NationStates Jolt Archive

"General seeks UK Iraq withdrawal
The head of the British Army has said the presence of UK armed forces in Iraq "exacerbates the security problems".
In an interview in the Daily Mail, Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of the General Staff, is quoted as saying the British should "get out some time soon".

He also said: "Let's face it, the military campaign we fought in 2003, effectively kicked the door in."

There are currently more than 7,000 British soldiers in Iraq, based largely in Basra in the south of the country. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6046332.stm

O those lefty Chiefs of Staff, with their nay-saying......

"General seeks UK Iraq withdrawal
The head of the British Army has said the presence of UK armed forces in Iraq "exacerbates the security problems".
In an interview in the Daily Mail, Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of the General Staff, is quoted as saying the British should "get out some time soon".

He also said: "Let's face it, the military campaign we fought in 2003, effectively kicked the door in."

There are currently more than 7,000 British soldiers in Iraq, based largely in Basra in the south of the country. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6046332.stm

O those lefty Chiefs of Staff, with their nay-saying......
This is not surprising, considering that earlier this year, US troops were polled (http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075):

An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately
That was in February. Perhaps if the poll was conducted today, there would be an even higher percentage that think the troops should leave?

Also very much in line with the "exit strategy", we have this interesting tidbit:

James Baker puts Bush's Iraq policy into rehab. (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0609.dreyfuss.html)

Since March, Baker, backed by a team of experienced national-security hands, has been busily at work trying to devise a fresh set of policies to help the president chart a new course in--or, perhaps, to get the hell out of--Iraq. But as with all things involving James Baker, there's a deeper political agenda at work as well. "Baker is primarily motivated by his desire to avoid a war at home--that things will fall apart not on the battlefield but at home. So he wants a ceasefire in American politics," a member of one of the commission's working groups told me. Specifically, he said, if the Democrats win back one or both houses of Congress in November, they would unleash a series of investigative hearings on Iraq, the war on terrorism, and civil liberties that could fatally weaken the administration and remove the last props of political support for the war, setting the stage for a potential Republican electoral disaster in 2008. "I guess there are people in the [Republican] party, on the Hill and in the White House, who see a political train wreck coming, and they've called in Baker to try to reroute the train."

The fact that Baker is involved has sent the Washington rumor mill buzzing with the theory that the commission is really a Trojan Horse for the views of Baker's friend and former boss, George H.W. Bush. It has been widely speculated that the former president never agreed with his son's decision to invade Iraq, and the son appears to have repaid that perceived dissent by largely refusing to reach out to his father for advice on national security, despite the elder Bush's knowledge and experience. In any case, for reasons that may be Oedipal or that may have to do with neoconservatives' disdain for realists associated with Bush 41, or both, Bush 43 has so far kept the 41 circle at arm's length--including Baker; his confrere Brent Scowcroft; and even, during his ill-fated tenure as secretary of state, Colin Powell. But with the situation in Iraq sliding towards irretrievable chaos, a moment of receptivity may have arrived.
Bring on the train wreck!!

This is not surprising, considering that earlier this year, US troops were polled (http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075):


That was in February. Perhaps if the poll was conducted today, there would be an even higher percentage that think the troops should leave?

hmmm......a poll.......did they ask all 100% of the troops or just a thousand. Unless every single American troop were asked the poll is inaccurate.

Why do you hate freedom? :(







;)

hmmm......a poll.......did they ask all 100% of the troops or just a thousand. Unless every single American troop were asked the poll is inaccurate.

:p :p :p

and if it said they wanted to stay it would, of course, be a shining examplle of scientific polling.

hmmm......a poll.......did they ask all 100% of the troops or just a thousand. Unless every single American troop were asked the poll is inaccurate.
Aye, I bet they just asked all of the liberal soldiers...

Get me Bill Frist! :rolleyes:

hmmm......a poll.......did they ask all 100% of the troops or just a thousand. Unless every single American troop were asked the poll is inaccurate.

-Yes. And instead of polling a specified and statistical amount of the electorate, we should in fact ask every single person in the country who they are going to vote for.

-You mean..... have an election.

hmmm......a poll.......did they ask all 100% of the troops or just a thousand. Unless every single American troop were asked the poll is inaccurate.
And he means every single troop, including all the dead ones.
Until you ask them all, he won't accept any poll - unless it agrees with his views, of course.

