|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/19/2004 05:55:07 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Gordon:
So, roughly 0.005% of the Iraqi population so far have said things are better, according to your link ? |
Yep, and only 0.0045% of the Iraqi population so far have said that things are NOT better, according to the same link.
|
Absolutely - and in either case I'd say that those sorts of percentages are stastically insignificant and not something you could draw any useful conclusions from.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Statistics say anything you want them to say. I'd hardly call 2652 people a MAJORITY, or even a majority, come to that. |
I wouldn't call 2652 people a MAJORITY either.
|
Yet you did in your previous post.
When one uses the term "The Iraqi People", a reader would expect that reference was being made to the MAJORITY of Iraqi people. But, in this case, the MAJORITY of Iraqi people DO believe that things are either somewhat ( 21.9% ) or much ( 34.6% ) better.
Anway, this is just a long winded way of saying that a heavily Bagdad-centric survey of a statistically insignificant population isn't very meaningful to draw much of a conclusion from.
|
|
|
|
06/19/2004 07:18:51 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Absolutely - and in either case I'd say that those sorts of percentages are stastically insignificant and not something you could draw any useful conclusions from. |
The surveys were conducted in accordance with generally acceptable methods. For those interested, the methodology can be examined HERE. If the survey appears to be heavily Bagdad-centric, it is because the population of Iraq is equally as heavily Bagdad-centric. My original question still stands, however. In the absence of such a survey, without asking all 25+ million Iraqi's how they feel, on what basis does Mr. Murphy base his statement?
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by RonB:
I wouldn't call 2652 people a MAJORITY either. |
Yet you did in your previous post. |
No, I didn't. I said that the majority of Iraqi people DO believe...( based on an extrapolation of the survey results ). But, playing YOUR game, since only 55.5% of those surveyed believe that things are getting better, then it's really only 1466 people ( 55.5% of 2642 ) who belive that things are getting better. So even if I was going to use YOUR numbers I would have called 1466 people a majority, not 2642 people. ( I can do basic math ).
Originally posted by Gordon:
Anway, this is just a long winded way of saying that a heavily Bagdad-centric survey of a statistically insignificant population isn't very meaningful to draw much of a conclusion from. |
The surveys were conducted in accordance with generally acceptable methods and would be accepted as being statistically accurate as representing the entire population. For those interested, the methodology can be examined HERE. If the survey appears to be heavily Bagdad-centric, it is because the population of Iraq is equally as heavily Bagdad-centric. My original question still stands, however. In the absence of such a survey, without asking all 25+ million Iraqi's how they feel, on what basis does Mr. Murphy base his statements?
Ron |
|
|
|
06/19/2004 09:21:58 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by RonB:
If the survey appears to be heavily Bagdad-centric, it is because the population of Iraq is equally as heavily Bagdad-centric. My original question still stands, however. In the absence of such a survey, without asking all 25+ million Iraqi's how they feel, on what basis does Mr. Murphy base his statements?
Ron |
Maybe he has another survey of another statistically insignificant section of the population ? Perhaps you should ask him ?
This is about as meaningful as exit polls for elections, except in this case you've got a population sample who are even more likely (quite rightly) to not give honest answers to officials of any particular passing government of the week.
|
|
|
|
06/19/2004 10:16:38 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
This is about as meaningful as exit polls for elections, except in this case you've got a population sample who are even more likely (quite rightly) to not give honest answers to officials of any particular passing government of the week. |
While it *may* be true that the population are likely "to not give honest answers to officials of any particular passing government of the week" none of the survey takers were in that category. Fieldworkers consisted of staff, graduates, and students from the the University of Baghdad and the University of Dohuk. They were trained for 60 hours and instructed in theory and practice of social research. They participated in mock sessions to practice interviewing techniques, and underwent thorough "on-the-job" training in the first days of fieldwork. In other words, they were not government officials.
Ron
Message edited by author 2004-06-19 22:17:45. |
|
|
|
06/19/2004 10:25:41 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Gordon:
This is about as meaningful as exit polls for elections, except in this case you've got a population sample who are even more likely (quite rightly) to not give honest answers to officials of any particular passing government of the week. |
While it *may* be true that the population are likely "to not give honest answers to officials of any particular passing government of the week" none of the survey takers were in that category. Fieldworkers consisted of staff, graduates, and students from the the University of Baghdad and the University of Dohuk. They were trained for 60 hours and instructed in theory and practice of social research. They participated in mock sessions to practice interviewing techniques, and underwent thorough "on-the-job" training in the first days of fieldwork. In other words, they were not government officials.
Ron |
The point still remains that while you may or may not think it is an 'outright lie' you have no real proof either way. Yet, for someone who is so quick to demand proof of any or all notions that the current administration may or may not have told the truth, you are quick to accuse others without any real information either. Just seems slightly inconsistant is all. |
|
|
|
06/19/2004 11:07:30 PM · #56 |
From today's New York Times (Editorial):
...
Mr. Cheney said yesterday that the "evidence is overwhelming" of an Iraq-Qaeda axis and that there had been a "whole series of high-level contacts" between them. The 9/11 panel said a senior Iraqi intelligence officer made three visits to Sudan in the early 1990's, meeting with Osama bin Laden once in 1994. It said Osama bin Laden had asked for "space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded." The panel cited reports of further contacts after Osama bin Laden returned to Afghanistan in 1996, but said there was no working relationship. As far as the public record is concerned, then, Mr. Cheney's "longstanding ties" amount to one confirmed meeting, after which the Iraq government did not help Al Qaeda. By those standards, the United States has longstanding ties to North Korea.
