[Moderator]

Even among our closest allies...Bush is now seen as one of the worlds greatest dangers. What will it take for those stubborn right wingers to get over their denial? It's really become a classic case of self delusion...everyone else can see it....I think we need an intervention.

The US leader and close ally of Tony Blair is seen in Britain as a more dangerous man than the president of Iran (62% think he is a danger), the North Korean leader (69%) and the leader of Hizbullah, Hassan Nasrallah (65%).

Mr Bush is ranked with some of his bitterest enemies as a cause of global anxiety. He is outranked by Osama bin Laden in all four countries, but runs the al-Qaida leader close in the eyes of UK voters: 87% think the al-Qaida leader is a great or moderate danger to peace, compared with 75% who think this of Mr Bush.

British believe Bush more dangerous than Kim Jong-il | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

[Dakar²]

I knew this would come up here.

I'll leave it to the more informed people on the forum to dissect how good the quality of questions was.

[Nicko]

The finding is mirrored in America's immediate northern and southern neighbours, Canada and Mexico, with 62% of Canadians and 57% of Mexicans saying the world has become more dangerous because of US policy.

Even in Israel, which has long looked to America to guarantee national security, support for the US has slipped.

Only one in four Israeli voters say that Mr Bush has made the world safer, outweighed by the number who think he has added to the risk of international conflict, 36% to 25%. A further 30% say that at best he has made no difference.

[nath]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

I knew this would come up here.

I'll leave it to the more informed people on the forum to dissect how good the quality of questions was.

The questions aren't up on ICM's website yet. However they are an extremely reputable polling organisation. You can see a similar poll from 2002 here. The questions are pretty open:

Q10. Which of the following do you consider is a threat to world peace today?
Osama Bin Laden 77%
Saddam Hussein 75%
President George. W. Bush 51%
Yasser Arafat 44%
Ariel Sharon 39%
Tony Blair 19%
Someone else 7%
Don't know 6%

If anyone else has contradictory data (or reason to think the poll was skewed), let's hear it!

[probablecause]

What a joke. really. These types of surveys actually convey very little information. What does "a threat to world peace" mean? The poll that Nath posted included many top foreign leaders.

By nature ANY national leader would technically be a threat to world peace because of their responsibilities. If Kerry were President (shudder) then he would be in the poll too.

Instead, lets examine who has acted in a reckless and irresponsible manner. The leaders of Iran and North Korea come to mind.

[Zeeb]

I think Bush has acted in a reckless and irresponsible manner for a number of years now. He has created another terrorist stronghold in Iraq, which will likely be ruled by the Taliban or something like it in the next few years. He recklessly sacrifices young men and women as hamburger meat to be blown up there. For what?

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by probablecause 

Instead, lets examine who has acted in a reckless and irresponsible manner. The leaders of Iran and North Korea come to mind.

reckless |ˈrekləs|
adjective
(of a person or their actions) without thinking or caring about the consequences of an action

Hmm. Have the foreseeable consequences of the Iraq war been thought of or cared about? I think there's another world leader where the definition of reckless fits quite well. The poll result is no surprise.

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

I think Bush has acted in a reckless and irresponsible manner for a number of years now. He has created another terrorist stronghold in Iraq, which will likely be ruled by the Taliban or something like it in the next few years. He recklessly sacrifices young men and women as hamburger meat to be blown up there. For what?

Same could be said for any conflict. Any.

[chabig]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

He has created another terrorist stronghold in Iraq

...which is exactly where we want them.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Same could be said for any conflict. Any.

Not true. The soldiers who died in WWII gave their lives to defeat a murderous dictator who violently tried to expand his empire and his philosophy. The soldiers who died in Afghanistan did so to defend us against those who attacked our cities and killed civilians. When we invaded Iraq, it was literally just sitting there not really doing anything. Now its a lose/lose situation for everyone involved and it makes me angry that kids who had their whole lives in front of them are coming home to a life of misery and suffering for nothing at all.

