Conquer Club

Video: Nuke Russia? Prankster/journalist grabs support for fake




On a similar subject ("US should use military force to defend a NATO ally against Russia") it turns out that Europeans are more aware of the consequences then Americans or Canadians. But there's a big political split on the issue — 69% of Republicans support the statement, but just 47% of people identifying as Democrats agreed.

GoranZ wrote:("US should use military force to defend a NATO ally against Russia")

Defend against Russia doing what?

When you post data, you should place them into context. The same study a year earlier showed a difference in favorability towards Russia from western nations. When things escalate, opinions aggravate. By now things have calmed down in the media. People become more favorable towards Russia once again.

Moreover about 20-40% of the western samples also mentioned disliking NATO as a whole; and 10-20% mentioned not really having an opinion about nato or refusing answer. So don't make it seem like everybody is afraid of Russia. Seems like there are a whole lot of people who merely don't care much for NATO.

GoranZ wrote:("US should use military force to defend a NATO ally against Russia")

It doesn't matter if you think the US shouldn't or should, because part of the agreement of being a member of NATO is that if any member is attacked, all members would come to the defense of that ally.

I'd also like to point out, that the specific question you picked out was one of the worst formulated questions in the list. It leaves the questionee open to interpret who provoked the conflict. This is one of the biggest mistakes one can make in a research. A question should always be be unambiguous.

Hardly surprising that the results are shoddy when the 'research' was conducted by a 'journalist/prankster'.

waauw wrote:I'd also like to point out, that the specific question you picked out was one of the worst formulated questions in the list. It leaves the questionee open to interpret who provoked the conflict. This is one of the biggest mistakes one can make in a research. A question should always be be unambiguous.

"Who provoked the conflict"? Why did the the Japanese attack Perl Harbor is WW2? Because US enforced sanctions on Japan. According to your "Who provoked the conflict" theory you make US the guilty one, which is nonsense . But you can go even further, and you can involve China in 1930's... or even back to the aftermath of WW1 and forcing the Japan to destroy some parts of its fleet. In the end you will get back to the time of the Neanderthals and some fight over a chicken bone(figuratively speaking).

From the video "Preemptive Nuclear Strike"... It explains everything you dummy

mrswdk wrote:Hardly surprising that the results are shoddy when the 'research' was conducted by a 'journalist/prankster'.

First one is prankster/journalism, I clearly labeled that... The second one is research.

Maybe next time RT should hire mrswdk so she can help them in proper labeling of pranksters/journalism news

GoranZ wrote:

waauw wrote:I'd also like to point out, that the specific question you picked out was one of the worst formulated questions in the list. It leaves the questionee open to interpret who provoked the conflict. This is one of the biggest mistakes one can make in a research. A question should always be be unambiguous.

"Who provoked the conflict"? Why did the the Japanese attack Perl Harbor is WW2? Because US enforced sanctions on Japan. According to your "Who provoked the conflict" theory you make US the guilty one, which is nonsense . But you can go even further, and you can involve China in 1930's... or even back to the aftermath of WW1 and forcing the Japan to destroy some parts of its fleet. In the end you will get back to the time of the Neanderthals and some fight over a chicken bone(figuratively speaking).

That is exactly my point. The question is open to interpretation, as are the answers as a result. You can not make any rational conclusions based on that specific question.
As far as I can tell for the moment, the rest of the questionaire is fine.

I do not think that american people are more thirsty for blood as another people.
it is americans elites who are bloody. the pope said it clear, current economic, goverment system is based on bloody moneys and need wars.
each normal person wants to live in peace with his family. only idiots want war, also because these idiots never fight on frontline.
and in the last 100 years is the biggest number of these idiots in usa.
ofcourse they do propaganda for their wars, so what can normal american man thinks? look how these idiots lie to all country and world about chemical guns of iraq. I do not think that there is more as 40% of americans who know this.
do not attack people, attack politics, bankers, owners of corporations. these are idiots.

Oneyed

--Andy