A BBC international opinion poll suggests there is widespread disquiet about the United States' role in Iraq and its other foreign policy priorities. The BBC's Jonathan Marcus analyses the results.
The Bush administration's toppling of Saddam Hussein has had several profound and unintended consequences.
One has been the way in which the destruction of both the Taleban regime in Afghanistan, and of Iraq's military machine, have opened the way for the rise of Iran as a major regional player.
Another crucial but less tangible problem - as this opinion poll commissioned by the BBC World Service indicates - is that the US's image around the world is being seriously damaged by the chaos in Iraq.
And if that was not bad enough, it suggests that America's image problems are only getting worse.
The global image of the US has significantly deteriorated over the past 12 months, as the chaos in Iraq has deepened. And in 18 of the countries that were involved in previous polls, the slide in America's standing has steepened.
Anti-Americanism rising
Overall, this new opinion poll sampled the views of 26,000 people in 25 countries.
Three in every four of those questioned disapproved of how the US government was dealing with the crisis in Iraq.
The poll did not just deal with Iraq. It also asked questions about the US handling of Guantanamo detainees; the Israel-Hezbollah war; Iran's nuclear programme; global warming; and North Korea's nuclear programme.
In every case, a majority of those questioned disapproved of America's handling of the issue concerned.
This poll underscores conclusions drawn from several other surveys - that anti-Americanism is on the rise, and the more the US flexes its hard power - the more it deploys troops abroad or talks tough diplomatically - the more it seems to weaken its ability to influence the world.
Maybe Washington will bounce back. America's image improved markedly in the post-Vietnam era.
But then there was still the Cold War to keep America's allies on-side.
What is striking in this survey is how negatively the US is seen across a range of diverse countries. Indeed the same policies are, in many cases, even unpopular in the US itself.
This, then, raises an obvious question. Is it simply the Bush administration's foreign policy or the whole image of America that is unpopular?
Comparable surveys suggest that there is still strong support around the world for the values enshrined in US society. But it looks as though America itself is seen to be living up to those values less and less.
As a result, America's soft power - its ability to influence people in other countries by the force of example and by the perceived legitimacy of its policies - is weakening.
And in a turbulent, globalising world, where the US - rightly or wrongly - is associated by many with the disruptive effects of globalisation, soft power matters more than ever. It is a resource that once squandered is very difficult to build-up again.
Complex issues
At root is the problem of legitimacy.
Iraq may have dented the utility of America's military machine. But the US remains the world's only superpower in an international system that shows few of the familiar landmarks we have come to associate with the past 50-or-so years of international diplomacy.
Opinion polls, by their very nature, are a snap-shot. They ask very particular questions and they need to be interpreted with caution.
Asking, as this survey does, about the participants' opinion of the US government's handling of, say, Iran's nuclear programme, provokes strong levels of disapproval.
But what does this really mean? Is there any constituency at all for getting tough with Iran? How far is Iran's nuclear programme perceived as being a problem at all?
Other opinion polls, asking different questions, suggest that ordinary people in many of America's allies are indeed worried by the suggestion that Iran might acquire nuclear weapons.
It is the Bush administration's handling of the issue that is reflected in this BBC poll; not the policy options themselves. These are complex. They depend upon often unavailable intelligence and uncertain assessments of what the Iranian authorities are really about.
Opinion polls are not terribly useful then in charting specific policy options.
But they do capture a mood and that mood should worry anyone in policy-making circles in Washington DC.
The US undoubtedly has an "image-problem", and there are worrying signs that this is having an impact upon the administration's ability to get the policy outcomes that it wants.
One of the wisest writers on these issues is Joseph S Nye, now Dean of the John F Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He is in many ways "Mr Soft Power", having written and theorised about the phenomenon for many years.
He has long-argued that Americans need to better understand how their policies appear to others.
"To communicate effectively," he has written, "Americans must first learn to listen."
This opinion poll, then, represents a powerful argument for those seeking to make the case that Washington should listen more and try to win over its friends as much by persuasion and force of example as by firm actions and tough rhetoric.
My god give the damn ppl there week notice overseas to get the hell out of there country before we nuke the bastards.
Even the cable guy who came to my house to reinstall a new line of cable said they should get this over with and nuke the country and the real reason behind it is due to Bush Sr and Jr just want damn revenger over a little nit picky argument they had with sadam and/or Osama. Hell if I was president id give them there week notice over there rally allt he troops back home and then push the damn button to launch the A-Bomb.
