A recent Gallup poll showed the following:



If the United States is viewed as having lost the war in Iraq, how much would that bother you -- a great deal, a moderate amount, not much, or not at all?

-----------------Great deal---------Moderate amount------ Not much------- Not at all -------No opinion
2007 May 4-6 ----33% -----------------22 ----------------------19 ---------------24 --------------2


So, 43% of those polled would not be bothered much or at all if the USA is seen as having lost the war in Iraq. Nearly half the country doesn't give a crap if we lose or not.

Does that bother you? Is that how you feel?

Elliot

A recent Gallup poll showed the following:



So, 43% of those polled would not be bothered much or at all if the USA is seen as having lost the war in Iraq. Nearly half the country doesn't give a crap if we lose or not.

Does that bother you? Is that how you feel?

Elliot
I wonder how that statistic measures against those who don’t vote.

I have to say it bothers me...

I have lost a lot of friends over there and I know winning or losing will never bring them back but at least our efforts won't be in vain. My own platoon sergeant was killed.
The media doesn't paint a proper picture of what is really going on over there. You see what they want you to see. These people in Washington that go over there for a few days and come back with some big report of what they saw make me laugh.
Yes I want the war over so I don't have to send my husband back or watch any of my friends go. At this point with all the time, effort and money we have spent we need to finish what we started.

Who was polled? Gender? Age? Income level? Education level? Registered voters? Unregistered voters? Where do they live? How many were polled? What was the SPECIFC question asked and the SPECIFIC options to choose? Were follow-up questions asked? What constitutes a "loss"?

I hate statistics.

I'm not trying to debunk this poll (as Gallup is usually reputable) but so many things influence the results.

Assuming the poll and results are true and unbiased I think it is sad. I think people are probably letting their feelings about going to war in the first place, about bringing the troops home, about Bush, etc influence their decision. You can disagree with the war and still hope to "win".

A recent Gallup poll showed the following:



So, 43% of those polled would not be bothered much or at all if the USA is seen as having lost the war in Iraq. Nearly half the country doesn't give a crap if we lose or not.

Does that bother you? Is that how you feel?

Elliot
Is the opinion that 'taxes should be lower' incompatible with the opinion that 'there should be more government programs?'

These things are always dependent on how the question is framed. For instance, if you ask people whether they favor spending more on welfare, most say no; if you ask whether they favor spending more on assistance to the poor, most say yes.

And so it is, there is really nothing that I can concluded from what you have given us.

With all of the money, lives, and effort we have put into this thing... we BETTER come out on the better end of the deal. It would bother me a lot if we didn't "win." How can people just not care?

Whenever I hear this kind of result from a poll, the first thing that comes to mind is that many Americans have become so complacent with the absolute luxury we enjoy compared with much of the world that they have lost the ability to comprehend what actual war is all about, or even that there is any real thought beyond the confines of their college campuses.

I hate to think that there are this many Americans that view winning or losing a war more as an academic or mental exercise or image on a television that they've lost the ability to comprehend war for what it really is. For these people, Saddam Hussein is no different than Michael Corleone. He isn't "real" to them. None of this is "real" to them.

In WWI and WWII, the men and women at home changed their entire lives for the war effort. Today, we are not asked to change anything. We continue to watch the same programs, go to the same schools and offices, sporting events, etc. and don't have to remind ourselves that there is an actual conflict where our men and women are fighting (as I type this, there's a major offensive underway). Some are comfortable in mocking our commander in chief, which provides comfort and aid to the enemy whether they want to acknowledge it or not, are taught in school that "it is the highest form of patriotism." Such rhetoric has polluted the minds of many in this country.

The only logical explanations I can think of as to why someone would think it no big deal to lose a war, setting aside "stupidity" as an obvious answer, are (1) complacency, (2) relative wealth of the nation, and (3) academic indoctrination.

To be quite honest with you, it pi$$es me off! My husband is in his fourth year serving in the United States Navy and has been on one six month deployment over there. It makes me feel like if no one cares, then why does he even do it? He was over there fighting for those people that "dont care", so in my opinion they need to show a little respect and start caring!