[probablecause]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

reckless |ˈrekləs|
adjective
(of a person or their actions) without thinking or caring about the consequences of an action

Hmm. Have the foreseeable consequences of the Iraq war been thought of or cared about? I think there's another world leader where the definition of reckless fits quite well. The poll result is no surprise.

I think the President considered the consequences of invading Iraq very carefully. You think he just sat down one day and said, "Hey lets invade Iraq, what's for lunch?"

However, just because he considered the consequences doesn't mean the situation turned out the way he wanted it to. Who can know the outcome of a war with certainty? He did what did to stabilize the middle east remove from power those who actions already proved that they were a threat. It may take awhile for Iraq to become a democratic, stable country but it will have been worth it.

[davesimondotcom]

Of course Bush is "more dangerous" than Kim Jong-Il – his missiles actually can hit something.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by probablecause 

I think the President considered the consequences of invading Iraq very carefully. You think he just sat down one day and said, "Hey lets invade Iraq, what's for lunch?"

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml

CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq.

Reckless.

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

Not true. The soldiers who died in WWII gave their lives to defeat a murderous dictator who violently tried to expand his empire and his philosophy. The soldiers who died in Afghanistan did so to defend us against those who attacked our cities and killed civilians. When we invaded Iraq, it was literally just sitting there not really doing anything. Now its a lose/lose situation for everyone involved and it makes me angry that kids who had their whole lives in front of them are coming home to a life of misery and suffering for nothing at all.

GW1 also?

WWII was a waste of American men and material. It was Europe's problem.
And we metteled. Now look at the mess we created in Europe and Japan.

[Nicko]

You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia".

[Doofy]

Newsflash: This report was in the Guardian, rag of choice for folks who think Marx was a bit too right wing.


I've not seen any real-life evidence of this "Bush is a huge threat". Only seen it from shouty like gobshites on the 'net.

Oh, and...

Originally Posted by nath

The questions aren't up on ICM's website yet. However they are an extremely reputable polling organisation. You can see a similar poll from 2002 here. The questions are pretty open:

Q10. Which of the following do you consider is a threat to world peace today?
Osama Bin Laden 77%
Saddam Hussein 75%
President George. W. Bush 51%
Yasser Arafat 44%
Ariel Sharon 39%
Tony Blair 19%
Someone else 7%
Don't know 6%

This data suggests that 75% of Brits supported the removal of Saddam Hussein. Yet 51% thought the guy mostly likely to do it was also a threat. Doesn't add up.

And I can tell you why it doesn't add up... ...the questions are usually loaded with some sort of slant. I know this because I regularly take part in such surveys instead of telling the caller to get lost.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

This data suggests that 75% of Brits supported the removal of Saddam Hussein. Yet 51% thought the guy mostly likely to do it was also a threat. Doesn't add up.

The enemy of my enemy isn't automatically my friend.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Newsflash: This report was in the Guardian, rag of choice for folks who think Marx was a bit too right wing.


I've not seen any real-life evidence of this "Bush is a huge threat". Only seen it from shouty like gobshites on the 'net.

You have a serious case of denial. Find a legit poll that shows a majority of those in the UK support the Iraq war.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia".

Took me a minute to get that…

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

The enemy of my enemy isn't automatically my friend.

I'm aware of that.

But let me tell ya, there's no way that 51% (let alone 75%) of Brits think Bush is a threat. There's not that many of us who actually take notice of any events directly outside of our own small sphere of existence.

Case in point: I know a guy who went back to work second week of January 2005.
"Hey dude, what about that tsunami?"
"What tsunami?"

Seriously.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

You have a serious case of denial. Find a legit poll that shows a majority of those in the UK support the Iraq war.

Find a legit poll which shows a majority of those in the UK against the Iraq war.

Fact is, most people in the UK don't give a toss either way.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

But let me tell ya, there's no way that 51% (let alone 75%) of Brits think Bush is a threat.

Well the question wasn't whether he was a threat to them, but to world peace in general, i thought.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Well the question wasn't whether he was a threat to them, but to world peace in general, i thought.

Ummm... ...that's why I didn't say "a threat to them".

[Dakar²]

Sorry, my mind is beginning to swiss cheese. Too many hours to go on a friday.

[Millennium]

The only problem is, that's not what the numbers say. This poll wasn't asking how dangerous people are, only whether or not you consider people threats to world peace. It was a binary Yes/No question, not a scale.

What the numbers actually say is that more British people percieve Bush as a threat than percieve Kim jong Il as a threat. This doesn't come as a surprise, given that Kim jong Il is kind of tough to take seriously, whereas few people are willing to ignore Bush..

[Dark Helmet]

I think many people outside the US would have to agree with this poll.

With Bush invading other countries with little justification and what is done about it? Very little. The US won't be cut off from supplies, nobody will send warships to attack the US etc. Bush discusses these actions with all sorts of bullshit I don't need to repeat here to make it seem justified. Bush makes America come off as a spoiled bully that never gets punished. Even its own people after seeing one stupid thing after another re-ellects this idiot.

The second NK does something stupid the world wants to cut them off from all sorts of supplies and considers military action. They are smaller, weaker so things are more easily dealt with.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Sorry, my mind is beginning to swiss cheese. Too many hours to go on a friday.

Nay worries.

Originally Posted by Millennium 

What the numbers actually say is that more British people know who Bush is.

Fixed.

[nath]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And I can tell you why it doesn't add up... ...the questions are usually loaded with some sort of slant.

Originally Posted by Doofy

But let me tell ya, there's no way that 51% (let alone 75%) of Brits think Bush is a threat.

Well, looks like you were wrong. ICM have published the survey and the questions and data sample are just fine.

The Guardian - World Leaders Poll

Q4. Now I'm going to read a list of political leaders and ask how much danger you think they pose to world peace.
The President of the United States, George W. Bush
A great danger 40%
A moderate danger 35%
A small danger 12%
No danger at all 10%
DK 4%

So 87% of Brits think Bush is a danger to world peace.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Find a legit poll which shows a majority of those in the UK against the Iraq war.

Fact is, most people in the UK don't give a toss either way.

Really?

Q3. In hindsight, do you think that the United States was justified in its decision to invade Iraq?
Yes 21%
No 71%
Don't know 7%

I take it you're equating 7% with 'most people'?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nath 

Really?

Yes, really.

You realise that these survey results are sourced only from the miniscule segment of the UK public who're actually interested in current affairs and who don't say "bugger off, I'm watching Eastenders" when called, right?

You want an accurate extrapolation of the results? Include the "told us to bugger off" in the calculations.

[nath]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You want an accurate extrapolation of the results? Include the "told us to bugger off" in the calculations.

Best answer evar!!1!

'No one can really know public opinion, because some people just won't answer the question'

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nath 

Best answer evar!!1!

'No one can really know public opinion, because some people just won't answer the question'

Dude, give it up. You know I'm right about this, just like I'm right about most things.

In another thread you told me I was delusional for suggesting that the UK's economy was going tits up. Here's today's confirmation:

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=1624332006
http://tinyurl.com/tftkj
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/480221bc-6b2...0779e2340.html

Face it nath, like most of your leftie comrades, you know bugger all about anything. This thread is no different.

[nath]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

In another thread...

Interesting. What's wrong with discussing all the things you've got wrong in this thread?

Again, for reference...

Originally Posted by Doofy

And I can tell you why it doesn't add up... ...the questions are usually loaded with some sort of slant.

Anyway, I'm not fussy regarding smackdowns, so I'll address your diversion too. But probably best you post any further discussion in the correct thread, to avoid derail. From your links:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/480221bc-6b2...0779e2340.html

“However, it is interesting to note that bankruptcies have remained fairly flat so far this year. In our view, they appear to be the true barometer of personal insolvencies in the UK as unlike IVAs, they are not actively marketed.”

http://tinyurl.com/tftkj

The Department of Constitutional Affairs said courts ordered 24,017 repossessions in the three months to September, but nearly half of these were so-called suspended orders.