Problem solved
But NO.. Bush wants to sacrifice more lives to prove a point.. That his Ego is bigger than theres...... Im just about fed up with the father of the household leaving now for about who knows how long.. i may not even see him till i get married and ill catch a glimpse of em and he is back to war in the blink of an eye...... Its sickening what bush is trying to prove which is NOTHING
It's not what you fight. But how you fight that will determine it all.
Wow, he's genius. He must have paid attention in communications 101 class:
"...Joseph S Nye, now Dean of the John F Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University..."To communicate effectively," he has written, "Americans must first learn to listen."
You cannot effectively rule if ruling by the masses or popular vote. Nothing of any worth was ever done by a group or gov't but for the strong will & conviction of a few people.
Sure, invading Iraq destabilized the middle east, as Saddam was not a religious zealot. However, they are over simplying the issue especially when the UN doesn't have the balls to uphold it's own decisions years later. And I agree with the idea it's 1,000x better to fight on someone elses land than our own.
We're not part of the UK or EU, so I really don't care what the they or the EU think of us. using BBC as a source, wow.
"Overall, this new opinion poll sampled the views of 26,000 people in 25 countries."
+/-2.5 to 4 percent// wtf!!! way accurate. that's a huge gap and really places huge doubts into this poll.
how random a sampling?
how get in touch with the people? telephone? mall? mail?
"Hungary National 1062 Nov 27 - Dec 11, 2006 16+ Face-to-face"
Where? what location. This is key. Big difference between a college campus and outside a bank or office building...
any hidden bias in the questions or how they are asked?
----------------------
Questionnaire
M1At. Please tell me if you think each of the following are having a mainly positive or mainly negative influence in the world:
ROTATE
ct) United States
01 Mainly positive
02 Mainly negative
VOLUNTEERED DO NOT READ
03 Depends
04 Neither, neutral
99 DK/NA
M2. Thinking about the last year, please tell me if you approve or disapprove of how the United States government has dealt with each of the following. READ AND ROTATE
a. The US handling of the war in Iraq
01 Strongly approve
02 Somewhat approve
03 Somewhat disapprove
04 Strongly disapprove
VOLUNTEERED DO NOT READ
99 DK/NA
b. The US handling of Iran’s nuclear program
c. The US handling of the war between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon
d. The US treatment of detainees in Guantanamo and other prisons
e. The US handling of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program
f. The US handling of global warming or climate change
M3. Do you think the US military presence in the Middle East is a stabilizing force or provokes more conflict than it prevents?
01 Stabilizing force
02 Provokes more conflict than it prevents
VOLUNTEERED DO NOT READ
03 Both / neither
99 DK/NA
-------------------
This all relies on the person taking survey and can easily be swayed due to their inherent bias. A questionaire filled out & tabulated by a computer would have been more credible.
I took a class focusing on this from a journalist from the ajc, sample studies are very hard to be credible, lack of this data means they cannot provide it.
as low as a 2.5+/- *boggle* I'm surprised they admit how flawed it is.
Wow, he's genius. He must have paid attention in communications 101 class:
"...Joseph S Nye, now Dean of the John F Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University..."To communicate effectively," he has written, "Americans must first learn to listen."
You cannot effectively rule if ruling by the masses or popular vote. Nothing of any worth was ever done by a group or gov't but for the strong will & conviction of a few people.
Sure, invading Iraq destabilized the middle east, as Saddam was not a religious zealot. However, they are over simplying the issue especially when the UN doesn't have the balls to uphold it's own decisions years later. And I agree with the idea it's 1,000x better to fight on someone elses land than our own.
We're not part of the UK or EU, so I really don't care what the they or the EU think of us. using BBC as a source, wow.
"Overall, this new opinion poll sampled the views of 26,000 people in 25 countries."
+/-2.5 to 4 percent// wtf!!! way accurate. that's a huge gap and really places huge doubts into this poll.
how random a sampling?
how get in touch with the people? telephone? mall? mail?
"Hungary National 1062 Nov 27 - Dec 11, 2006 16+ Face-to-face"
Where? what location. This is key. Big difference between a college campus and outside a bank or office building...
any hidden bias in the questions or how they are asked?
