Greatest threat to world peace

[Rutabegger]

The online edition of Time has a poll where they ask “Which country really poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2003?”

The article that follows talks about the “robust stance” of President Bush and his “dependable friend” Tony Blair in the face of “European antagonism” and the spectre of North Korea and Iraq.

And then they ask for your opinion.

Results so far?

Which country poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2003?

North Korea 24.2 %
Iraq 18.6 %
The United States 57.2 %

Total Votes Cast: 10627

I think that’s clear enough.

[World_Eater]

Clear enough how?

[Gatopescado]

Take off your hat. I can’t see your point.

---

How about a nice big cup of Shut the Fuck Up?

[Rutabegger]

*Originally posted by World Eater *
**Clear enough how? **

Sorry World Eater, I don’t understand where you see ambiguity. The vast majority of the respondents see the U.S. as the country which poses the greatest threat to world peace in 2003. The margin of 2-1 over North Korea and 3-1 over Iraq seems pretty clear to me.

I confess to finding it amusing that Time refers to “European antagonism” to the Bush and Blair stance when their own poll results suggest at the very least a universal antagonism, and (considering that Time is a U.S. magazine) most probably a U.S. citizen antagonism to the Bush war.

[Rutabegger]

This seems to be pissing people off. I want to be clear that I did not post this to piss World Eater, gatopescado, or anyone else off. I posted this for three reasons:

1. It gives you a chance to participate in the poll and change the message.
2. It sends (me, at least) a strong message about how the average American schmoe (no offense to Time readers) feels about US aggressiveness.
3. This is interesting to me because I see Time readers as fairly representative Americans - not radically anything, not especially liberal or conservative, not intellectual elites, just folk. The media (including Time) and the US government have consistently portrayed these people as solidly behind the war on Iraq. Then they put a poll on the web and an entirely different picture appears.

If you’re pissed off because this rubs your face in the fact that your neighbors disagree with you, then it’s time to grow up. In the real world we don’t all march in step and agree with everything you say. If you can’t deal with different opinions then I’m surprised you’ve lasted as long as you have here.

[Gatopescado]

I’m not pissed! And to prove it, I won’t have you bombed back to the stone-age!

I would disagree that 6111 people represent anything that could be discribed as “vast”. Unless it was a line to a Port-a-can. At a Beergarden.

---

She told me she loved me like a brother. She was from Arkansas, hence the Joy!

[World_Eater]

No offence at all. I just find that sample way too small to have anything gleaned from it.

[SPOOFE]

Personally, I think Lichtenstein is the greatest danger…

Anyway, in my opinion, the poll is poorly designed… the question shouldn’t be who is the greatest danger to world peace, but who is right/wrong about the threat to peace. Clearly, if (if) Bush is correct, the US has every right to go to war.

[Rutabegger]

I think this is a poll about fear. The question that’s being asked is “Who are you most afraid of?” [small]Bug off, grammar police![/small]

That’s part of what makes it interesting.

I don’t have a problem with a sample size of 10,000. The real problem with this poll is that the respondents are completely self-selected. There’s absolutely nothing to ensure that this is a representative sampling of anything - other than people who happened it find it and respond. I’m guessing that this might be largely Time readers, or people who are thinking about becoming Time readers, but with enough people like me posting the link around - who knows?!

[World_Eater]

Well it only seems to be a problem if one puts stock in those type of polls, which I sure as hell don’t.

Btw, I would have to nix that Spoofe, everyone knows Luxembourg is the true threat, not those “axis of evil” guys.

<Yoda> Pretenders to the throne they are!</yoda>

[Lemur866]

How do you know that the 10,000 replies isn’t one guy with a script?

[World_Eater]

*Originally posted by Lemur866 *
**How do you know that the 10,000 replies isn’t one guy with a script? **

<church lady>
Hmmmmmmm, I don’t know…could it be Saddam!!!
</cl>

Jeez, whats wrong with me tonight?

[Sam_Stone]

Yeah, and internet polls also showed Harry Browne winning the presidential race in 2000.

Internet polls are worth exactly zero. There are lots of reasons why.