To be quite honest with you, it pi$$es me off!! My husband is in his fourth year serving in the United States Navy and has been on one six month deployment over there. It makes me feel like if no one cares, then why does he even do it? He was over there fighting for those people that "dont care", so in my opinion they need to show a little respect and start caring!
I think you could take some encouragement from the fact that had the question been…”Do you care if we win or lose the war in Iraq.” I suppose win would have been nearly 100%

;)

To be quite honest with you, it pi$$es me off!! My husband is in his fourth year serving in the United States Navy and has been on one six month deployment over there. It makes me feel like if no one cares, then why does he even do it? He was over there fighting for those people that "dont care", so in my opinion they need to show a little respect and start caring!

Exactly!! :mad: God Bless your hubby and all the others who are over there.

I think you could take some encouragement from the fact that had the question been…”Do you care if we win or lose the war in Iraq.” I suppose win would have been nearly 100%

;)


Well that is true, but the fact that no one cares if we lose makes me mad. I have heard a couple of people where I live say that they don't care about the war period, or the people that are over there. To me that is a little harsh.

Exactly!!!!! :mad: God Bless your hubby and all the others who are over there.

Luckily he was on the Kennedy most of the time, but he was still in the Gulf. Some of the bombs that he and other AO's built aided in the Battle of Fallujah. :)

-I apologize, I know I'm a little off topic- :)

Is the opinion that ‘taxes should be lower’ incompatible with the opinion that ‘there should be more government programs?’

The question itself is there in my original post. I quoted the question and statistics as it appeared on the Gallup website.


These things are always dependent on how the question is framed. For instance, if you ask people whether they favor spending more on welfare, most say no; if you ask whether they favor spending more on assistance to the poor, most say yes.

I agree. In fact, I would take it further... the questions that are asked before this one may have influenced the answers to this question. If enough of the questions before this one intimated that the war is a failure, that America is at fault, that America is "bad", then it could influence people to answer THIS question is such a way that it seems that people don't care about the welfare of the USA. So yes, the way the poll is framed makes a big difference.


And so it is, there is really nothing that I can concluded from what you have given us.

Agreed. I still found the raw statistic to be shocking at first glance. That is why I posted it.

Elliot

Does it bother me? Heck yeah it bothers me, and as I keep asserting a big reason for that is who Americans are listening to. In this case it sounds like they may be listening to that Hollywood ambassador Sean Penn, Hugo Chavez' latest new friend, who just said:


“I think we’re past that point in human evolution where there’s such a thing as winning wars.”

This is the kind of thing that's being taught in our colleges and universities. Couple that with the media coverage of the war and the Democrat's obsessions, along with a good dose of American self-absorption and apathy toward things that matter, and you get poll results like this.

I think someone should beat the crap out of Sean Penn and put him in the hospital and then ask him if he still thinks that there is no such thing as winning wars.

Elliot

Kind of off the topic a bit...

For all those protesters at military funerals holding signs that say "we are going to hell" and "god hates us because we are gay" I would love to get a hold of them. Funny how they love living in American but put down the people that scarafice defending it!

Really, 67% of people don't care that much... it is the core radical right wing [33%] that would be upset if America lost the War on Iraq(which moderate Americans considered lost last year-see landslide election of 11-06.

I guess this is the first War loss you have gone through. I went through Viet Nam and have more personal experience than you concerning our wonderful country being in the wrong war, that is, an unwinable war due to bad judgement, mismanagement and ignorance of the enemy.

These things are always dependent on how the question is framed. For instance, if you ask people whether they favor spending more on welfare, most say no; if you ask whether they favor spending more on assistance to the poor, most say yes.

Ok, I'm going off topic to rant about statistics here, so forgive me, or skip my post!

There was recently a story about a girl in the UK who attends a private school which has a policy saying "no jewelry". Exceptions are made for religious pieces, such as a crucifix. The girl started coming to school wearing a "chastity ring" which she says is a symbol of her Christian faith and her commitment to remain a virgin until she is married. The school instructed her to remove the ring because it violated policy. The school said the ring is not a part of the Christian faith, but rather a personal piece of jewelry. Blah blah blah, big lawsuit ensues, school wins, girl can't wear the ring to school. After the article there was a poll which people could respond to. The question was: "Should a girl be allowed to wear a chasitiy ring to school?" Well, most votes were "yes". Of course they were yes! The question didn't address the specifics of the article; it should have said; "Should a girl be allowed to violate a school's dress code by wearing a chastity ring?". But of course, that might lead the results in the opposite direction...