Originally Posted by Doofy

...you told me I was delusional for suggesting that the UK's economy was going tits up.

I don't recall using the word delusional. However this continual insistence that the inevitable fall-out from excessive personal debt and an over-inflated housing market automatically mean the entire economy is 'going tits up' - in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence from other KPIs - certainly reveals you to be an economic illiterate.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Face it nath, like most of your leftie comrades, you know bugger all about anything.

I suppose I should at least give you credit for avoiding talking about my penis this time. Try and focus on the issues, silly boy.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nath 

Interesting. What's wrong with discussing all the things you've got wrong in this thread?

So, nothing to discuss then.

[vmarks]

You know, these polls aren't always meaningful.

1) consider the source, the Guardian, as Doofy has already done.
2) consider the questions, which no one has been able to produce in this thread.
3) consider whether those polled consitute a representative sample.
4) consider whether the polls only relevance is to reveal that a lot of people are dangerously incorrect.

To illustrate how these polls sometimes don't pass muster, let us consider: We know that Denmark is a nice place. Hasn't attacked anyone lately. Hasn't been testing missile launches or putting nuclear material into centrifuges.

But Egypt seems to believe that Denmark is a hostile to very hostile nation.

Gulfnews: Denmark one of Egypt's worst enemies

Cairo: Egyptians view Denmark as a "very hostile" nation, according to a government poll released on Tuesday.

The cabinet's Information and Decision Support Centre which conducted the survey, said in a statement that the poll showed that 60 per cent of a random sample of 1,000 Egyptians regard Denmark as a "hostile" state, with 37 per cent saying it was "very hostile".

The poll results show that Muslim uproar regarding last year's Danish cartoons lampooning the Phrophet [sic] Mohammad has yet to die down.

Before the cartoon saga, in which a Danish newspaper published pictures of the Prophet Mohammad with a turban resembling a bomb, the country was known in Egypt mostly for its dairy products.

[nath]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

You know, these polls aren't always meaningful.

1) consider the source, the Guardian, as Doofy has already done.

The Guardian isn't the source, they commissioned the poll. ICM is the source. It's a respected polling organisation used by right wing media outlets such as the Sunday Telegraph as well as the Guardian, and has a well-deserved reputation to protect.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

2) consider the questions, which no one has been able to produce in this thread.

I posted them above, but it seems you were so keen to knee-jerk that you missed them. Here you are (again):
http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews...aders-2006.asp

Originally Posted by vmarks 

3) consider whether those polled consitute a representative sample.

You can consider this in some detail yourself, by reading the polling methods and sample weighting here: http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/special...ng-methods.asp

They seem quite sound, although I'm still interested to hear your thoughts on how exactly they're skewed. But please try and improve on Doofy's 'but they don't poll people who won't talk to them' non-argument.

By the way, if you've any lingering doubts, you can even check over the complete data-set, here:
http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews...ide%20poll.pdf

Originally Posted by vmarks 

4) consider whether the polls only relevance is to reveal that a lot of people are dangerously incorrect.

That is of course a possibility. Which is about as close as you've got to coherent thought or a reasonable level of reading comprehension in this particular post.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

To illustrate how these polls sometimes don't pass muster, let us consider...

There's plenty of dedicated threads suitable for 'teh muslims are eviiiil!' round these parts, vmarks. No need to dump it all over this one.

[vmarks]

Congratulations on missing the point entirely.

The point stated clearly so that you won't miss it so easily is this:

It is important to take these things with a very large grain of salt. We have many things to consider in looking at a poll in order to grant it any weight at all.

This thread is about one example of a poll that presents us with a result that many people would express surprise at because it doesn't match with reality as it is commonly experienced by many people. I presented us with another poll example that shows a result many of us would reject as not matching reality.