It's good that someone in his position has said we should withdraw. We should never have got involved in this whole mess in the first place, the war was never our concern. We need to get out immediately.

hmmm......a poll.......did they ask all 100% of the troops or just a thousand. Unless every single American troop were asked the poll is inaccurate.
What an absurd comment.

Aye, I bet they just asked all of the liberal soldiers...

Get me Bill Frist! :rolleyes:

Liberal soldiers? No such thing.

Even better. I'll get you Mark Foley.

:p :p :p

and if it said they wanted to stay it would, of course, be a shining examplle of scientific polling.

This is hardly a represantative sample, but I've seen 3 guys who have been in Iraq. Two of them came to my school to talk about it, and they gave the impression that leaving immediately is a very bad idea. The third guy(my recruiter) I never asked, although maybe I should have...

-Yes. And instead of polling a specified and statistical amount of the electorate, we should in fact ask every single person in the country who they are going to vote for.

-You mean..... have an election.

Now you have been here long enough to know the rules. Would this not be considered "thread hijacking" Please back on topic...

I don't understand why some of you are getting so up tight. I'm curious to know how many people were asked for that alleged poll before I declare it to be accurate.

Just a question...if the British Army leaves Iraq, what will they do? Go back to skipping rocks on the English Channel?

Now you have been here long enough to know the rules. Would this not be considered "thread hijacking" Please back on topic...

I don't understand why some of you are getting so up tight. I'm curious to know how many people were asked for that alleged poll before I declare it to be accurate.

I'm sure if you googled it, you could find the source and a description of how the survey was conducted.

What an absurd comment.
Absurd? How do you figure? Do you mean to tell me that if only 1000 soldiers are asked that fairly represents the 150,000 soldiers currently in Iraq? Come on guys, what happened to Common sense?

Absurd? How do you figure? Do you mean to tell me that if only 1000 soldiers are asked that fairly represents the 150,000 soldiers currently in Iraq? Come on guys, what happened to Common sense?
You do realise that makes pretty much every single poll and scientific test in the history of the world inaccurate?

Actually, that comment's getting sigged. Just because I can.

Just a question...if the British Army leaves Iraq, what will they do? Go back to skipping rocks on the English Channel?
Oh noes, they might actually defend our homeland, which is only their bloody job and all.

Now you have been here long enough to know the rules. Would this not be considered "thread hijacking" Please back on topic...

I don't understand why some of you are getting so up tight. I'm curious to know how many people were asked for that alleged poll before I declare it to be accurate.
Here you go.

The survey included 944 military respondents interviewed at several undisclosed locations throughout Iraq. The names of the specific locations and specific personnel who conducted the survey are being withheld for security purposes. Surveys were conducted face-to-face using random sampling techniques. The margin of error for the survey, conducted Jan. 18 through Feb. 14, 2006, is +/- 3.3 percentage points.

Pttttf, it's a disaster, why dont they just leave and let the Shias let up a Calliphate, at least under islamic order you wont have as many people dying as their are these days.

Absurd? How do you figure? Do you mean to tell me that if only 1000 soldiers are asked that fairly represents the 150,000 soldiers currently in Iraq? Come on guys, what happened to Common sense?
In war, the first casualty is truth and all of that.

Oh noes, they might actually defend our homeland, which is only their bloody job and all.

Defend your homeland from what? Are you under threat of an imminent
invasion?

Seriously, though, I can understand why you wouldn't want to be in Iraq. I don't blame you on that one.

Now you have been here long enough to know the rules. Would this not be considered "thread hijacking" Please back on topic...

I don't understand why some of you are getting so up tight. I'm curious to know how many people were asked for that alleged poll before I declare it to be accurate.
I posted the poll in support of the topic of withdrawal. Therefore not a threadjack per se.

BTW, if you read the link, it states how many were polled. It is not an "alledged" poll. It is a poll conducted by Zogby. And I really don't believe that you can declare whether or not the poll is accurate unless of course you have some actual facts to refute its' accuracy.

Defend your homeland from what? Are you under threat of an imminent
invasion?
It's just what an army's for, no?

They're not really supposed to be used as a multi-billion dollar dick-waving tool.
Seriously, though, I can understand why you wouldn't want to be in Iraq. I don't blame you on that one.
Oh good.