[Neurotik]

I somehow doubt that the “average schmoe” is participating in Time online polls.

However, if you want some voting that really irritated me, how the heck did Ryne Sandberg not make the HoF? Bastards.

[Urban_Ranger]

*Originally posted by Lemur866 *
How do you know that the 10,000 replies isn’t one guy with a script?

How do I know that you are not a fragment of my imagination?

[Rutabegger]

**A Statement By President Carter: An Alternative To War **

Atlanta……Despite marshalling powerful armed forces in the Persian Gulf region and a virtual declaration of war in the State of the Union message, our government has not made a case for a preemptive military strike against Iraq, either at home or in Europe.

Recent vituperative attacks on U.S. policy by famous and respected men like Nelson Mandela and John Le Carré, although excessive, are echoed in a Web site poll conducted by the European edition of TIME magazine. The question was “Which country poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2003?” With several hundred thousand votes cast, the responses were: North Korea, 7 percent; Iraq, 8 percent; the United States, 84 percent. This is a gross distortion of our nation’s character, and America is not inclined to let foreign voices answer the preeminent question that President Bush is presenting to the world, but it is sobering to realize how much doubt and consternation has been raised about our motives for war in the absence of convincing proof of a genuine threat from Iraq.

The world will be awaiting Wednesday’s presentation of specific evidence by Secretary of State Colin Powell concerning Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction. As an acknowledged voice of moderation, his message will carry enormous weight in shaping public opinion. But even if his effort is successful and lies and trickery by Saddam Hussein are exposed, this will not indicate any real or proximate threat by Iraq to the United States or to our allies.

With overwhelming military strength now deployed against him and with intense monitoring from space surveillance and the U.N. inspection team on the ground, any belligerent move by Saddam against a neighbor would be suicidal. An effort to produce or deploy chemical or biological weapons or to make the slightest move toward a nuclear explosive would be inconceivable. If Iraq does possess such concealed weapons, as is quite likely, Saddam would use them only in the most extreme circumstances, in the face of an invasion of Iraq, when all hope of avoiding the destruction of his regime is lost.

In Washington, there is no longer any mention of Osama bin Laden, and the concentration of public statements on his international terrorist network is mostly limited to still-unproven allegations about its connection with Iraq. The worldwide commitment and top priority of fighting terrorism that was generated after September 11th has been attenuated as Iraq has become the preeminent obsession of political leaders and the general public.

In addition to the need to re-invigorate the global team effort against international terrorism, there are other major problems being held in abeyance as our nation’s foreign policy is concentrated on proving its case for a planned attack on Iraq. We have just postponed again the promulgation of the long-awaited “road map” that the U.S. and other international leaders have drafted for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is a festering cancer and the root cause of much of the anti-American sentiment that has evolved throughout the world. At the same time, satellite observations of North Korea have indicated that nuclear fuel rods, frozen under international surveillance since 1994, are now being moved from the Yongbyon site to an undisclosed destination, possibly for reprocessing into explosives. It is imperative that this threat to Asian stability be met with aggressive diplomacy.

Since it is obvious that Saddam Hussein has the capability and desire to build an arsenal of prohibited weapons and probably has some of them hidden within his country, what can be done to prevent the development of a real Iraqi threat? The most obvious answer is a sustained and enlarged inspection team, deployed as a permanent entity until the United States and other members of the U.N. Security Council determine that its presence is no longer needed. For almost eight years following the Gulf War until it was withdrawn four years ago, UNSCOM proved to be very effective in locating and destroying Iraq’s formidable arsenal, including more than 900 missiles and biological and chemical weapons left over from their previous war with Iran.

Even if Iraq should come into full compliance now, such follow-up monitoring will be necessary. The cost of an on-site inspection team would be minuscule compared to war, Saddam would have no choice except to comply, the results would be certain, military and civilian casualties would be avoided, there would be almost unanimous worldwide support, and the United States could regain its leadership in combating the real threat of international terrorism.

Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter is chair of The Carter Center in Atlanta, Ga., a not-for-profit, nongovernmental organization that advances peace and health worldwide.
By Jimmy Carter
31 Jan 2003