From: "Rich Gauszka" 

One can easily skew a poll but the one we were talking about was
commissioned by the British Defense Ministry that was leaked to the media.
It was far more negative than I expected.



"Mark"  wrote in message
news:435ebecf{at}w3.nls.net...
> LOL, no merely pointing out that we have no idea how the questions were
> asked, nor to whom, so the results aren't very reliable. i.e. Do you want
> a million dollars? Yes!! Do you want a million dollars if you have to give
> up your legs? There'd still be some, maybe even quite a few affirmatives,
> but it'd no longer be 100%.  billion dollars, it might get back to 100% since you could buy some pretty
> fancy femers and have plenty leftover>
>
>
> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
> news:435ebd94$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> Why would you add Saddam into the leave immediately question?  Skewing
>> the poll with Bushian logic?
>>
>>
>> "Mark"  wrote in message
news:435eafbe{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>I wonder how the results would go if the question were phrased:
"The U.S.
>>>is leaving tomorrow and releasing Saddam to his primary palace with a
>>>battalion of his former loyal troops, do you still want them to leave?
>>>Yes___ No___
>>>
>>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
>>> news:435ead69$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Mark"  wrote in message
>>>> news:435ea773$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>  > "...for example saying that "82 per
cent are "strongly opposed" to
>>>>> the presence of coalition troops" is a pretty
much tricky sentence
>>>>> because while I do think that maybe even 90% of the
people in any
>>>>> country do not want foreign troops on their land, it
remains important
>>>>> to state whether a time interval was included in the
question or not.
>>>>> If not, then the question was designed to give a
misleading result and
>>>>> if there was one, then it should have appeared along
with the results.
>>>>>
>>>>> I mean it could be true or close to the truth that 82%
of Iraqis do
>>>>> not want the troops to stay indefinitely but if it was
meant to say
>>>>> that 82% want the troops to leave now then I assure you that the
>>>>> results have been forged. Moreover, there are some
contradictions
>>>>> among the results, look at this one closely "43
per cent of Iraqis
>>>>> believe conditions for peace and stability have
worsened" this means
>>>>> that 57% of the answers either indicated that
stability and peace have
>>>>> improved or they have not changed ..."
>>>>>
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2005/10/polls-can-we-rely-on-them.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Last year 71% wished us to leave immediately -  81% if the
Kurds were
>>>> excluded so it doesn't look like those numbers have changed.  I'll
>>>> admit I am surprised at the number that supposedly
supports attacks as
>>>> way more Iraqis are hurt than coalition forces
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0429/dailyUpdate.html
>>>>
>>>> To get a sense of what Iraqis were thinking a year after
the overthrow
>>>> of former dictator Saddam Hussein, researchers for the Gallup
>>>> Organization, working with funding from CNN and USA Today, sat down
>>>> with 3444 Iraqis in March and early April (before the
latest outbreaks
>>>> of violence). They conducted interviews that lasted as long as 70
>>>> minutes (often at great personal risk). And what they found does not
>>>> bode well in the short-term for the US and its allies in
Iraq, although
>>>> it may bode well for the future of Iraq as a democracy
>>>>
>>>> Other telling findings of the survey were that an
overwhelming majority
>>>> of Iraqis, 71 percent (and that figure rises to 81 percent if the
>>>> Kurdish areas in the north are excluded), now see the
US-led coalition
>>>> as an occupying force and not as liberators. USA Today
reports that a
>>>> solid majority, almost 60 percent, want the US and its
allies to leave
>>>> immediately, even if it means the security situation will
deteriorate.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5