I use this example to illustrate how statistics are unreliable unless you know the group being asked, the specific question be asked, etc. I'm taking a statistics class right now and it's only taught me to hate statistcs more! :)

/Rant over.

Oh, I mean in no way to indicate ETW that you've posted something as unreliable as the case I mentioned in my rant!

ETW-

Did the poll define, in the US view, what was winning or in this case "having lost?" I don't think this is a poll is about patriotism, but if it is than I'm bothered. Other than that considering I had no choice on how the President went about this war I'll choose "no opinion."


Bobby

PS. A day later after Barriods hit 756... Hammering Hank is still the home run champ as far as I'm concerned. :)

I think someone should beat the crap out of Sean Penn and put him in the hospital and then ask him if he still thinks that there is no such thing as winning wars.

Take away his passport and media coverage and you might get the same effect.

Ok, I'm going off topic to rant about statistics here, so forgive me, or skip my post!

There was recently a story about a girl in the UK who attends a private school which has a policy saying "no jewelry". Exceptions are made for religious pieces, such as a crucifix. The girl started coming to school wearing a "chastity ring" which she says is a symbol of her Christian faith and her committment to remain a virgin until she is married. The school instructed her to remove the ring because it violated policy. The school said the ring is not a part of the Christian faith, but rather a personal piece of jewelry. Blah blah blah, big lawsuit ensues, school wins, girl can't wear the ring to school. After the article there was a poll which people could respond to. The question was: "Should a girl be allowed to wear a chasitiy ring to school?" Well, most votes were "yes". Of course they were yes! The question didn't address the specifics of the article; it should have said; "Should a girl be allowed to violate a school's dress code by wearing a chastity ring?". But of course, that might lead the results in the opposite direction....

I use this example to illustrate how statistics are unreliable unless you know the group being asked, the specific question be asked, etc. I'm taking a statistics class right now and it's only taught me to hate statistcs more! :)

/Rant over.

Oh, I mean in no way to indicate ETW that you've posted something as unreliable as the case I mentioned in my rant!

I agree that the way the question is posed can change the responses. No question and you are 100% right. That said, the raw statistic, with no explanation whatsoever, was still pretty shocking to me. That's why I posted it.

Elliot

I agree that the way the question is posed can change the responses. No question and you are 100% right. That said, the raw statistic, with no explanation whatsoever, was still pretty shocking to me. That's why I posted it.

Elliot

It is shocking, which is why I'm curious about how the numbers were reached. If they were reached using reliable methods, accurate, non-biased question, etc, then I think it makes a pretty big statement. As I said in my other post, I'm assuming since it was conducted by Gallup it's conducted fairly, but we all know what they say about people who assume... :)

It is shocking, which is why I'm curious about how the numbers were reached. If they were reached using reliable methods, accurate, non-biased question, etc, then I think it makes a pretty big statement. As I said in my other post, I'm assuming since it was conducted by Gallup it's conducted fairly, but we all know what they say about people who assume.... :)
The question was….”If the United States is viewed as having lost the war….”

To me, I could answer…not much.

And viewed by who….. this was poor and ridicules as far as I'm concerned.

The question was….”If the United States is viewed as having lost the war….”

That's the published question; it may or may not be the actual question that was asked. Journalists and statisticians can be tricky and skew results the way they want them to appear. I'm not saying that was done in this case, but I'm also not saying that was NOT done in this case. It all depends on the motivations and honesty of the people giving the poll.

Should have posted a link from the beginning. Sorry about that, folks.

Iraq (http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=1633)

The question is about half-way down the page.

Elliot

Does that bother you? Is that how you feel?Hello Elliot:

Well, you're as adept at skewing questions as the poll taker is. There's the question. There's the answers. Then there's YOUR spin on the answers.

The question wasn't whether people care about the war. No! It was whether they cared about how OTHER PEOPLE view the war.

Given that THAT's the question, my take on the answers is that most people don't care what other peoples take is. If I answered the question, I would have said that I'm not bothered at all. Indeed, I couldn't care less what other people think.

Does that mean that I don't care about the war? No, not at all.

Now, as you know, I'm a black and white kind of guy. War is either won or lost. Winning or losing ISN'T in the eye of the beholder. It's only “seen” as one way or another, by those who don't know.

Then there are those who know. I'm one of those. It's clear to me, and was from very early on, that we would not win. We haven't and we won't. If there are others who see it as I do, that doesn't bother me at all. Actually, that's a good thing.

excon