Bush more dangerous than Kim Jong: Poll

mkpdavies · 03-11-2006, 03:57 PM

http://www.ndtv.com/morenews/showmorestory.asp?slug='Bush+more+dangerous+than+K im+Jong'&id=95800

Quote:

According to most people in UK, Canada, Mexico and Israel, US President George W Bush is a far more dangerous man than North Korean President Kim Jong.

A majority of people quizzed also rejected the March 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq.

The findings came just days before the US mid-term congressional elections, with a growing number of US voters wanting their troops in Iraq to be brought home.

In Britain, a close Washington ally, 69 per cent of those questioned said they felt the US policy had made the world less safe since 2001.

Britain, Israel and Canada. Pro-American anti-Bush regime.

John Carter · 03-11-2006, 05:35 PM

Quote:

According to most people in UK

Ummm, no.

This will have been extrapolated from the very small percentage of people who didn't tell the tele-survey people to "get lost and stop bothering me". The people completing the survey would naturally have an interest in politics.

...while the rest of the sheeple who didn't take part in the survey couldn't give a toss and probably don't know who Kim Jong is anyway.

You know I'm right. If this wasn't the case and *everybody* in the UK actually cared about politics, UKIP would be in power with a large majority, right now.

mkpdavies · 03-11-2006, 05:48 PM

It's more complex then that as you know.

If you apply that principle, then the people want full European Union, high taxation, no freedoms and unlimitted immigration.

Now I recognise the Lib Dems want all of that, but I can't think of anyone I know who wants ALL of that, or even a majority of that.

John Carter · 03-11-2006, 05:59 PM

The fact is, apathy still reigns supreme.

The *only* people who bother with answering these surveys are the nutjobs like us (and our opposing numbers in the LibLabCon camps). Everyone else tells them to get lost.

Now, if it said "according to most people in the UK who found the time and inclination to respond to the survey and were able to understand Sandra from Bangalore's accent", I'd be OK with that.

One bloke I know just responds with "death metal grunts" to such unsolicited phone calls. I'm guessing his opinion isn't factored into the result.

mkpdavies · 03-11-2006, 06:06 PM

Yes, each poll has to be taken with a pinch of salt. YOu can get widley varying opinion now.

I actually believe the sheeple apathy vote probably has turned (I think it was pro before) and is now anti Iraq war. There just isn't the good news required to stop that happening.

Internationalist · 03-11-2006, 06:14 PM

It's not really a valid question.

President Bush is in charge of easily the world's most powerful military and the most advanced weapons infrastructure. Kim Jong-Il is the dictator of a tinpot regime which has got the bomb but ultimately is very backward and limited in resources. So it would be surprising if you didn't have many people thinking that President Bush was "more dangerous".

Now, put Kim Jong-Il in charge of real military power like that of the United States and there would be no question of him being the "more dangerous".

Like it or not, Bush is the president of a democratic society with all of its constraints and in just over two years he will happily step down from office. North Korea, by contrast, is a gangster state that just happens not to be powerful enough to pose a serious threat (at least, not yet). But my guess is that North Korea spreading its missile and nuclear technology around some of the most unstable regimes in the world does constitute a potentially big danger for the future.

Also, any realistic assessment of threats or dangers is not something that can be expressed by public opinion polls. Put simply, the public is frequently wrong, whether through misinformation, lack of understanding or wishful thinking. Chamberlain was a hero at the time of Munich, just shortly before Hitler took him for the fool he was and swallowed up the best part of Czechoslovakia. Even if the public does believe that Bush is the greater danger, it does not really say anything in policy terms about how we should perceive the various threats in the world today.

Shall I get my coat...? :roll:

mkpdavies · 03-11-2006, 06:21 PM

I don't trust either of them.