It's just what an army's for, no?

They're not really supposed to be used as a multi-billion dollar dick-waving tool.

Oh good.

I'm just saying there wouldn't be much for the British Army to do. Except for Afghanistan, but surely you don't want to leave that?

I'm just saying there wouldn't be much for the British Army to do.
Oh no!
Except for Afghanistan, but surely you don't want to leave that?
What's the average Afghani got to do with an event that happened a while ago, once, in a country where they've never been?

Nothing...

So why are we shooting them up?

I posted the poll in support of the topic of withdrawal. Therefore not a threadjack per se.

BTW, if you read the link, it states how many were polled. It is not an "alledged" poll. It is a poll conducted by Zogby. And I really don't believe that you can declare whether or not the poll is accurate unless of course you have some actual facts to refute its' accuracy.

Okay so you are trying to claim that it is fair for 944 soldiers to speak for 150,000 soldiers. I thought people had their own minds I don't see how it could be fair to say 70 something percent of American soldiers says to leave Iraq when only 944 were asked. Common Sense tells me not to take it as accurate. There is no way in the world that you convince me it is the accurate view of 150,000 soldiers.

Seeing how you obviously like numbers here you go......

944 soldiers surveyed to say leave Iraq now. Well that 944 soldiers accounts for 0.63% of the troops stationed in Iraq. That is less than 1% if you couldn't tell. You decide. Is it accurate or not?

I think the man makes a solid point. But I do not see his timetable nor his views on the results of withdrawing without leaving an adequate Iraqi force in charge .


I do not see where he does anything but state the obviouse. If you want to make a change then whats the plan ...just pack up and leave ??


The situation in Iraq..even in his area is far from settled...if he does his JOB and trains Iraqi troops to take controll then by all means ...say good bye..I believe thats been the American plan now for years...

And the Americans in some areas feel that they have good Iraqi forces and in others ..notably Sunni stronholds ..they do not ..so until they can get a POLITICAL solution from within the Iraqi government and an end ..BY POLITICAL means of fighting between Iraqi factions...the US is fighting mostly foriegn Insurgents the rest being turned over to the IRaqi's.

Things in Basra with the General are QUITE different...he only has Iranian shiite agitation and mostly grumbling among the largely Shiite community..

I think the General should find some nice work in Anbar province..he wont be so bored fighting Al Queda and Sunni jihadist and Bathist loyal to Saddam .
I dare say he would be very busy and unable to be available for many political statements .

He may also want to try Afghanistan there is still some sport for a lively chap in the south .

The three soldiers in Iraq from my Family..one is going to afghanistan for the second time in the next year ...all want to stay and finish the job and according to them so do all of the guys they live and die with , they feel they are doing a good job and want to see it through to the end.

I dont see ANY polls saying different do you ?

Link to one if you can find it .



YOU know whats funny ...if you ask a thousand soldiers from any military if they " want to go home ".....how many sane ones would say NO ?


Show the poll and the QUESTION asked and how it was put to them .:D

To just cut and run would be disasterous. If we were to just pack up and leave we, the USA, would remain very much criticized for leaving Iraq in a mess. So actually, this would be a lose-lose situation for the USA. Stay and get crucified by world views or Leave and get crucified by world view.

As for UK I'll leave it to them to decide.

As for the USA I think it would be wrong to leave right now. By doing so would make Iraq a breeding ground for al-Queda.

You decide. Is it accurate or not?
Yup. It is accurate within the defined boundaries:

The margin of error for the survey, conducted Jan. 18 through Feb. 14, 2006, is +/- 3.3 percentage points.

The UK has more Generals...that one may be on his new job in the Shetlands ...ohhh in about a month ..:D

As for the USA I think it would be wrong to leave right now. By doing so would make Iraq a breeding ground for al-Queda.
Iraq already is a breeding ground for terrorists.

Report Says Iraq War Increasing Terrorism Threat (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6140884)

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Hurting U.S. Terror Fight (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/23/AR2006092301130.html)

Intel report: Iraq a ‘cause célèbre’ for extremists (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12913317/)

Of course, Bush and his devotees would certainly disagree. :p

To just cut and run would be disasterous. If we were to just pack up and leave we, the USA, would remain very much criticized for leaving Iraq in a mess. So actually, this would be a lose-lose situation for the USA. Stay and get crucified by world views or Leave and get crucified by world view.

