quote:

---

Originally posted by greschya:
But, Epi, online polls are hardly a good source. For one, they eliminate a huge portion of the population -- noncomputer users, or novice computer users. Also, there are no standards to the poll -- you could vote a million times, or once.

---

I mostly agree with you, I think. I didn't mean to imply that AOL was necessarily a better source than CNN, but wanted to point out that with over 2 million responses the AOL poll showed just about the same distribution as the polls I've heard quoted on the radio and read about in the newspaper. The superiority I addressed was purely numeric.

My main point was that there is hardly a majority in any direction in the US and the UK. Even in Europe. Heck, almost all of Eastern Europe and many EU members (Spain, Portugal, Denmark, and Italy among them) have supported Dubya's stance on Iraq. Chirac himself even had a little temper tantrum last night over the letter of US support signed by Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, and others. He did everything but say he would try to block their membership in the EU because they disagreed with him. Reuters quoted him as saying, "They missed a good opportunity to shut up."

I am, however, upset that Bush has written off the massive anti-war protests in so cavalier a manner. He makes it very difficult for a fence-sitter like me to come down on his side. I will be writing him a petulant letter in the near future.

>The superiority I addressed was purely numeric.

While larger polls are better than small ones all else being equal, a poll of about a thousand people is enough to be accurate about 95% of the time for even a very large population.

Now, a poll of millions of randomly people done scientifically etc. would be even better, but 19 times out of 20 would produce the same results. On the other hand, a self-selected poll of millions could be wildly inaccurate - there is so much more opportunity for bias. For instance, a million responses to a questionnaire in the NRA newsletter wouldn't necessarily be as telling of the general public as a 500-person random phone survey.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BionicGirl:
That Epi is just always so obsessed with size.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by yam:
Anyway. Short version: Once a poll has over a 1000 randomly selected respondents, numeric superiority stops being the most important factor.

---

OK, fair enough. I never took stats, but you're saying makes sense to me. However, in this case the unscientific poll of millions happened to closely agree with the scientific poll of thousands.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BionicGirl:
I grow wearisome of your male-centric obsessions. I much preferred it when we were doing lesbian porn, and I didn't have to deal with such thing as biforkated appendages and inflated and misplaced egos.

---

Your latest, harshest reply has led me to do a great amount of soul-searching. And I've decided that...

http://www.hyperreal.org/~dana/

news

And what the f&*ck is going on with North Korea? They fired a missle into the sea before the inauguration of the new South Korean president? Why isn't the news talking about that more?

quote:

---

Originally posted by emmalola:
I was just told of this website with photos from anti-war demonstrations world-wide.
http://www.hyperreal.org/~dana/
it actually made me all teary while sitting in the school computer lab. incredible.

---

http://www.thedotin.net/world/

This one made me feel sick:

http://www.hyperreal.org/~dana/

It made me feel sick because I see how much the world empathized with us and how much our administration's rhetoric has wasted the great public outpouring of love that was directed at us one short year ago. Whether or not we should take action against Iraq, this presidency will go down as the diplomatically worst in our nation's history.

On a point of information: I saw some signs on the peace site that said "Respect International Law." My understanding is that a US attack on Iraq would be technically allowed by International Law because Iraq has been in constant violation of the treaty which ended the Gulf War by the action it takes against planes in the no-fly zones and by publicly maintaining that there is no treaty, only a cease fire.

Edited to add: I am a politically moderate citizen who thinks that something needs to be done about Iraq sooner rather than later. Sooner than the French or Germans are proposing, for sure. The Canadian 3/31/03 proposal seemed sound to me and I was angry when I heard the US rejected it. Bush has forced me left of my comfort zone just because he has a hard on for armed conflict. I actually voted for "Baghdad Jim" McDermott as my congressman last November because I had no other choice than to support the narrow-minded ultra-conservative hit squad this unqualified, undeserving chump has put together. It wasn't just the war, either. It was almost every plan I've ever heard them propose. Since November, they've only proven my choice a good one because we obviously need strong voices of dissent to get their attention when millions of marchers can't seem to do so. I'm going to write a letter to the president tonight, I think, and copy Baghdad Jim.

Geez, and I'm a man who was one of only four people in a class of 450 who registered Republican when the DAR came in to our social studies classes to register voters. Strange how things can change.

Edited again because when I get ticked off I forget how to spell.

However, I do give him credit for doing something about Iraq. He’s right that something has to be done about Saddam Hussein. Not because of any fears of terrorism, but because for the past decade or so, no one has given a crap about the Iraqi civilians under his rule. We are all aware of the well-documented litany of human rights abuses perpetuated by his regime. Torturing women by sticking light bulbs inside of them and stepping on their stomachs; shoving cattle prods up people’s asses; etc. This type of stuff is NOT ok. If we (as in the world in general) belive ourselves to be good people, we cannot allow this to go on.

I’m not saying that the American government doesn’t prop up dictators that do similar things; we do. From Uzbekistan, to the Philippines to South America, our government is responsible for continuing many of the miseries of the third world. And for that I don’t really have an answer, except that we need to be consistent in our applications of fighting for “freedom and human rights.”

I do not like the war in Iraq. But I lean towards supporting it, because no one has stepped forward and really offered any viable alternatives for getting rid of Hussein and helping the Iraqis in rebuilding their country (not that the Bush team has really thought about what happens “after”).

--
I don't approve of the way Bush is going about it, but I definitely think that something needs to be done about Iraq. The Boston Globe had this quote on it's front page today: "when it comes to our security, we really don't need anybody's permission." That was such a great way to convince the other nations to support us... Yeah.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merimoo:
I read in another thread that someone didn't know anyone among her friends who was in favor of war - it's entirely possible that someone just doesn't feel brave enough to take a stand against the majority. Honestly, sometimes it's just not worth the bother because you know you'll get shouted down.

---

Bwhahahaha!

quote:

---

Originally posted by hermia:
ok, to take things to a much more serious level...This is a blog by an iraqi in baghdad. very heartbreaking -- i wish we could get the administration to pay attention to the intelligent, normal people who are ramping up to have their lives destroyed.

---

The anti war protests on the 15 March will be important as I expect the crowds to be increased. I didn't go to the last one but will attend this Saturday.

Australia's prime minister dismissed the last protests, I don't think that he will be able to dismiss these latest.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hermia:
that's what makes this so complicated. if you look a bit at that blog you see that there is a lot of discussion of measures SH may take against his own people, etc.

---

I agree with Ralphyr, the blog is thought provoking. But isn't the fact that this lunatic will kill his own people out of spite yet another example of why he needs to be brought down?

And how else can he be brought down except militarily? Iraqi civilians don't have the wherewithal to do it and, quite frankly, the military and "the party" won't over throw him because he is their meal ticket. Who else will subvert to them the food and medicine for which they're trading oil?

I've heard more Iraqis saying Saddam must go than I've heard saying he should be allowed to stay. I've met Iraqi Kurdish refugees who feel very strongly about the subject.

Does anyone find it suspicious that the current Iraqi regime owes France more than $5 Billion in oil debt? Is Chirac afraid his anyone who takes power after his old pal (and they have been friends since the 1970s) gets ousted won't be willing or able to pay it back?

And how long do you think it will be before the rest of Europe realizes that the guidance systems in the Al-Samoud missiles were made from German components? The anti-aircraft guns used to fire on British and US plains last week were most likely of French manufacture, as well.

The US supported this madman at one point, yes. And it was a mistake. Sometimes, though, you have to accept your mistake and try to fix it. Why don't France and Germany see that?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Epicurus:
But isn't the fact that this lunatic will kill his own people out of spite yet another example of why he needs to be brought down?

---

I agree with you Epi, except I don't trust military action to solve the problem and I don't trust the US government to do it.

1) I don't think Saddam himself is the root of the problem. When dictators arise, it's because a country is "ripe" for it. If it wasn't him, it would be somebody else. If Irak is "strong enough" a country to become a democracy, the Iraki should be strong enough to reverse the current government themselves. I'm not saying the Iraki have what they desserve (far from it!), just that I fear that by overrunning Saddam by military ways, we'll just put somebody who's not necessarily any better in his place. How many times has this happened in world history? There should be another, slower but more long-lasting solution. I don't know which one though...

2) I don't trust Bush (and his administration) to share my opinions on world justice. I'm not convinced he shares my conviction that a civilian's life is worth the same, no matter the color of its skin or the country he lives in. I'm very afraid of a leader who spontaneously uses words like crusade or "axis of evil". I'm very afraid of a leader who sounds like a bully when talking about the UN, or even an important fraction of his own people.

When you ask "Why now?" though, I really think it's a question of Hussein's willingness to foster terrorist violence that has opened this can of worms at this point. He has been offering the relatives of Palestinian suicide bombers $25k, after all. Of that $25k, how much do the widows get and how much do Hamas or Hezballa keep? If he's doing that, I think it's facile to assume he's not funding terrorists in other ways. I'd like to see the evidence in order to "feel better" about the whole ugly mess, though.

It should've been done 12 years ago. The timidity of the world leaders back then is biting us on the rear end today.

I think the onion says it best:

"Bush Orders Iraq To Disarm Before Start Of War
WASHINGTON, DC—Maintaining his hardline stance against Saddam Hussein, President Bush ordered Iraq to fully dismantle its military before the U.S. begins its invasion next week. "U.S. intelligence confirms that, even as we speak, Saddam is preparing tanks and guns and other weapons of deadly force for use in our upcoming war against him," Bush said Sunday during his weekly radio address. "This madman has every intention of firing back at our troops when we attack his country." Bush warned the Iraqi dictator to "lay down [his] weapons and enter battle unarmed, or suffer the consequences.""

==========

I think the best pro-inspection anti-war argument I've heard that addresses terrorism is this: what happens to the supposed biological, nuclear, and chemical weapons in iraq if a war starts? They leave the country with terrorists. Just about the only way to contain them is to seal the borders and have an external body systematically search and get rid of them. Wait, is that situation sounding familiar?

=============

The last peace march I went to, there was an iraqi family who had moved here several years ago. The children were holding signs that said "In a war, Saddam does not suffer." I think it's kind of naive to say we should go to war to liberate the people of iraq from a cruel dictator when the outcome of war - civilian deaths (predominantly of children! nearly half of the population of iraq is under 16.), lingering radioactivity, destruction of social infrastructure - are going to kill, hurt, or diminish the quality of life much more than saddam is.

quote:

---

Originally posted by yam:
I think it's kind of naive to say we should go to war to liberate the people of iraq from a cruel dictator when the outcome of war - civilian deaths (predominantly of children! nearly half of the population of iraq is under 16.), lingering radioactivity, destruction of social infrastructure - are going to kill, hurt, or diminish the quality of life much more than saddam is.

War! If there is no other choice, let's go to war, grimly, and take no pleasure in it. But there are so many other choices still!

---