Mr. Bush has also used a terrorist named Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Mr. Bush used to refer to Mr. Zarqawi as a "senior Al Qaeda terrorist planner" who was in Baghdad working with the Iraqi government. But the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, told the Senate earlier this year that Mr. Zarqawi did not work with the Hussein regime, nor under the direction of Al Qaeda.
When it comes to 9/11, someone in the Bush administration has indeed drawn the connection to Iraq: the vice president. Mr. Cheney has repeatedly referred to reports that Mohamed Atta met in Prague in April 2001 with an Iraqi intelligence agent. He told Tim Russert of NBC on Dec. 9, 2001, that this report has "been pretty well confirmed." If so, no one seems to have informed the C.I.A., the Czech government or the 9/11 commission, which said it did not appear to be true. Yet Mr. Cheney cited it, again, on Thursday night on CNBC.
Mr. Cheney said he had lots of documents to prove his claims. We have heard that before, but Mr. Cheney always seems too pressed for time or too concerned about secrets to share them. Last September, Mr. Cheney's adviser, Mary Matalin, explained to The Washington Post that Mr. Cheney had access to lots of secret stuff. She said he had to "tiptoe through the land mines of what's sayable and not sayable" to the public, but that "his job is to connect the dots."
The message, if we hear it properly, is that when it comes to this critical issue, the vice president is not prepared to offer any evidence beyond the flimsy-to-nonexistent arguments he has used in the past, but he wants us to trust him when he says there's more behind the screen. So far, when it comes to Iraq, blind faith in this administration has been a losing strategy.
(Emphasis added)
Message edited by author 2004-06-19 23:09:31. |
|
|
|
06/20/2004 05:56:23 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Just curious Ron, what are your more credible and less biased media sources? |
Here's another example of bias in the media:
Richard Murphy, writing in the Washington Post on Sunday, 6/20 starts his article off by saying "Our problem is that the Iraqi people still perceive little improvement in their personal lives and no end to violence in their country." Link HERE
Contrast that statement with a report from the BBC dated 16 March that says, "An opinion poll suggests most Iraqis feel their lives have improved since the war in Iraq began about a year ago. The survey, carried out for the BBC and other broadcasters, also suggests many are optimistic about the next 12 months and opposed to violence...56% said that things were better now than they were before the war." Link HERE
When one uses the term "The Iraqi People", a reader would expect that reference was being made to the MAJORITY of Iraqi people. But, in this case, the MAJORITY of Iraqi people DO believe that things are either somewhat ( 21.9% ) or much ( 34.6% ) better. So we see, yet again, bias in the media - in this case another outright lie being published by the Washington Post.
For those interested, the complete Iraqi poll can be viewed ( PDF File ) HERE
Ron |
*********************************
Ron, I am not able to read the Washington Post article because I'm not registered with them and don't plan on doing so. Maybe you could either excerpt or provide a brief synopsis to ascertain why they believe that life is not improving in Iraq?
As far as the research study conducted by Oxford Research International, no where could I find who funded the study. The closest I came was a brief mention in the BBC article that said the study was conducted for BBC and other broadcasters. Does this mean they funded it?
ORI, who conducted the study, specializes in research (according to their web site) quantifying the social and economic realities in developing and transitioning countries...the middle east, central and eastern Europe, Africa, China and southeast Asia. Sounds like areas that have undergone recent wars and other social upheavels. They also list their clients and seem to emphasize this fact. They even list them, and they include: the World Bank, major broadcasters, the cola companies, electronics companies, automobile companies, etc...I would imagine they represent the Fortune 500. It sounds to me that ORI is really doing research to discern market viability for it's clients that want to set up businesses and sell. I am skeptical about research such as this to try and show social conditions.
While this opinion poll makes things sound rosey, the methodology page does state a very curious fact...
"Monthly net household income averages US$124. Less than 2% have incomes above US$500. 22% have to make do with US$50 per month or less."
Am I reading these statistics correctly???!!! Aren't these statistics indicative of gross and utter poverty? Granted, the web site stated that some of the findings were "selected intial findings" and that statistics could change. But would they change so much from the ones quoted above?
An average monthly net income of $124 USD's per household???!!! To me the happiness this study conveys (which is opinion) is incongruent with one of the only facts it states.
|
|
|
|
06/20/2004 09:47:09 AM · #58 |
| So what was the average monthly income when saddam was still running the place? |
|
|
|
06/20/2004 12:10:35 PM · #59 |
Probably even worse. It is that kind of utter poverty in the (media-fed) face of worldwide opulence which breeds revolution and terrorism.
Probably won't keep Nike from trying to sell them $100 sneakers though ...
Message edited by author 2004-06-20 12:11:22. |
|
|
|
06/20/2004 12:26:50 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by frychikn:
So what was the average monthly income when saddam was still running the place? |
* * * * * * * * * * *
I don't know what the average monthly income was under Saddam Hussein, but, he did provide free education, medical access and care, water and sewage facilities, and the general standard of living improved for the common person in Iraq. After years and years of war in the middle east involving Iraq (the Iraq/Iran war for 8 years; Invasion of Kuwait and subsequent Gulf War in 1990 with the US), as well as, economic sanctions and bombings carried out by the US and GB during the 1990's, Iraq's economy is bound to be in ruins.
Regardless of the reason for the subsistence level of income for Iraqis, an opinion poll performed during an occupation by foreign forces and with respondents living in such extreme poverty is questionable as far as it's integrity goes, imo...but, I could be wrong..and hope I am. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/29/2025 04:29:38 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/29/2025 04:29:38 AM EDT.
|