As for UK I'll leave it to them to decide.

As for the USA I think it would be wrong to leave right now. By doing so would make Iraq a breeding ground for al-Queda.Must say that I agree.

The UK has more Generals...that one may be on his new job in the Shetlands ...ohhh in about a month ..:D
At least he will get out of Iraq. :)

The UK has more Generals...that one may be on his new job in the Shetlands ...ohhh in about a month ..:D
The Shetlands are perfectly amiable. Coming in part from the Orkneys, I say - "they're surprisingly verdant, although there's not much to do there".

Yup. It is accurate within the defined boundaries:

I hope you're kidding......that +/- 3 % is only of those surveyed so even if I took that into consideration here are the figures:

72% of the surveyed 944 soldiers say Leave well that is 679.68 soldiers now I'll add the 3% to make it 75% which equals 708 soldiers of the 944 surveyed says Leave which is less than 0.48% of over all total of 150,000 soldiers currently in Iraq.

I hope you're kidding......that +/- 3 % is only of those surveyed so even if I took that into consideration here are the figures:

72% of the surveyed 944 soldiers say Leave well that is 679.68 soldiers now I'll add the 3% to make it 75% which equals 708 soldiers of the 944 surveyed says Leave which is less than 0.48% of over all total of 150,000 soldiers currently in Iraq.
That's an astonishingly brilliant misuse of stats.

"ermm yeah... 99.52% actually want to stay... you can't prove otherwise!"

That's an astonishingly brilliant misuse of stats.

"ermm yeah... 99.52% actually want to stay... you can't prove otherwise!"

By you stating that it's a misuse of stats, to me means, the entire stats are being misused. I simply got my numbers by there statistics. So if I am wrong then they must be wrong.

You may be correct that I "can't prove otherwise!" and I know I'm correct when I say "likewise"

I hope you're kidding......that +/- 3 % is only of those surveyed so even if I took that into consideration here are the figures:

72% of the surveyed 944 soldiers say Leave well that is 679.68 soldiers now I'll add the 3% to make it 75% which equals 708 soldiers of the 944 surveyed says Leave which is less than 0.48% of over all total of 150,000 soldiers currently in Iraq.
I am not about to debate polls with you. Do some research.

I am not about to debate polls with you. Do some research.

That's because there isn't no debate. I am correct in my conclusion of the inaccuracy of polls.

I hope you're kidding......that +/- 3 % is only of those surveyed so even if I took that into consideration here are the figures:

72% of the surveyed 944 soldiers say Leave well that is 679.68 soldiers now I'll add the 3% to make it 75% which equals 708 soldiers of the 944 surveyed says Leave which is less than 0.48% of over all total of 150,000 soldiers currently in Iraq.

No you moron. A margin of error is calculated based on the sample size versus the overall size of the demographic. A +/- 3% sample of error means that the % cited are accurate within 3 points in either direction.

That's how statistics work. Just because you're too stupid to understand how they work don't assume the rest of the world is.

The fact is, you're just an idiot.

That's because there isn't no debate. I am correct in my conclusion of the inaccuracy of polls.

there are two possibilities here. Either:

a) you, with no degree in statistics or mathematics are somehow smarter and more knowledgable about statistics than people who have degrees in statistics.

or

b) you're wrong.

I'll settle for b, and call you an idiot again.

No you moron. A margin of error is calculated based on the sample size versus the overall size of the demographic. A +/- 3% sample of error means that the % cited are accurate within 3 points in either direction.

That's how statistics work. Just because you're too stupid to understand how they work don't assume the rest of the world is.

The fact is, you're just an idiot.

okay with that being said I simply added the 3% on to the 72% let's add the 3% to 944 which is in between 915.68 to 972.32 people I'll use the higher number to benefit you. Well that is less than 0.65% My first estimate was 0.63% SHOOT ME.....Damn I was two hundreths off. F***

Any ways my point is made I don't care that I was only 0.02% so whose the idiot now.

Anyways, I think A complete pull out in Iraq would be a tremendous mistake.

Wow you guys are unbelievable.....what ever happened to the saying "Numbers don't lie" My math that I did perform was completely accurate. Do it yourselves if you think I am wrong.