----------------------
Questionnaire
M1At. Please tell me if you think each of the following are having a mainly positive or mainly negative influence in the world:
ROTATE
ct) United States
01 Mainly positive
02 Mainly negative
VOLUNTEERED DO NOT READ
03 Depends
04 Neither, neutral
99 DK/NA
M2. Thinking about the last year, please tell me if you approve or disapprove of how the United States government has dealt with each of the following. READ AND ROTATE
a. The US handling of the war in Iraq
01 Strongly approve
02 Somewhat approve
03 Somewhat disapprove
04 Strongly disapprove
VOLUNTEERED DO NOT READ
99 DK/NA
b. The US handling of Iran’s nuclear program
c. The US handling of the war between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon
d. The US treatment of detainees in Guantanamo and other prisons
e. The US handling of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program
f. The US handling of global warming or climate change
M3. Do you think the US military presence in the Middle East is a stabilizing force or provokes more conflict than it prevents?
01 Stabilizing force
02 Provokes more conflict than it prevents
VOLUNTEERED DO NOT READ
03 Both / neither
99 DK/NA
-------------------
This all relies on the person taking survey and can easily be swayed due to their inherent bias. A questionaire filled out & tabulated by a computer would have been more credible.
I took a class focusing on this from a journalist from the ajc, sample studies are very hard to be credible, lack of this data means they cannot provide it.
as low as a 2.5+/- *boggle* I'm surprised they admit how flawed it is.
Wow i just read all that and my mind didn't explode.. Yay, but i still say to nuke that country wait 25 years or more to be safe and then send in troups to see if there are any survivors. and if there are.. send the to area 51 (hehe)
Well I'm sure the international community would help us remove all the WMDs if only we could find any.
As for remedying the situation, perhaps they have taken note on the US's track record in successfully toppling leaders of foreign countries in order to establish a thriving democracy, and don't want to be involved in another failure.
Removing Saddam is nice, but what are the chances he will have a lasting replacement that is noticeably better? Slim to none.
Beyond that what are we doing in Iraq that...
A. Warrants the loss of our soldier's lives in numbers exceeding the WTC dead?
B. Couldn't be done in scores of other screwed up countries that wouldn't car-bomb us for our troubles?
Lastly, what the heck are we doing there still? We were there for WMDs. As soon as we found none we should have tucked tail and ran home. But instead its become "Operation cover our asses while we kick yours".
"Speech is conveniently located midway between thought and action, where it often substitutes for both."
-John Andrew Holmes
I'd be curious how many of those 25 countries are actually doing something in Iraq to remedy the situation.
/crickets
I thought so.
There's your "widespread misquiet" right there. Isn't nice to hide behind NATO.
The UK, Poland, Italy, Hungary and Australia were some of the 25 countries. They all contributed to the coalition in Iraq.
We're not part of the UK or EU, so I really don't care what the they or the EU think of us.
This is an alarming attitude. The days when a superpower can remain a superpower without considering the rest of the world are long gone.
"Overall, this new opinion poll sampled the views of 26,000 people in 25 countries."
+/-2.5 to 4 percent// wtf!!! way accurate. that's a huge gap and really places huge doubts into this poll.
A 5% margin of error is the standard for polls. Getting lower than 2.5% generally requires an insane number of responses, so most polls cannot afford to get anywhere near there.
how random a sampling?
how get in touch with the people? telephone? mall? mail?
"Hungary National 1062 Nov 27 - Dec 11, 2006 16+ Face-to-face"
Where? what location. This is key. Big difference between a college campus and outside a bank or office building...
The first thing I notice is that in 15 countries, the samples were national. In the other 10, they were samples from urban areas. Leaving out rural participants could have a skewing effect on the poll, if there is a reason why attitudes towards Americans would be different between those living in rural and urban areas.
Italy, Hungary, India, the Philippines, Poland, Nigeria and Kenya did not have majority negative views of the US. Six of those were national samples and one (Philippines) was an urban sample. Out of the nations with the highest totals of negative views towards the US (60%+) - Germany, France, Indonesia, Australia, Turkey and Argentina - four were national samples and two were urban samples. Based on this particular poll, I'd say that at most, exclusion of rural participants skews results toward the middle. Inclusion skews results towards the outliers.
In addition, 18 national polls were conducted by face-to-face interviews, with seven by phone. Face-to-face interviews tend to be more accurate than phone interviews.
These pollsters don't head out to the mall or a college campus and ask people if they want to participate in a poll. Those are not random samples. Those kinds of polls are called "self-selecting." In face-to-face polls, pollsters will generally take a census data, divide the polling area into geographic units of equal population, take a random sample of those units, then pick a few addresses from each of the sampled geographic units. They'll go to those addresses to conduct the interview. If no-one is home, they have a way of selecting backup addresses.
