Military Poll

amepro · #1 (**permalink**) 01-01-2007, 09:08 AM

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...arypoll30.html

Quote:

"WASHINGTON — The U.S. military, once a staunch supporter of President Bush and the Iraq war, has grown increasingly pessimistic about chances for victory, a new poll says.

For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president's handling of the war than approve of it, according to the 2006 Military Times Poll.

When the military was feeling most optimistic about the war — in 2004 — 83 percent of poll respondents said success in Iraq was likely. This year, that number is down to 50 percent.

Only 35 percent of military members polled this year said they approve of the way Bush is handling the war, and 42 percent said they disapprove. While approval of the president's war leadership has slumped, his overall approval remains high among the military.

Just as telling, only 41 percent of the military now say the United States should have gone to war in Iraq, down from 65 percent in 2003. That closely reflects beliefs of the general population — 45 percent agreed in a recent USA Today-Gallup poll."

Jake · #2 (**permalink**) 01-01-2007, 10:05 AM

Note that the poll results disapprove of the handling of the war. That would distinguish them from appeasers, who oppose the war itself. Your title is designed to blur the difference, but the smarter ones here won't be fooled.

rockyreagan · #3 (**permalink**) 01-01-2007, 10:19 AM

Yes, aren't words fun things

. Patton for a time was against the way we where fighting WW II he didn't believe we where being hard nose enough nor devastating the Germans at a level needed. Strange though I never heard anyone call him anti war, nor a peace nick

. You have to love words, they hold such power.

amepro · #4 (**permalink**) 01-01-2007, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Note that the poll results disapprove of the handling of the war.

...and the "handling of the war" may be why some NOW disapprove of the war altogether.

Chalk it up as a chain reaction if you like.

Whatever, it's a disaster.

f100supersabr · #5 (**permalink**) 01-01-2007, 12:14 PM

Jake blurts out

Quote:

Note that the poll results disapprove of the handling of the war. That would distinguish them from appeasers, who oppose the war itself

Just because one opposes the war of Iraq II does not in ant way necessarily make one an "appeaser.". If someone takes a step back and looks at the history of how we got into the mess ca;lled IraqII and listens to and reads some of the voices who "oppose" our involvement one may underestand that the entire thing was not only based upon bad premise but was also executed badly.

Have you served in the armed forces or are you just one of those neocons who run their mouths and call those of us who not only served our country but don't want our country to get into a bad situation and speak up when it tries to a bunch of "appeasers" ?

If you and other neocon-artists run around =calling everyone who you disagree with an appeaser you will not recognize an appeaser when you see one for the first time in your life.

gmb92 · #6 (**permalink**) 01-01-2007, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jake";p=&quot

Note that the poll results disapprove of the handling of the war. That would distinguish them from appeasers, who oppose the war itself. Your title is designed to blur the difference, but the smarter ones here won't be fooled.

First, note that the poll does not give a fair representation of the opinion of our men and women in uniform, since it was conducted by mail (self-selection bias) and represents a certain demographic:

Quote:

The survey, conducted by mail Nov. 13 through Dec. 22, is the fourth annual gauge of active-duty military subscribers to the Military Times newspapers. The results are not representative of the military as a whole. The survey's respondents, 945 this year, are on average older, more experienced, more likely to be officers and more career-oriented than the overall military population.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...oll-iraq_x.htm

Second, the poll deals with both the issue of how the war is being conducted and whether or not we should have gone to war to begin with. Only 41% approve of the decision to go to war. Calling the majority of our troops "appeasers" is disgraceful in my view.

Quote:

Just as telling, only 41 percent of the military now say the United States should have gone to war in Iraq, down from 65 percent in 2003. That closely reflects beliefs of the general population — 45 percent agreed in a recent USA Today-Gallup poll.

apotropoxy · #7 (**permalink**) 01-03-2007, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Error:
The "handling of the war" v. "righteousness of the war" discussion contains an error at its core- the hidden assumption that there had been some way to handle it so that another outcome might have been brought about.

Iraq is in the process of reverting to its true political profile. The decades of dictatorship, formerly sponsored by Western powers in contravention to the general will of its population, is sloughing off. The Shi'ite majority is engaging in a revenge-soaked ethnic cleansing of Sunni minority control. It suited the interests of the industrialized West to have a minority leader acting as the dictator of Iraq just as it had with the Shah of Iran a generation earlier. Saddam kept the demotic inclinations of the Shi'ite-dominated region (Iran and Iraq) from uniting in self-interest and carving out greater oil revenue profits for its populations. The fracturing of the historical power relations in the Middle East allowed the West to play off Persian against Arab... Turk against Arab... Sunni against Shia... Israel against everyone. The end of this grand manipulation could not last and it took a smiling fool to pull the finger out of the dike.
It is the United States that triggered this deluge of blood with the invasion/occupation. The "real-politic" Kissingeresque foreign policy machinations that were an earmark of post-war (WW2) thinking gave way to Bush the Lame's faith-based fantasies.

There may be a long term good to come out of the current tragedy but we in the West may not care for it. The damage done at the end of WW1 via the creation of "countries" in a land where such a notion is anathema may give way to a more organic and historically consistent mode of social organization.

Israel will be lucky to survive the tide of history that Bush the Lame has loosed on the land of Sweet Crude.

Happy New Year.

exigent · #8 (**permalink**) 01-03-2007, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockyreagan";p=&quot

Yes, aren't words fun things

. Patton for a time was against the way we where fighting WW II he didn't believe we where being hard nose enough nor devastating the Germans at a level needed. Strange though I never heard anyone call him anti war, nor a peace nick

. You have to love words, they hold such power.

Comparing WWII to the Iraqi war agian, are we?

Ask anyone if they think that we had no place fighting WWII...then we can revisit your post.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode