Survey of troops in Iraq

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 1:51 pm

The thing that jumped out at me was the assertion that 85% of the troops surveyed believed the reason we were in Iraq was Saddam's connection to 9-11.

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2006/02 ... tml#012792

Hello Kitty · Post by **Hello Kitty** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:04 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:The thing that jumped out at me was the assertion that 85% of the troops surveyed believed the reason we were in Iraq was Saddam's connection to 9-11.

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2006/02 ... tml#012792

Numbers and results can be misleading. I would like to see the original study to see how the questions were presented, how were they framed? They could have been presented in a gains in loses sort of way that leads most people to the desired answer.

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:28 pm

Hello Kitty wrote: Numbers and results can be misleading. I would like to see the original study to see how the questions were presented, how were they framed? They could have been presented in a gains in loses sort of way that leads most people to the desired answer.

I'd be curious too -- I know what you're saying about surveys in general not always yielding reliable results. There are a lot of ways they can be manipulated to produce desired results.

Nevertheless, though -- if it is true that any variation of "the reason we are in Iraq is because Saddam was involved with 9/11" was an answer chosen by 85% of our troops, then that is somewhat alarming (granting you what I said in my last paragraph, that it is possible the results may be skewed, as with any survey).

--GL

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:35 pm

That might be the data that is for sale (although it is called an "executive summary," which is what I would have thought the body of the link itself would have been considered in large part) at the bottom of this link that was referenced in the reason.com link:

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

I agree with both of you -- I always like to see the granular data for any poll to see how exactly the questions were phrased, and it frustrates me when a particular poll leaves that out. I guess that's where capitalism steps in and says, "Show me a Jackson and you'll get your precious details." Capitalist swine!

Hello Kitty · Post by **Hello Kitty** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:45 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:That might be the data that is for sale (although it is called an "executive summary," which is what I would have thought the body of the link itself would have been considered in large part) at the bottom of this link that was referenced in the reason.com link:

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

I agree with both of you -- I always like to see the granular data for any poll to see how exactly the questions were phrased, and it frustrates me when a particular poll leaves that out. I guess that's where capitalism steps in and says, "Show me a Jackson and you'll get your precious details." Capitalist swine!

word

(I try and respond to an intellectual conversation with "word" at least once a month )

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 3:38 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:I agree with both of you -- I always like to see the granular data for any poll to see how exactly the questions were phrased, and it frustrates me when a particular poll leaves that out. I guess that's where capitalism steps in and says, "Show me a Jackson and you'll get your precious details." Capitalist swine!

True dat.

(Following Kitty's theme...)

Although, somehow I doubt that the results of polls and studies are more fairly represented in Communist China or the former Soviet Union than they are in the U.S., so I'm not sure capitalism is the problem. I'd chalk it up to the normal human tendency to lie, cheat and deceive in order to make whatever point we want to make, regardless of the economic regime we live under.

--GL

ChiOCat · Post by **ChiOCat** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 4:18 pm

Grizlaw wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:I agree with both of you -- I always like to see the granular data for any poll to see how exactly the questions were phrased, and it frustrates me when a particular poll leaves that out. I guess that's where capitalism steps in and says, "Show me a Jackson and you'll get your precious details." Capitalist swine!
True dat. (Following Kitty's theme...)

Although, somehow I doubt that the results of polls and studies are more fairly represented in Communist China or the former Soviet Union than they are in the U.S., so I'm not sure capitalism is the problem. I'd chalk it up to the normal human tendency to lie, cheat and deceive in order to make whatever point we want to make, regardless of the economic regime we live under.

--GL

Or.....just truly believe what they are presenting as the truth. The whole truth. And nothing but the truth.

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 4:30 pm

ChiOCat wrote:Or.....just truly believe what they are presenting as the truth. The whole truth. And nothing but the truth.

Nah, that never happens.

Except when I post, of course.

ChiOCat · Post by **ChiOCat** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 4:46 pm

Grizlaw wrote:
ChiOCat wrote:Or.....just truly believe what they are presenting as the truth. The whole truth. And nothing but the truth.
Nah, that never happens.

Except when I post, of course.

Sure. Sure, I'll buy that.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 4:51 pm

Dang ol' yeah yo man.

Actually, my capitalist swine comment wasn't really addressing the reliability of the poll but rather the fact that they were charging us to see the detailed results. I'm not sure if I made that point effectively, or if I am just misreading the resulting posts.

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:15 pm

the results might be more of an indication of either of the following, too:

A: The troops talked themselves into the belief that Iraq was involved in 9-11. This could happen in a manner similar to group-think.

B: Superior officers could have implied, in one way or another, that Iraq was involved 9-11. Thus, the general troop population would tend to nod in agreement.

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 9:14 am

Bay Area Cat wrote:Dang ol' yeah yo man.

Actually, my capitalist swine comment wasn't really addressing the reliability of the poll but rather the fact that they were charging us to see the detailed results. I'm not sure if I made that point effectively, or if I am just misreading the resulting posts.

Ahh, gotcha...

I'm a couple days late with this, but I actually thought you were making a different point with the "capitalist swine" comment (i.e., that for the right price, you can find someone to conduct a study that will conclude pretty much anything you want it to conclude).

Survey of troops in Iraq

Survey of troops in Iraq

Re: Survey of troops in Iraq

Re: Survey of troops in Iraq