For some of the polls, they even provide exact the exact locations of their clusters:
SPOILER:
1In Brazil the survey was conducted in Belo Horizonte, Brasília, Curitiba, Porto Alegre, Recife, Rio de Janeiro, Salvador, and São Paulo, representing 17.8% of the total population.
2In Chile the survey was conducted in Antofagasta, Arica, Calama, Chiguayante, Chillán, Concepción, Copiapó, Iquique, Coquimbo, Coronel, Curicó, Gran Santiago (includes San Bernardo and Puente Alto), La Serena, Linares, Los Angeles, Lota, Osorno, Ovalle, Puerto Montt, Quillota, Quilpué, Rancagua, San Antonio, Talca, Talcahuano, Temuco, Valdivia, Valparaíso, Villa Alemana, Viña, representing 70% of the total population.
3In China the survey was conducted in Beijing, Chengdu, Guangzhou, Hangzhou, Shanghai, Shenyang, Wuhan, Xi an, and Zhengzhou, representing 36% of the total urban population.
4In Egypt the survey was conducted in urban areas of Cairo, Giza, Shobra Al Khema and Alexandria representing 21% of the total population.
5In Indonesia the survey was conducted in Bandung, Jakarta, Medan, Semarang, and Surabaya, representing 7% of the total population.
6In Lebanon the survey was conducted in Akkar, Aley, Baabda-Maten, Baalbak, Batroun, East Center, Eastern Suburbs, Jbeil, Jezzine, Keserwan, Koura, Nabatieh, Rashaya, Shouf, Sidon, Tripoli, Tyre, West Center, Western Bekaa, Western suburbs, Zahle, Zgharta, representing geographic country.
7In the Philippines the survey was conducted in the National Capital Region representing 27% of the total urban population.
8In Portugal the survey was conducted in Almada, Amadora, Barga, Beja, Castelo Branco, Évora, Faro, Guarda, Leiria, Lisboa, Loures, Oeiras, Porto, Santarém, Setúbal, Vila Nova Famalicão, Vila Nova Gaia, Viseu, representing geographical country.
9In Turkey the survey was conducted in Adana, Ankara, Antalya, Bursa, Diyarbakir, Erzurum, Istanbul, Izmir, Konya, Samsun, and Zonguldak, representing 30% of the total population.
10In United Arab Emirates the survey was conducted in urban areas mainly Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Sharjah, representing 61% of the total population.
Finally, let's look at the poll questions. The first thing to realize is that these are part of a longer series of questions. Interviewees are not asked only three questions.
The questions look fine to me. The only one that could be considered biased at all is the third one. That could be alleviated by instructions to rotate "stabilizing force" and "provokes more conflict." The fact that there are only two answers means that this really isn't much of a problem the way it was read, however. People tend to remember the first and last item in a list, so rotating those items is most important in lists of three or more.
Anyway, I've wasted enough time on this.
*edit* It's surprising how much difference "in" and "ex" make.
The american people themselves cannot give a message to their government much less take one. And the same goes for the people of the other governments of big time nations as well. The citizens rarely if ever have a part in the decisions of the leaders. . .
My god give the damn ppl there week notice overseas to get the hell out of there country before we nuke the bastards.
Even the cable guy who came to my house to reinstall a new line of cable said they should get this over with and nuke the country and the real reason behind it is due to Bush Sr and Jr just want damn revenger over a little nit picky argument they had with sadam and/or Osama. Hell if I was president id give them there week notice over there rally allt he troops back home and then push the damn button to launch the A-Bomb.
Problem solved
But NO.. Bush wants to sacrifice more lives to prove a point.. That his Ego is bigger than theres...... Im just about fed up with the father of the household leaving now for about who knows how long.. i may not even see him till i get married and ill catch a glimpse of em and he is back to war in the blink of an eye...... Its sickening what bush is trying to prove which is NOTHING
Ok, I don't mean this as a personal attack...but are you actually thinking about what you are saying? Seriously, this is the ******* stupidest statement I hear about Iraq. "Just give em fair warning and then nuke the bastards!" If we come out and say "hey, your country is gonna be gone in a week, better get out" who do you think will be the FIRST to leave? The terrorists will be out in a heartbeat, just that much more angry and bent on putting a nuke in OUR country. Not to mention the unrest this will cause by the neighboring nations. They'll all be freaking out about moving fallout, and also competing to move in as early as possible for the oil. And how many innocents will we kill because they were too poor to get out, they don't own a TV or radio so they didn't get the message. Terrorists are rich. Corrupt officials are rich. They'll be first to peace out. It'd be having the exact opposite effect that we want.