Stay in Iraq to the end of the insurgency.

Anyways, I think A complete pull out in Iraq would be a tremendous mistake.

Maybe it would be for America, I don't know. But it definitely would be a good thing for Britain, this war should never have been anything to do with us. We shouldn't drag ourselves into things which don't concern us.

okay with that being said I simply added the 3% on to the 72% let's add the 3% to 944 which is in between 915.68 to 972.32 people I'll use the higher number to benefit you. Well that is less than 0.65% My first estimate was 0.63% SHOOT ME.....Damn I was two hundreths off. F***



Yup, I was right. Idiot.

Wow you guys are unbelievable.....what ever happened to the saying "Numbers don't lie" My math that I did perform was completely accurate. Do it yourselves if you think I am wrong.


Yes your math makes perfect sense, if you're an idiot.

Yes your math makes perfect sense, if you're an idiot.

And you would be a flame-baiting Troll......I refuse to feed you.

Good night everybody :D

Liberal soldiers? No such thing.

Even better. I'll get you Mark Foley.


Wow. My buddy is very liberal.

He did two tours in Nam with the Rangers.

Oh noes, they might actually defend our homeland, which is only their bloody job and all.


Is there anything worth defending?

:p

And you would be a flame-baiting Troll......

I understand statistics, you do not. call me what you wish, but I'm not the idiot.

I'm just saying there wouldn't be much for the British Army to do.

I have always considered the army as being somewhat like a life insurance policy. Nice to have, but a real downer when you have to use it.

So not having much for the army to do is good.

That's because there isn't no debate. I am correct in my conclusion of the inaccuracy of polls.
I'm not sure what is more breath-taking: Your total ignorance of statistical analysis or your stubborn refusal to accept the blinding obvious.

I reccommend you get yourself down to your local University asap, and inform the Statistics dept that every single poll that's ever been undertaken using the same methods as was used in this specific one is wrong.
I'm sure they'll be totally astounded to find that all those thousands upon thousands of research in the field of polling by brilliant mathematicians over the last couple of hundred of years is wrong.
Why?
Because you say so.
wow. can't get much more scientific than that.

Wow you guys are unbelievable.....what ever happened to the saying "Numbers don't lie" My math that I did perform was completely accurate. Do it yourselves if you think I am wrong.
Your maths is a pointless waste of time that proves nothing.
But since you're intent of pushing the issue, and not bothering to do any research yourself, I'd suggest you click these links:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MarginofError.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error

And here's a very basic (much like yourself) primer:
Margin of Error
A simple explanation of margin of error, for journalists and other writers who might not know math.
Margin of Error deserves better than the throw-away line it gets in the bottom of stories about polling data. Writers who don't understand margin of error, and its importance in interpreting scientific research, can easily embarrass themselves and their news organizations.

Check out the following story that moved in the summer of 1996 on a major news wire:

WASHINGTON (Reuter) - President Clinton, hit by bad publicity recently over FBI files and a derogatory book, has slipped against Bob Dole in a new poll released Monday but still maintains a 15 percentage point lead.

The CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll taken June 27-30 of 818 registered voters showed Clinton would beat his Republican challenger if the election were held now, 54 to 39 percent, with seven percent undecided. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus four percentage points.

A similar poll June 18-19 had Clinton 57 to 38 percent over Dole.

Unfortunately for the readers of this story, it is wrong. There is no reasonable statistical basis for claiming that Clinton's lead over Dole has slipped.

Why? The margin of error. In this case, the CNN et al. poll had a four percent margin of error. That means that if you asked a question from this poll 100 times, 95 of those times the percentage of people giving a particular answer would be within 4 points of the percentage who gave that same answer in this poll.

(WARNING: Math Geek Stuff!)
Why 95 times out of 100? In reality, the margin of error is what statisticians call a confidence interval. The math behind it is much like the math behind the standard deviation. So you can think of the margin of error at the 95 percent confidence interval as being equal to two standard deviations in your polling sample. Occasionally you will see surveys with a 99 percent confidence interval, which would correspond to 3 standard deviations and a much larger margin of error.
(End of Math Geek Stuff!)