The reason I presented that second poll was to illustrate that it is entirely possible for poll results to present results that are bizarre and only serve to illustrate that those polled have dangerously extraterrestrial opinions. That's right: They're out of this world.

The poll simply notifies us of this fact, if it is a poll that was conducted reliably.

[Dark Helmet]

At the very least.. more stupid

YouTube - bush flubs on iraq

[nath]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Congratulations on missing the point entirely.

The point stated clearly so that you won't miss it so easily is this

What are you talking about! You missed the point entirely, by not reading the thread properly. We have the complete methodology, questions and data set. Are you even willing to concede that you have the data you need to prove or disprove your insinuations, and that you were wrong to say we haven't?

Originally Posted by vmarks 

We have many things to consider in looking at a poll in order to grant it any weight at all.

Yes, you do have things to consider, and I've provided them on a plate for you, twice. Consider them, and then let us know what is wrong with the poll.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

it is entirely possible for poll results to present results that are bizarre and only serve to illustrate that those polled have dangerously extraterrestrial opinions

Actually, in a properly weighted sample with open questions, it isn't. Or at least, only within an error margin of around 2%.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

it doesn't match with reality as it is commonly experienced by many people.

I.e. it doesn't match the views of yourself of Doofy. Those are certainly not common persectives in this country, I can assure you. This poll and many, many others - including actual election results - confirm that.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nath 

This poll and many, many others - including actual election results - confirm that.

Actual election results confirm what I've been telling you.
A lot of people can't even be arsed to vote (which is why they've been banging on about low voter turnout), let alone be arsed about answering telephone polls.

Let's have a look at a link you provide:

Interview Method: Telephone

Population effectively sampled: All adults aged 18+

Sample size: 1010

You cannot say that you've sampled a population of 60+ million via 1,010 unsolicited telephone calls. It's a fact that most people receiving an unsolicited telephone call will tell the caller what to do with themselves.

The best you can say is "most people who don't tell companies who randomly and intrusively telephone them to f off thought xxxxxx".

Data weighting: Data were weighted to the profile of all adults aged 18+ (including non telephone owning households). Data were weighted by sex, age, social class, household tenure, work status, number of cars in the household and whether or not respondent has taken a foreign holiday in the last 3 years.

So, the number of cars a household owns has a bearing on the occupants' views of Kim Jong?

It's all BS.

[nath]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Actual election results confirm what I've been telling you.
A lot of people can't even be arsed to vote (which is why they've been banging on about low voter turnout), let alone be arsed about answering telephone polls.

Oh I see. Well, I'm happy to concede it to '87% of Brits who expressed a view consider Bush a threat to world peace'.

At the same time I note that you're not trying to defend your initial comments about the validity of data/questions:

Originally Posted by Doofy 

This data suggests that 75% of Brits supported the removal of Saddam Hussein. Yet 51% thought the guy mostly likely to do it was also a threat. Doesn't add up.

And I can tell you why it doesn't add up... ...the questions are usually loaded with some sort of slant.

Nice one, dave.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

It's a fact that most people receiving an unsolicited telephone call will tell the caller what to do with themselves.

The best you can say is "most people who don't tell companies who randomly and intrusively telephone them...

Sorry, why is it a fact? Because you believe it? And how do you define 'most people'?
Unless you've actually got evidence for this then it's really just what you think. And we all know that you think a lot of pretty silly things.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So, the number of cars a household owns has a bearing on the occupants' views of Kim Jong?

It's one of a large number of different factors that can be used to define a demographic. Of course taking any of them in isolation is silly, which is why you chose to do it.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nath 

Oh I see. Well, I'm happy to concede it to '87% of Brits who expressed a view consider Bush a threat to world peace'.

Finally.

We'll leave it at that then.

[nath]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Finally.

We'll leave it at that then.

With your unspoken concession that the questions aren't slanted and the numbers add up?

Splendid, well done!