Well I think they (the US) might have a hard time explaining a poll that showed the majority favored the occupation. Maybe this is an attempt to validate their other numbers?
A recent poll at the Washington Post on voters’ choice between Bush, Kerry and Nader was a mere 1,202 people out of a population of ~300 million. (I’d like to add that Kerry led Bush by 5%, which is the exact same number Nader got. Limited to just the two choices, Kerry leads 53% to 42%. So much for the spoiler argument.) Should we therefore disqualify those polls as negligible and therefore inaccurate?
And what, may I ask, made you think it was “self-fulfilling US propoganda”? Do you think those conducting the poll purposefully made it bias? Do you think the questions were phrased with intention to decieve? - that the numbers were made up?
Do you realize that the polling was done by Oxford Research International, the Department of Sociology at Oxford University, and local Iraqi Universities all managed and supervised by Oxford Research International and that none of these institutions are American?
“If you mean serval million by a “few”, then yeah, I agree.”
Cite? Last I heard it was only around 3000.
To that I could imagine Iraqis by saying - “the USA should have lifted the embargo 10 years ago to our country and would have stopped bombing us while Saddam was in power. Today when Americans say they want to help us, they really have an axe to grind.”
How about that?
What eolbo thinks “justifies their actions,” is all but irrelevant. What’s relevant here’s, “How do insurgents justify their actions?”
There’s ample reason to believe that the insurgents think that they’re fighting for their freedom from foreign occupation.
Dan Signor(?), CPA spokesman is on Rush Limbaugh right now. He talks about the radical trade laws that have been issued to Iraq by the CPA as the most free and enligtened “not only in the region, but in the world.” He tries to make it sound like this radical change from what everyone else in the world, (including the US), is wholly understood and backed by the Iraqis, is so obviously a good thing as to be unquestionable. It should occur to one at least once, that this “enlightened” form of economic governance might be so highly unusual because it’s not universally endorsed. The program’s unlikely to be desired, advocated or even appreciated by many Iraqis in the general population.
With the very little I know about sample statistics, I believe it depends VERY much on how you choose your sample. I suppose if they choose the presidential polls samples in a manner that has proven accurate through the years, then you have to lend some credence to their numbers. Remember there’s always the error-factor, and average without a standard deviation is worthless.
Now, if the US were to take a poll of 2,700 of the Iraqis fighting against them right now, as opposed to their “hand selected” sample, we might see some difference in the numbers. Don’t you think?
iamme99: If the average Iraqi doesn’t have ‘heart’, it’s because the heart has been brutalized out of them for the last 20 years. What you see in Iraq is an entire nation with ‘battered spouse syndrome’. People that come out of despotic tyrannies learn to keep their heads down, close their doors, keep their kids inside, and hope for the best.
The average Iraqi is probably thinking, “If I help the Americans, someone will kill me or my children. If I help the resistance, the Americans will kill me.” And that’s about as far as the thinking goes. Survival. Ride out the current storm.
It’s a very understandable thing to do. You even see that kind of behaviour in lawless areas on inner cities where rival gangs fight. The average person learns to not take sides, to stay in after dark, and mind their own business.
I agree with this. I was under the impression that the context in which eolbo’s comment was made was an attempt justify what the insurgence were doing, not to state why, which I thought was self-evident. I had believed eolbo pulled the line out of context. That is - he equivocated the Western vision of freedom, etc. with that of the vision of the insurgence.
Hand-selected?
Click here for the methodology
As has been pointed out, the US didn’t take this poll - Oxford Research International did. The PDF file says it was a “random national sample”, much the same approach as Gallup and other US pollsters take here. I don’t deny the possibility that polls can be skewed depending on the audience selected, but I don’t think that’s the case here.
What numbers do you think would change, and how?
Nice one, skarf. I’d forgotten about that link.
Where’s the percentage of resistance fighters polled? Why isn’t their opinion included? Maybe they were left out of the selection mumbo-jumbo?
This is indicated here:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html
I’m following an introductory statistics course this semester and don’t have an hard time to believe that the sample size is sufficient even if I’m not sure how the n sample size is calculated when the answers are multi-variable. But I’m sure Oxford have good statisticians that worked on this…
Oxford = England. England happens to be our puppet in this mess, if you haven’t noticed yet.
So, even though this poll uses a larger percentage of the population than is routinely used in polls that statistical experts consider useful, you’re rejecting this because of an objection that “seems like common sense?”
“Seems like common sense” isn’t much of a cite, IMHO.
YMMV.
Isn’t there a warning about appealling to common sense?
OK guys, enough 
I just want everyone to realize what you see on the news, and read in the papers, isn’t necessarily the REAL story.
I also want to thank ALL of you for being civilized in this discussion.
Given the OP, I don’t think that why the insurgents are doing what they’re doing is at all obvious.
Why are they doing what they’re doing?
The population of Iraq is 24,683,313. There are around 3000 fighters in Sadr’s militia. Now let’s make that 10000 for fun. That’s .4 percent of the whole population which should make 10.8 fighters out of the 2700 people surveyed. Ok, so they replaced 10.8 fighters with non-fighters. It doesn’t make a damn difference.
I hope I got that math right. I’m not very good at math.
I just want everyone to realize what you see on the news, and read in the papers, isn’t necessarily the REAL story.
Make sure you keep that in mind too. Also keep in mind that its not fiction either.
Ok, I’m done. 
And therefore what? The population pollled has to be hand-selected? I think the point that this is not really likely has been well-illustrated.
Still haven’t answered my question as to what you think the results would be if the audience hadn’t been “hand-selected”.
They want Iraq for themselves.