So let's look at this particular week's poll as a repeat of the previous week's (which it was). The percentage of people who say they support Clinton is within 4 points of the percentage who said they supported Clinton the previous week (54 percent this week to 57 last week). Same goes for Dole. So statistically, there is no change from the previous week's poll. Dole has made up no measurable ground on Clinton.

And reporting anything different is misleading.

Don't overlook that fact that the margin of error is a 95 percent confidence interval, either. That means that for every 20 times you repeat this poll, statistics say that one time you'll get an answer that is completely off the wall.

You might remember that just after Dole resigned from the U.S. Senate, the CNN et al. poll had Clinton's lead down to six points. Reports attributed this surge by Dole to positive public reaction to his resignation. But the next week, Dole's surge was gone.

Perhaps there never was a surge. It very well could be that that week's poll was the one in 20 where the results lie outside the margin of error. Who knows? Just remember to never place too much faith in one week's poll or survey. No matter what you are writing about, only by looking at many surveys can you get an accurate look at what is going on.
http://www.robertniles.com/stats/margin.shtml

This is the best tangent a thread has ever gone off on for sheer ridiculousness.

"General seeks UK Iraq withdrawal
The head of the British Army has said the presence of UK armed forces in Iraq "exacerbates the security problems".
In an interview in the Daily Mail, Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of the General Staff, is quoted as saying the British should "get out some time soon".

He also said: "Let's face it, the military campaign we fought in 2003, effectively kicked the door in."

There are currently more than 7,000 British soldiers in Iraq, based largely in Basra in the south of the country. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6046332.stm

O those lefty Chiefs of Staff, with their nay-saying......

If he said it he is a good general and cares for his soldiers, a model for all other military caommanders. He is telling you from his military point of view what is best for Britain and what is best for Iraq to continue the way to a stable nation.

Now you have been here long enough to know the rules. Would this not be considered "thread hijacking" Please back on topic...

I don't understand why some of you are getting so up tight. I'm curious to know how many people were asked for that alleged poll before I declare it to be accurate.


The thread was not about you, or your poll.

Iraq needs more soldiers. A Hell of a lot more. Send in a million, kick the shit out of them. Git-R-Done. (what should have been done in 2K3)

Iraq needs more soldiers. A Hell of a lot more. Send in a million, kick the shit out of them. Git-R-Done. (what should have been done in 2K3)

'kick the shit" out of who, exactly?

'kick the shit" out of who, exactly?

Umm. The insurgents.

Umm. The insurgents.

Well, the fact is...very few want them there. Not the "insurgents", not the Shia, the Sunni....so precisely why would it be a good idea to continue with a polcy that alienates the population even further?

That's because there isn't no debate. I am correct in my conclusion of the inaccuracy of polls.

I just have to say, you are the most idiotic person I have yet seen in my time on these forums...

...and that's saying a lot.

Well, the fact is...very few want them there. Not the "insurgents", not the Shia, the Sunni....so precisely why would it be a good idea to continue with a polcy that alienates the population even further?

Because the alternitive is too disasterious: If you are suggesting a total pullout by the west then that would eventually make Iraq, Isreal's problem.
And we all know what that would mean. Do we really want to see the Middle East turn into a glass bowl?

Let me explain to your where your logic train ran off track.

Let us say you have a giant bag filled with poker chips. You can't see the poker chips in the bag, but you know two things:

1) you know there are 10,000 chips in the bag

2) each chip is either blue or yellow

You do not know the proper ratio, this is roughly synonomous with the poll here, we know the number of soldiers (number of chips in the bag) and we know the two options are either stay, or go (blue, or yellow) we just don't know how many of each.

So let's say you dip your hand into the bag and pull out 100 of those chips. 90 are blue, 10 are yellow. Again this is similar to the poll, we take a part of the whole, and ask what they think.

Now the reasonably intelligent person (so, not you, but let me explain what an actual thinking human being would do) would go "hmm, I know there are 10,000, I know I pulled 100, and of those 100 90 are blue 10 are yellow, so if I look at this as a representative sample, it is pretty safe to assume that of this 10,000, about 9,000 are blue and about 1,000 are yellow. It may not be exact, but this is what the sample seems to suggest".

Again back to the poll, a reasonable sample, reasonably diversified can create a decent sample of the whole. Not 100% representative, but a general idea.

You on the other hand seem to think "all the chips left in the bag are yellow, since we pulled out all the blue"

You kinda see the difference?