Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: frankw1900 who wrote (18952)	2/16/2002 2:28:14 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

Thanks, frank!

To: frankw1900 who wrote (18952)	2/16/2002 2:40:54 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Polls are dangerous. They report, conveniently, the views of the hoi polloi. Something the Founding Fathers spent great effort to box out of national decision making in founding days of this nation. Given the fact that mis-education of the masses is the goal and the achievement of many in the elite, it is totally hypocritical and disingenuous for them to trot out these silly polls to try to prove anything. Foreign policy never has been driven by popular polls and never will be. It will be driven by the convenience of the political fixers working the will of the corporate elite. What is it that JPM-Chase and Citibank want us to do with the "Axel of Evil"? If you answer that, you've predicted American foreign policy. Prediction: No war. Concessions extracted instead. The stranglehold of the blue-eyed sheiks of Houston to continue a while longer. This stuff is totally cynical. But profitable, if you can just fool the public. Which isn't much of a challenge. -R.

To: frankw1900 who wrote (18952)	2/16/2002 8:42:25 AM
From: SirRealist	Respond to of 281500

>>A solid majority (73%) favors taking military action against Iraq to end Saddam Hussein's rule there,<< 16% less than George the Elder got >>and as many as 56% support using force even if it means the United States might suffer thousands of casualties.<< An unsustainable majority. >>Nearly half (49%)favor threatening force to get Saddam to accept weapons inspections<< Can't even get majority support for what we're already doing??? >>while just a third say the United States should offer to lift economic sanctions against Baghdad. << A sizable minority can't be ignored. >>Of those who favor the use of force, 53% say the U.S. should proceed on that course only if the allies agree, while 41% are willing to go it alone.<< 50-50 or less ain't cutting it. >>Still, there is wide agreement that any one of several reasons could justify a possible U.S. attack - including confirmation that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction.<< That pesky need for evidence again.

To: frankw1900 who wrote (18952)	2/16/2002 10:34:17 AM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 281500

A solid majority (73%) favors taking military action against Iraq to end Saddam Hussein's rule there, and as many as 56% support using force even if it means the United States might suffer thousands of casualties. This is less than the number in previous surveys who favored taking action against the terrorists responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks, but it nonetheless represents a strong endorsement of the prospective use of force compared with other military missions in the post-Cold War era. The nationwide survey of 1,201 adults by the Pew Research Center, conducted Jan. 9-13 in collaboration with the Council on Foreign Relations, also finds the public taking a tough line when presented with options for reviving weapons inspections in Iraq. Nearly half (49%) favor threatening force to get Saddam to accept weapons inspections, while just a third say the United States should offer to lift economic sanctions against Baghdad. Thanks for the post, Frank, but that won't do the trick. Here's the problem with it. First, you will note that they themselves remark the numbers have been falling since the immediate bump up after 9-11. I think there are two reasons for them falling. The first is simply that as we move away in time, they will go down. The second is the failure to link Iraq, in any firm way, to 9-11. The second reason is that one of the problems with a great many national polls, depending on how they are conducted, is that folk tend to try to enhance their self image when they respond to pollsters. It's not a big deal and for most purposes can be ignored. However, good pollsters know that poll answer might be some distance from what respondents would do if faced with the hypothetical becoming real. In this case, I suspect it would be a great distance. Unless an invasion, or whatever, occured as the result of some sort of triggering event. John