Lame - you presented the poll, and you are now defending it. So, take responsibility for it. This poll question shows a complete lack of understanding of polling methodology - or perhaps a complete lack of interest in achieving un-influenced, theoretically "fair" results. Great effort is normally expended by serious pollsters to conceal their own preferences or expectations from respondents. In this instance, the poll question embodies an obvious bias on the part of the questioner(s), and would suffer from high susceptibility to skewed results. The question presumes a) that US actions were "unilateral," and b) that they were "against Iraq." A less biased, more accurate formulation might simply have dropped the word "unilateral" and have substituted the preposition "in" for "against." A reasonable respondent might, for instance, object to those aspects of the action that someone (such as the questioner) might consider "unilateral," but feel positive about whatever else about the operation had a multilateral character. Considering that the question was apparently being asked of Australians - citizens of country allied with the US - the reference to unilateralism is extremely suspect: It implies to the minimally well-informed respondent that his or her country has somehow been tricked or forced into participating in a US adventure. Another alternative might have referred to actions "against Saddam Hussein" or "against the regime of Saddam Hussein" - and would very likely have results more favorable to the American side. In short, the question already makes the pollsters' desired and expected responses clear. The choices for respondents confirm and extend these biases: Respondents were not given the option to respond that the action had increased their "sympathy." Even where such questions are not considered likely to be chosen, the presentation of the full range of logical alternatives is thought by pollsters and market researchers to help draw a more honest response from any significant opinion sampling. Excluding this choice further underlines the pollster's obvious belief that the answer to which they gave first position is the "correct" one. Someone interested in receiving a fair, objective opinion sampling would also strive to make the choices as similar to each other as possible in phraseology. In this poll, the "correct" answer is also the only choice that offers an affirmative, yet non-absolute statement. Both "2" and "3" require the respondent to adopt absolute and negative positions - of having "views" that have not changed at all, or of "never" having had any sympathy. Furthermore, while "1" and "3" refer specifically to the issue of "sympathy for the Americans," "2" stands apart, in the passive rather than active voice, and makes no reference to the Americans, and substituting the notion of "changed.. views." It's worth noting that the use of the word "sympathy" is also tendentious, though in a way that bears more on the potential usefulness of the poll rather than on its construction as above: Somebody who fully supported American actions might feel less "sympathy," in the sense of feeling less pity for Americans. It could be argued that the poll merely inquires about a relatively narrow issue - the effect of the Iraqi operations on 9/11-related "sympathy." It should be obvious that, as a defense of the poll's methodology, this argument would also militate against making any broader conclusions about the feelings of respondents about the war in Iraq per se: It's quite possible for someone to feel uncertain or even very favorable about the war, yet also note a reduction in "sympathy" for the war's victor. It would be natural even and especially for American war-supporters to feel less sorry for themselves in the aftermath of self-assertion and victory on the world stage. The poll does a much better job of exposing the questioners' biases than it does of drawing meaningful results.
a proper, unbiased poll: Which country poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2003? http://www.time.com/time/europe/gdml/peace2003.html
Then you just shot yourself in the foot. Your poll claims: "3 I never had sympathy for the Americans. -- 3%" I said it was bogus by virtue of the above #3. You don't know Aussies very well, 3% is way to low a response.
Ok, I've disappeared for a few cause this has gotten so negative. But, to equate this war for oil is so moronic its embarrassing. When you see major media figures bring it up, well, think about it. As far as an economic benefit? This war is now going to cost us at least a few hun bail. Once we get get the oil flowing, revenues are going directly to the city. This action, weather legal or not, will cost the US public prolly around 200 billion. To start. Yeah, we did this fo money. Geez.
yeah jayford, they really are that brainwashed. if they were all in other countries maybe I could understand, but these people live IN THE UNITED STATES ! There is only one explanation, and that is indoctrination from a young age, possibly in high school or college.
American to oversee Iraqi oil industry David Teather in New York Saturday April 26, 2003 The US is preparing to install an American chairman on a planned management team of the Iraqi oil industry, providing further ammunition to critics who have questioned the Bush administration's agenda in the Middle East. The administration is planning to structure the potentially vast Iraqi oil industry like a US corporation, with a chairman and chief executive and a 15-strong board of international advisers. According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, it has lined up the former chief executive of the US division of Royal Dutch/Shell, Philip Carroll, to take the job of chairman. Large scale decisions on investment, capital spending and production are likely to need the approval of the advisory board, which will act like a board of directors. The day-to-day management team will be vetted by US officials and is likely to be made up of existing and expatriate Iraqi oil officials. The structure is likely to anger opponents of the administration who argue that the US is wielding too much power in Iraq. By involving non-Iraqis, the US could also expose itself to the accusation that it is attempting to take control of the industry and open the door to foreign investment by major western oil companies - a perception the Bush administration is keen to avoid. The Middle East has, since the early-to-mid-1970s, largely closed the door on foreign oil firms - but contracts have been awarded to engineering and construction firms such as Bechtel, which was recently handed a $600m (£380m) commission in Iraq by the US Agency for International Development. US and Iraqi engineers have resumed modest oil production in the south of the country, in fields close to Basra. The other major field in the north, near Kirkuk, has yet to be restarted, but is expected to begin pumping oil in the next few days. The Basra fields produced 60% of Iraq's pre-war production of around 2.5m barrels a day. The US is pushing for an end to economic sanctions to allow the oil to be freely exported. A handful of Iraqi oil officials have been attempting to restore some order to the country's energy infrastructure and have been meeting regularly with the US military in Baghdad. The US has been eager to get the cooperation of the skilled Iraqi oil administration, but an attempt to impose a structure on the industry with outside involvement could cause friction. The oil minister in the ousted Saddam regime, Amer Mohammed Rasheed, is on the US's most-wanted list. Iraq, with 112bn barrels of proven reserves, is second only to Saudi Arabia, and has the potential to become a superpower in the oil industry. Experts believe that with billions of dollars of investment in the nation's crippled infrastructure it could produce up to 6m barrels a day within five or six years. There are believed to be 200bn barrels of probable reserves. The oil beginning to pump in Iraq is being used for domestic purposes. Once exports are up and running again, US and British officials have said the aim is to put the proceeds into a fund to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq. But details of the fund, including who would administer it, have been scant. The new management team and part of the advisory board are expected to be named next week. The chief executive would play a similar role to the former oil minister and would represent Iraq at meetings of Opec, the organisation of oil exporting nations. The position of vice chairman is expected to be filled by Fadhil Othman, who led Iraq's oil marketing group before Saddam came to power 24 years ago. Thamir Gadhban, a senior oil ministry official working to restore order to the industry in Baghdad, told the Journal that he expected the chief executive to come from the ranks of the existing hierarchy. "The Iraqi oil industry is not a new one, and there are experienced people in the ministry of oil and its organisations," he said.