God forbid we ever have to employ a nuke again. Use some common sense here.
Given enough time, everything will eventually begin to suck.
Ok, I don't mean this as a personal attack...but are you actually thinking about what you are saying? Seriously, this is the ******* stupidest statement I hear about Iraq. "Just give em fair warning and then nuke the bastards!" If we come out and say "hey, your country is gonna be gone in a week, better get out" who do you think will be the FIRST to leave? The terrorists will be out in a heartbeat, just that much more angry and bent on putting a nuke in OUR country. Not to mention the unrest this will cause by the neighboring nations. They'll all be freaking out about moving fallout, and also competing to move in as early as possible for the oil. And how many innocents will we kill because they were too poor to get out, they don't own a TV or radio so they didn't get the message. Terrorists are rich. Corrupt officials are rich. They'll be first to peace out. It'd be having the exact opposite effect that we want.
God forbid we ever have to employ a nuke again. Use some common sense here.
Id like to see you live about a good 19 odd years knowing that your parents can die by these bastards modded AK-47's in a heartbeat. I vented and im glad i did. Bush seriously needs to wise up and stop sending ppl over there to fight for him and go by himself and finish what he started long ago. Which is still in MY OPINION WHICH ONE SHOULD NOT GIVE A DAMN ABOUT. A thing of revenge over a small issue.
Id like to see you live about a good 19 odd years knowing that your parents can die by these bastards modded AK-47's in a heartbeat.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. If it was just revenge against Hussein I think he would have stopped, we got the bastard. The fact of the matter is that if we pull out now the country will collapse and be taken over by radical extremists, and thousands more innocents will die. You say pull out for the sake of our troops, I say finish the ******* job so the troops we've lost there already didn't die in vain. My cousin is in Iraq right now, it's his second tour. I'm in ROTC training to be an officer and know I'll be over there soon, and if that doesn't pan out then I'm enlisting. Frankly, I want to go over there. I know I'll probably be singing a different tune when I'm actually over there, but somebody has to fight the fight, I'm in full support of whats happening and the new plan.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. If it was just revenge against Hussein I think he would have stopped, we got the bastard. The fact of the matter is that if we pull out now the country will collapse and be taken over by radical extremists, and thousands more innocents will die. You say pull out for the sake of our troops, I say finish the ******* job so the troops we've lost there already didn't die in vain. I'm in ROTC training to be an officer and know I'll be over there soon, and if that doesn't pan out then I'm enlisting. Frankly, I want to go over there. I know I'll probably be singing a different tune when I'm actually over there, but somebody has to fight the fight, I'm in full support of whats happening and the new plan.
U.S. is building our troop levels. China, Russia, Iran might have military but they are green. When superpowers(some of them) dish it out, I'd put my money on the troops with experience.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. If it was just revenge against Hussein I think he would have stopped, we got the bastard. The fact of the matter is that if we pull out now the country will collapse and be taken over by radical extremists, and thousands more innocents will die. You say pull out for the sake of our troops, I say finish the ******* job so the troops we've lost there already didn't die in vain. I'm in ROTC training to be an officer and know I'll be over there soon, and if that doesn't pan out then I'm enlisting. Frankly, I want to go over there. I know I'll probably be singing a different tune when I'm actually over there, but somebody has to fight the fight, I'm in full support of whats happening and the new plan.
What I meant was. Being a sibling with one brother and a sister. And the parents being military. 19 years (more like 20+ or so since my dad was military before i was born. and 19 years meaning my age atm) of relizing you can loose your parents in a heartbeat to some foreign arsehole who is going to end up commiting suicide anyways. And my dad is first sergeant for the troops that are scheduled to leave here in march at Fort Benning. And believe me. with the amounts of times he went over alone he would say he is doing his job but deep down he wants this ended quick and painless (or painfull if needed)
Alright, agree to disagree, this is one of those threads that can get real bad real quick so I probably won't return to this thread.
I am just trying to show the same level of determination. The people I listed are folks who are currently serving or could be recalled. I could have been a little more gentle, but throwing good after the bad is not the solution.