I also think democracy is a farce in the USA, just as it is here.

mkpdavies · 04-11-2006, 03:26 AM

OK, the poll is a definite crock.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/...239583,00.html

Quote:

The survey was carried out by The Guardian newspaper, along with leading newspapers in Israel (Haaretz), Canada (La Presse and Toronto Star) and Mexico (Reforma).

Null and void.

blank_frackis · 04-11-2006, 09:09 PM

Well the "methodology" (and you have to use that term loosely) of carrying out surveys by phoning up random people and asking them questions is already pretty discredited. The famous example is the Roper Poll which was the poll on UFO's that had all manner of ludicrous figures I can't remember - 5% of Americans claiming they'd been abducted by Aliens or something along those lines. You need to take polls like these with a fistful of salt, but they are convenient for writing sensational newspaper articles.

03-11-2006, 05:48 PM	#3 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,841 Party: Libertarian Party	It's more complex then that as you know. If you apply that principle, then the people want full European Union, high taxation, no freedoms and unlimitted immigration. Now I recognise the Lib Dems want all of that, but I can't think of anyone I know who wants ALL of that, or even a majority of that. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

03-11-2006, 06:06 PM	#5 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,841 Party: Libertarian Party	Yes, each poll has to be taken with a pinch of salt. YOu can get widley varying opinion now. I actually believe the sheeple apathy vote probably has turned (I think it was pro before) and is now anti Iraq war. There just isn't the good news required to stop that happening. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

03-11-2006, 06:21 PM	#7 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,841 Party: Libertarian Party	I don't trust either of them. I also think democracy is a farce in the USA, just as it is here. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

04-11-2006, 09:09 PM	#9 (permalink)
blank_frackis Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 310 $blank_frackis is just starting out$	Well the "methodology" (and you have to use that term loosely) of carrying out surveys by phoning up random people and asking them questions is already pretty discredited. The famous example is the Roper Poll which was the poll on UFO's that had all manner of ludicrous figures I can't remember - 5% of Americans claiming they'd been abducted by Aliens or something along those lines. You need to take polls like these with a fistful of salt, but they are convenient for writing sensational newspaper articles.
$blank_frackis is offline$

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

03-11-2006, 05:59 PM	#4 (permalink)
John Carter Uber Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: On Sabbatical Posts: 5,110	The fact is, apathy still reigns supreme. The only people who bother with answering these surveys are the nutjobs like us (and our opposing numbers in the LibLabCon camps). Everyone else tells them to get lost. Now, if it said "according to most people in the UK who found the time and inclination to respond to the survey and were able to understand Sandra from Bangalore's accent", I'd be OK with that. One bloke I know just responds with "death metal grunts" to such unsolicited phone calls. I'm guessing his opinion isn't factored into the result.

03-11-2006, 06:14 PM	#6 (permalink)
Internationalist Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,063	It's not really a valid question. President Bush is in charge of easily the world's most powerful military and the most advanced weapons infrastructure. Kim Jong-Il is the dictator of a tinpot regime which has got the bomb but ultimately is very backward and limited in resources. So it would be surprising if you didn't have many people thinking that President Bush was "more dangerous". Now, put Kim Jong-Il in charge of real military power like that of the United States and there would be no question of him being the "more dangerous". Like it or not, Bush is the president of a democratic society with all of its constraints and in just over two years he will happily step down from office. North Korea, by contrast, is a gangster state that just happens not to be powerful enough to pose a serious threat (at least, not yet). But my guess is that North Korea spreading its missile and nuclear technology around some of the most unstable regimes in the world does constitute a potentially big danger for the future. Also, any realistic assessment of threats or dangers is not something that can be expressed by public opinion polls. Put simply, the public is frequently wrong, whether through misinformation, lack of understanding or wishful thinking. Chamberlain was a hero at the time of Munich, just shortly before Hitler took him for the fool he was and swallowed up the best part of Czechoslovakia. Even if the public does believe that Bush is the greater danger, it does not really say anything in policy terms about how we should perceive the various threats in the world today. Shall I get my coat...? :roll: