From: Adam Watt (adamwatt@mac.com)
Date: Tue Jun 08 2004 - 01:00:52 BST
On Monday, June 7, 2004, at 09:43 pm, David Robjant wrote:
> Adam,
>
> You're right that opinion polling has it's faults and that in Iraq it
> has
> special dangers to do with fear and the nascent acculturation to free
> speech
> and democracy (although to judge by their newspapers they are certainly
> getting the hang of it). So there's a margin of error. Which in this
> case
> may be large. But how large? 10%, 20%, even 30%, OK, maybe. But a
> *60%*
> margin of error?
AW - It doesn't just have it's faults, it is a fault. Don't
underestimate the alien nature of such activity in this country. The
safest thing for any Iraqi to do regardless of there actual opinion is
to seem pro-invasion. That is a big motive, personally safety. What's
the motive to be honest. None. So, like anyone, the Iraqi gives the
response that will benefit him.
Give me enough money, an I'll compile a set of statistics that seem to
prove exactly the opposite of this Iraq survey. As it turns out, this
survey was commissioned by the Labour government, and you can bet your
life that they stated, and paid planty for, exactly what they wanted to
see. And Gallup delivered. That's how it works. A company with a good
reputation in the industry is one that delivers the desired result on
time and on budget. Factuality is not a factor. Period.
>
> DR-If the polling was even slightly tight (30% this way, 50% the
> other) I'd
> say that the polling might be regarded as untrustworthy.
AW - It is. Considering it to be trustworthy is naive from any
perspective. From what little evidence your basing your assumptions on,
it's ridiculous.
> DR- And if the polling
> contradicted other evidence we had about popular feeling (statements by
> imams compared with the turnouts at their congregations, newspaper
> opinions
> and their circulations, popular demonstrations etc) that would also be
> a
> reason to doubt a connection between the polling and the reality.
AW- What evidence? You cite nothing specific. Seems to me there is
plenty evidence to support the view that the occupiers are increasingly
unpopular, especially in the north. Look at the increase in allied
fatalities, for a start.
>
> DR-But in this case everything, polls, the statements of leaders with
> real
> popular support (eg Sistani), the rival newspaper circulations, the
> demonstrations from the day of the statue on - *everything* points to
> the
> notion that those iraqis wishing that Saddam had not been toppled by
> the
> US/UK are a minority.
AW- Everything? Hardly. What about the constant targeting of US troops
I just mentioned. Ever watch Al-Jazeer? Paints a different picture.
Anyway, that wasn't the question they were asked, was it? Obviously
they were glad Saddam was remove in the most part. Lets reiterate -
You/gallup said ..
"Datemark 29 April 04. The question asked of selected Iraqis is
> Only 19% say either the same or worse off, while 29% say much better,
> 34%
> somewhat better.
>
> So in sum: 63% think that the invasion will do good, 19% think that it
> will
> either do no good or do harm, and that leaves 18% not expressing a
> view."
Right, first of all, your 'summing up' is a bastardisation of the
question. You wouldn't even get away with that at Gallup! They weren't
asked 'will the invasion do good'. They question was 'Let's talk about
Iraq, say five years from now. Do you think Iraq will be much better
off, somewhat better off, somewhat worse off, or much worse off than it
was before the US-British led invasion?". (And you can bet that
deviation from the text cited here was commonplace). Better off, and
good, are different. The question emphasises whether Iraq will be
better off/worse off in 5 years. You could bypass the reference to the
'US-British' invasion altogether (i would imagine many interviewers did
just that) It's irrelevant, except when displaying the 'result' to a
populace sceptical of their nations involvement in said invasion, that
is.. It's a poor question in either form, even by M.R standards. Which
are crap in their best forms.
"
> DR-A significant and geographically concentrated
> minority (since Saddam exploited tribal loyalities to devide and rule)
> but a
> minority.
AW - Again, that wasn't the question.
>
> DR-There only visible consideration which points in the other
> direction and
> towards a complete disbeleif in the message of the polls and an
> estimation
> of their margin of error at somewhere near 50-60% is: what?
AW-The 'margin of error' (lol, margin of error 0-100%, make it up, they
do!) does not need to be that high. Do the math. 30% would do in order
to state the reverse. As I said, you can 'prove' nearly anything...
Market research is nonsense.
> DR-That a
> proportion of nationalist arabs and anti-war westerners *cannot
> beleive*
> that these people wanted their country invaded?
AW-Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. Some did, some didn't. No poll is
going to give you a better idea, that's for sure.
>
> DR-Well, *newsflash*: they did.
AW-How do you know? *newsflash* : you don't.
> DR-They had good reason. Saddam was worse. You
> have no idea how much worse.
AW-Don't I? And you do? You're losing the plot now. Yes, he was worse.
I never stated he wasn't. At all. I'm just pointing out that you're
Gallup poll isn't worth the magnetic tape it's saved on. It's nonsense!
> DR-Didn't you *see* the faces and crowds greeting
> the british in basra?
AW-Yes, I did. Didn't you see the Abu-Ghraib pictures? Understand just
how offensive this is to anyone who hold s the views of Islam? Didn't
you the resistance in Fallujah? Don't you know any Muslims? Understand
the views prevalent in the entire Muslim world regarding the sancitity
of 'Muslim lands'? Etc, etc..
My point is not that overthrowing Saddam was bad, as for some unknown
reason you seem to have assumed, but that the ways in which it was
done, and the reasons, were wrong. And that market research is nonsense!
> They know we came to do a job and that when they can
> carry on we will leave them to it ASAP.
Good grief. Do you really believe that? How do you know? I seriously
doubt many Iraqis have that much faith in the objectives of the allies.
Why should they?
>
> DavidR
>
> BTW, this is me signing out for now: too much typing not good for you!
> I'll
> check in again in a while to see if more spacious, relaxed etc.
> Toodlepip.
AW- Hmmm.. I guess if you can't take the heat. Shame though, I was far
more interested in you views on the passage below that you've avoided,
than in hearing your confused defense of an Industry I know to be the
embodiment of spin and lies..
Here it is, again..
"Market Research aside, the situation in Iraq will be explained in
time. Will the Iraqis be handed sovereignty? Questionable I think, but
we'll see. Is Iraq even governable without a harsh regime? Highly
questionable, but we'll see. Will life improve for Iraqis, overall, and
in the long-term? Maybe, I hope so, but it's not certain. In Iraq,
nothing is...
Personally, what concerns me is not so much that Iraq was invaded, but
that it was done outside of the UN framework, and as such sets a
dangerous precedent. The UN is far from perfect, but it's still the
closest thing (albeit, not very) to global democracy. The same
democracy we are imposing on Iraq. For us anyway, it's not a perfect
system, but the best we have.. I'm sure we can all agree on that. So if
Saddam (and he was) was a dictator who imposed his will without the
consent of the people, what is the US doing on an International scale?
The same thing it seems to me. This is what disturbs me most, and I'd
be interested to hear your views on this, David and others. Ever heard
of the 'Project for a New American Century'? Google it for more info,
they are having it all their way.. Scary.. I would rather live in a
word governed by a democratic body of nations, than by PFNAC's
'American Leadership'.."
Any views on this. Do you support the PFNAC, David, or oppose it? You
seem to support it right now. Which isn't very 'democratic', and at
odds with your hopes for the people of Iraq I'd say..
Re-gards,
Adam
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
> http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 08 2004 - 01:35:29 BST