*edit*
Bumbkin said:
What I meant was. Being a sibling with one brother and a sister. And the parents being military. 19 years (more like 20+ or so since my dad was military before i was born. and 19 years meaning my age atm) of relizing you can loose your parents in a heartbeat to some foreign arsehole who is going to end up commiting suicide anyways. And my dad is first sergeant for the troops that are scheduled to leave here in march at Fort Benning. And believe me. with the amounts of times he went over alone he would say he is doing his job but deep down he wants this ended quick and painless (or painfull if needed)
While I share your fears (see above), "Kill em all and let God sort em out" is not the answer. In fact, it would make us no better than the people who are trying to kill us.
Seriously. If your gonna nuke someplace you don't tell them. After all, it's not the land we're fed up with, it's the people. You WANT them there when the nuke goes off. No point in irradiating all that oil if the same people are just gonna keep pissing you off from someplace else.
took a class focusing on this from a journalist from the ajc, sample studies are very hard to be credible, lack of this data means they cannot provide it.
as low as a 2.5+/- *boggle* I'm surprised they admit how flawed it is.
Apparently your journalist didn't know his ass from his 101 text book. Like Hodur said, 5% is the standard margin of error. Getting a 2.5% MOE means they sampled probably over 10k people. 2k people gets you about 5%.
chmod said:
I don't want to live in a world where there are no consequences for being stupid. A few thousand years ago these users would have been eaten by lions.
good lord , i hope you don't end up running police or fire department
" What ? fire in the woods ? those no good woods , throw more gas at them "
" What ? shoplifter in area 21 ? line all the men age 17-50 and shoot them all "
good lord , i hope you don't end up running police or fire department
" What ? fire in the woods ? those no good woods , throw more gas at them "
" What ? shoplifter in area 21 ? line all the men age 17-50 and shoot them all "
Actually I hope not either.. If i get drafted cause those damn ppl up in office want to reinstate that PoS then it will get more personal. I mean really personal. What bush is saying atm is. (in my opinion.)
"Hey lets throw more people into Iraq territory and use them as a human sacrifice then say we done what we could and pull the remaining troops out and say they did a good job when actually they did what we wanted and made us look like bad ass hat's. We can then blame more on Iraq and send more sacrifices over. Human population crisis resolved... Next.."
I still say bush holds a vendetta over osama and sadam even if sadam is now dead and osama is or has been unheard/seen for a while now. Makes perfect sense to me. Yep he has a grudge from his past from being arse spanked from them... Verbally that is..
If the choices are keep sending troops, or nuke Iraq, then by all means keep sending troops. I'd much rather a few thousand more troops die, than millions of innocents just trying to live their life, as best they can in the situation they have.
personal attack removed
Any who wish to argue that, should maybe consider how they would feel, if Bush found out there were terrorists in their town, and instead of being at all reasonable, they just ******* A-Bombed it.
Well here's the answer, they and everything they know, woudln't feel a thing regardless of their innocence, they'll be dead. However the people 50 miles out suffereing from radiation poisoning would probably be pretty pissed at everyone who's so willing to throw nukes around, as the final answer.
ease up there, tiger. - LT
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
- Steven Weinberg
Last edited by Llabak Tharr; 01-25-07 at 08:09 AM.
Actually I hope not either.. If i get drafted cause those damn ppl up in office want to reinstate that PoS then it will get more personal. I mean really personal. What bush is saying atm is. (in my opinion.)
You might want to read a little and see which party the legislators that have been pushing a draft are party of (Hint: you'd find them on a ballot with a 'D' after their name)
El Sorriso said:
Lastly, what the heck are we doing there still? We were there for WMDs. As soon as we found none we should have tucked tail and ran home. But instead its become "Operation cover our asses while we kick yours".
So we didn't find the WMD's that everyone (including Saddam) thought Iraq had or was working on, but you think the proper course of action after destabilizing the country is to leave it to the locals?
A question for you: Do you think the US is justified in attacking sponsors of terrorism? I think the US was warranted in overthrowing Saddam for this reason alone, although I don't believe it warranted a full-scale invasion.
As for the international community. Europeans have pretty much established it will do whatever is in its best interests, regardless of who suffers (Ivory Coast) or the methods necessary (Rainbow Warrior). In the last sixty years, few European nations have established any justification for the moral superiority they are trying to claim.
