It occurs to me that we really don't know what the general population of many hotspots around the world really want. Perhaps there should be a World Polling Organization who has the backing of the United Nations and whose mandate is to do detailed polling of all countries around the world. Do you agree?

__________________
DSM

i dont agree because parties within the UN will used Jaded questions for their poll to ascertain a favorable result.

Its easy to line up questions.

Do you feel that people dying to senseless violence is wrong ?

Do you feel gang violence is bad ?

Do you think that armed gangsters should be held accountable for the crimes they commit with guns ?

Do you know statistcally many die from hand guns ?

Should hand guns be harder for people to get ?


See you can jade a poll to what you want then the result is 75% of americans want stricter handgun control.


I dont trust polls for this reason they ask a battery of questions and choose one that is there end result or a few.

__________________
Hardcore Conservative !

I said Conservative not necessarly Republican or Democrat. Liberals are in both of those parties.

No.
Populations are entirely too diverse to mean anything.
And too ignorant.
I don't think I would want the average, uninformed population of the world to be considered in making complex decisions.

I remember the Washington Post did a study on their polls a few weeks back. They polled people about the war in Iraq, national security, President Bush, etc, but before taking the poll they showed some people images from September 11 and the war and showed how peoples' opinions in the polls differed. There were huge differences in the results because peoples' opinions differ based on their emotions at any given moment.

Nobody thinks that having good polling of Iraq would've more definitively answered the question of (say) whether the Iraqis would've greeted us as liberators?

__________________
DSM

Err Do you understand you can jade questions in a poll

i took a poll here to see what it was like and As alays you get the same answer.

The people here are smarter and say these options are not valid do to such and such. They do read into the poll and see what outcome people look for

__________________
Hardcore Conservative !

I said Conservative not necessarly Republican or Democrat. Liberals are in both of those parties.

People in iraq beofre we went in were afraid to answer they were under a dictator.

There answer would be no we love Sadam even if he just shot one of there kids.

__________________
Hardcore Conservative !

I said Conservative not necessarly Republican or Democrat. Liberals are in both of those parties.

Miscreant, people in Iraq I was speaking to before the war never said BOO against Saddam, although after he was gone and it was safe to do so, they certainly did.

However none of them wanted their country to be invaded, although if you had asked them if they wanted to be accepted as part of the world community again, they would have said yes.

The questions you ask are very important.

The Iraqis I know, both inside and outside Iraq were not happy with what happened after the invasion, and some have even said things were better under Saddam. This is rare, however there are reasons why people do say things like this. Its mostly about safety.

Incidentally, some of the people I have worked with experienced prison under that regime, many lost close family members.

Before the war many who had knowledge of the ME also predicted that the war itself would be a pushover, although there would be no hearts and flowers, and that the situation would eventually subside into an allout civil war. You didn't need a poll to predict what would happen.

You know - what you say is right ... but no matter how much people hated their ruler, it didn't mean they wanted to be invaded by an external force. Think bout it ... would you want that for your people?

Chances are you wouldn't.

If you must have an invasion - you also need to look at the reality on the ground - if you have sixty percent unemployment you don't import high paid contractors from the invading country to drive trucks - you employ local people. They are not fools, they have skills, and although in some cases they may need retraining, there are many capable people in Iraq. You have to respect the people who live in the country you have 'liberated'.

If not - you have to wonder what you are doing there in the first place.

I voted no. I don't see any need for a World polling organization.

If there was a need for it, the large, commercial polling organizations would already be out there in the market conducting such polls.

There is no need for a World government, therefore there is no need to conduct polls on the views of people all across the World.

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

I tend to agree.

but by the same token, I don't think that being a westerner makes me any more aware of what these people need than they do themselves.

If I go back to IamwhatIseem's post:

the truth is the average voter in many western democracies is probably more uninformed about the needs of the local people, and the issues that may arise when we support our governments intervention in some of these regions.

The problem usually isn't the people themselves.

Unfortunately the systems which operate in many of these places often lack transparency, and corrupt, self serving officials gain power - and will htry to hang on to it whatever the cosy. Even when this is known, western interests often prop up these agents that work for their own agenda against the needs of the people.

Negotiating this, and helping communities achieve the best outcomes for the ordinary person, is extremely difficult.

Saddam played "hide the fish" with the UN for over a decade. What on Earth makes you think these "world polling officials" would have had any meaningful access to the Iraqi people?

Do you think Kim Jong Il is going to let the UN roam the countryside talking to the common man?

Folly.

Matt

I think it's a great idea, if for no other reason than to make decisions with all available data. It's useful to know what people think, but that doesn't mean you have to do what the majority wants you to do at any given time. Look at our system.

And why does this poll have one yes answer and two no answers? There is no undecided option? Sounds like this poll itself is a little jaded and could be worded a little better.

If we have good polling information in MOST places, then those places that do not have good polling are much more obvious. This is not a short term strategy, but rather a long term strategy that can be used as a point of diplomacy ("you want us to change the sanctions, then show us that things have changed in your country -- sanctioned polling will give us that information").

__________________
DSM

We already have one - United Nations. Its mandate is to hear the opinions of all the nations...and their people. An in this work UN has been good ... considering its resources.

The only problem is the Security Council and its veto system. USA has systematically jeopardized the work of UN. If I remember right, every year USA has destroyed around a hundred projects by using veto - especially if Israel is somehow invoöved, USA is a coward.

Secondly USA has not paid the membership fees for UN and it is blacmailing UN to make decisions it wants...otherwise it will never pay. This is so childish. Even Mali, Nepal, all the poorest countries are paying ... not USA. Those billions of dollars have been included to the UN budget and USA is thus destroying UN's work. USA has also nominated a person for UN representative, which is the most stupid human being I have ever seen ouside hospitals.