.

[jfb.livejournal.com]

Is that a no?

I'm really curious about this. Here's, literally, the scorecard (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12023-2003Feb27.html). Among the security council members thought to support the American "second resolution", I've read consistently that the Spanish and British publics are opposed to the war. I couldn't find anything on Bulgaria without turning it into a whole research project.

[greyaenigma.livejournal.com]

Lots of incentive for Iraq to destroy those missiles, then.

I'm fascinated by the dilemma Iraq is in. It says it can't destroy the missiles because it needs them for self-defense, but what exactly is it defending itself against, besides the U.S.?

Iran, perhaps? I have haven't heard of Iran attacking Iraq for a long long time now, but I wonder what that would do to the region if a fundamentalist (but getting more moderate) Iran conquered Iraq because we made them get rid of all their weapons.

Or maybe North Korea could conquer them from a distance. It would solve their fuel embargo.

[jfb.livejournal.com]

It's an incentive for Iraq to disarm only to the extent that Iraq believes (a) that the American public really will drop its support for war (which even I don't believe) and (b) that the American government will halt the march to war if public opinion is against it. Hussein is a dictator with decades of practice; he might be even less surprised than you or I if the American president failed to base his decisions on popular will.

Re:

[greyaenigma.livejournal.com]

It would be hard to be less surprised than I would be if Bush didn't listen to the will of the American people.

I'm just wondering at this point, what does Hussein have to lose by destroying the missiles? If (when) Bush decides to attack, are those really going to slow down the US forces significantly? It seems his best hope is to get the rest of the world on his side, and it would seem the best way to do that would be to destroy the missiles.