As for the international community. Europeans have pretty much established it will do whatever is in its best interests, regardless of who suffers (Ivory Coast) or the methods necessary (Rainbow Warrior). In the last sixty years, few European nations have established any justification for the moral superiority they are trying to claim.
You might want to read a little and see which party the legislators that have been pushing a draft are party of (Hint: you'd find them on a ballot with a 'D' after their name)
I didnt think there was anyone pushing a draft who actually supported it as anything other than a political statement? As far as party politics goes, this is a pretty moot point. If a draft was instated, our government would be dealing with a lot more troubles than foreign terrorists, and, funny quips aside, politicians generally arent completely oblivious morons.
And yea, I'm gonna throw in my vote about the margin of error thing. That professor must have been a ******* moron or it was a different context or something. Polls can (1) be EXTREMELY useful in determing political agendas and (2) be very accurate if the right cautions are taken. 2.5% is a good margin of error and, hell, I'm surprised they werent flaunting it. (actually, not really, but...you know)
There has to be nothing as ******* annoying as when people rant and rave about how terrible and damaging polling is. Yes, because statistical trends, basic math....common ******* sense....these arent the thing we should be policies on. We should try to figure out what people's opinions are through tea leaves and goat innards! We just need a ziggurat and we can take a step back four thousand god damned years! It'll be great. o.O
There has to be nothing as ******* annoying as when people rant and rave about how terrible and damaging polling is. Yes, because statistical trends, basic math....common ******* sense....these arent the thing we should be policies on.
You mean something like those pesky elections we have every few years? Those are the "polls" that count. Intraweb javascripts and dinner disturbing phonecalls aren't exactly the pulse of the nation. The media would like us to all think so, though.
Despite that Nocte, there is disagreeing with a poll's results, and then there is just knee jerk-reactionary "fault" seeking that results in multi-page posts that claim scientific validity while not even having the first clue about how polls are constructed in the first place.
You mean something like those pesky elections we have every few years? Those are the "polls" that count. Intraweb javascripts and dinner disturbing phonecalls aren't exactly the pulse of the nation. The media would like us to all think so, though.
And that polling also is poorly done. Most political science departments arent doing random phone call during dinner time or sending out emails asking people to participate (well, they are, but there are a lot of other, more properly conducted polls done, as well). But no, elections are, well, technically, they're really poorly conducted polls at best since no one is confronted with voting, rather it is there if you choose to do it, too self selecting. So no, as far as finding out the general populations feelings about some topic or another, those arent the polls that count, those are just the manner in which we produce our rulers.
However, I was just commenting on the trend of people saying, "OMG IT'S A POLL SO IT IS USELESS!" It's irrational and...well, that's it, primarily. It is irrational. Well-conducted polls are powerful tools that should be taken seriously. The people you polling you about your political ideology along with TomKat and BranGelina or whatever arent exactly paragons of properly conducted political research, but how the hell do you think any contemporary political analysis gets done with regards to a broader population viewpoint if not with polling?
I don't see what the point in denying the validity of the observation the US is a lot less popular around the world than it was before Bush. It's obvious. You just need to have traveled abroad before, and travel abroad after. There are some countries where it hasn't been so much of an effect, but it definitely happened in Europe.
It also seems a waste of time to argue whether other country's perception is wrong or unreasonable. Frankly it doesn't matter. What the conversation should be focused on is whether it's an acceptable cost of the War, and whether the US can counteract that through other means, rather than just issuing denials. It does have a cost, besides one to the surprisingly few Americans who go abroad and the occasional rocket lobbed at our embassy in Greece. Just this week MSNBC headlined an article about the billions in tax dollars that have been lost due to a less popular American image, lost tourism, fewer student visas and work visas. Ther has also been decreased investment in the US, notably from countries like UAE.
Man, I see it just living in Vancouver for a year.
This isn't even Europe for chrissakes, yet I've met so many international people who seem a bit off-put and distant once they find out I'm American. Occasionally, a normally-friendly Canuck will act the same. God, imagine how reluctant I am to tell people I'm Texan what with Bush's "cowboy" image!!!
There have been some exceptions from some friendly Europeans (German and French, ironically enough), but it really does make me depressed about the state of my country (and State).
Hell, my favorite professor is Iranian and almost got wrongfully arrested the last time he even *tried* to visit the US just because there was someone on the no-fly list with a *vaguely* similar name. Ever since 9/11, he is afraid of even going close to the US border, which is unfortunate since he has friends and extended family in the States.
