Published:
Dec. 29, 2006
Down on the war
Poll: More troops unhappy with Bush’s course in Iraq
By Robert Hodierne
Senior managing editor
The American military — once a staunch supporter of President Bush and the Iraq war — has grown in creasingly pessimistic about chances for victory.
For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president’s handling of the war than approve of it. Barely one-third of service members approve of the way the president is handling the war, ac cording to the 2006 Military Times Poll.
When the military was feeling most optimistic about the war — in 2004 — 83 percent of poll re spondents thought success in Iraq was likely. This year, that number has shrunk to 50 percent.
Only 35 percent of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42 percent said they disapproved. The president’s approval rating among the military is only slight ly higher than for the population as a whole. In 2004, when his popularity peaked, 63 percent of the military approved of Bush’s handling of the war. While approval of the president’s war leadership has slumped, his overall approval remains high among the military.
Just as telling, in this year’s poll only 41 percent of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place, down from 65 percent in 2003. That closely reflects the beliefs of the general population today — 45 percent agreed in a recent USA Today/Gallup poll.
Professor David Segal, director of the Center for Research on Military Organization at the Univer sity of Maryland, was not surprised by the changing attitude within the military.
“They’re seeing more casualties and fatalities and less progress,” Segal said.
He added, “Part of what we’re seeing is a recognition that the intelligence that led to the war was wrong.”
Whatever war plan the president comes up with later this month, it likely will have the re placement of American troops with Iraqis as its ultimate goal. The military is not optimistic that will happen soon. Only about one in five service members said that large numbers of American troops can be replaced within the next two years. More than one-third think it will take more than five years. And more than half think the U.S. will have to stay in Iraq more than five years to achieve its goals.
Almost half of those responding think we need more troops in Iraq than we have there now. A surpris ing 13 percent said we should have no troops there. As for Afghanistan force levels, 39 per cent think we need more troops there. But while they want more troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, nearly three-quarters of the re spondents think today’s military is stretched too thin to be effective.
The mail survey, conducted Nov. 13 through Dec. 22, is the fourth annual gauge of active-duty mili tary subscribers to the Military Times newspapers. The results should not be read as representa tive of the military as a whole; the survey’s respondents are on average older, more experienced, more likely to be officers and more ca reer-oriented than the overall mil itary population.
Among the respondents, 66 per cent have deployed at least once to Iraq or Afghanistan. In the overall active-duty force, according to the Department of Defense, that number is 72 percent.
The poll has come to be viewed by some as a barometer of the professional career military. It is the only independent poll done on an annual basis. The margin of error on this year’s poll is plus or minus 3 percentage points.
While approval of Bush’s handling of the war has plunged, approval for his overall performance as president remains high at 52 percent. While that is down from his high of 71 percent in 2004, it is still far above the approval rat ings of the general population, where that number has fallen into the 30s.
While Bush fared well overall, his political party didn’t. In the three previous polls, nearly 60 percent of the respondents identified themselves as Republicans, which is about double the popula tion as a whole. But in this year’s poll, only 46 percent of the military respondents said they were Republicans. However, there was not a big gain in those identifying themselves as Democrats — a fig ure that consistently hovers around 16 percent. The big gain came among people who said they were independents.
Similarly, when asked to de scribe their political views on a scale from very conservative to very liberal, there was a slight shift from the conservative end of the spectrum to the middle or moderate range. Liberals within the military are still a rare breed, with less than 10 percent of re spondents describing themselves that way.
Seeing media bias
Segal was not surprised that the military support for the war and the president’s handling of it had slumped. He said he believes that military opinion often mirrors that of the civilian population, even though it might lag in time. He added, “[The military] will always be more pro-military and pro-war than the civilians. That’s why they are in this line of work.”
The poll asked, “How do you think each of these groups view the military?” Respondents over whelmingly said civilians have a favorable impression of the mili tary (86 percent). They even thought politicians look favorably on the military (57 percent). But they are convinced the media hate them — only 39 percent of mili tary respondents said they think the media have a favorable view of the troops.
The poll also asked if the senior military leadership, President Bush, civilian military leadership and Congress have their best in terests at heart.
Almost two-thirds (63 percent) of those surveyed said the senior military leadership has the best interests of the troops at heart. And though they don’t think much of the way he’s handling the war, 48 percent said the same about President Bush. But they take a dim view of civilian military lead ership — only 32 percent said they think it has their best inter ests at heart. And only 23 percent think Congress is looking out for them.
Despite concerns early in the war about equipment shortages, 58 percent said they believe they are supplied with the best possi ble weapons and equipment.
While President Bush always portrays the war in Iraq as part of the larger war on terrorism, many in the military are not convinced. The respondents were split evenly — 47 percent both ways — on whether the Iraq war is part of the war on terrorism. The rest had no opinion.
On many questions in the poll, some respondents said they didn’t have an opinion or declined to an swer. That number was typically in the 10 percent range.
But on questions about the president and on war strategy, that number reached 20 percent and higher. Segal said he was surprised the percentage refus ing to offer an opinion wasn’t larger.
“There is a strong strain in mili tary culture not to criticize the commander in chief,” he said.
One contentious area of military life in the past year has been the role religion should play. Some troops have complained that they feel pressure to attend religious services. Others have complained that chaplains and superior officers have tried to convert them. Half of the poll respondents said that at least once a month, they attend official military gather ings, other than meals and chapel services, that began with a prayer. But 80 percent said they feel free to practice and express their religion within the military.
Richard Engel(sp) does a pretty decent job of getting the whole truth out; he's mentioned a lot on Ingraham's show. Given that the DBM controls the debate, his report won't get much traction in the mainstream. That's just the way it is, unfortunately. And the lefties who see this video will make excuses, or accuse the troops of being biased...
Like hell I do?
are you in fourth grade or something...that's one of the stupidest posts I've seen here...
oh, ok you're right, but it's so hard to find time to not support our troops when I'm so busy hating America first, then hating the Bush, and killing babies all while waging a war against Christmas and running from evil Christians.
pssstt...Leo, hey traitor, it's pretty clear that the only thing that you stand for is to see more troops die, though you'd prefer to see American civilians die (bet you just loved 9-11) so you can justify your whole, 'libs are against defending the county'...
you don't support the troops, you don't even support the mission...you only support whatever side of the argument cons are on
Leo support the troops,
like hell he does
i'll defer to opus bc i too an so OVER this tired use of the troops to shield the ultra-right from any criticism of how this war and the employment of our troops are being managed..... despicable and classless comes to mind.
Did I hear the last part of the video correctly? Was that "NBC News" showing us this? Mark might have to ease up on the "What Media Bias?" just a bit.
You cant support the troops if you dont want them to win.
It really is that simple.
Opie says, oh, ok you're right, but it's so hard to find time to not support our troops when I'm so busy hating America first, then hating the Bush, and killing babies all while waging a war against Christmas and running from evil Christians.
Thanks for coming clean finally opie. You know that you don't fall into the mindless masses that are pounded by the acid media on a daily basis affecting what little common sense they have left! Nope, you were against this war from the very start opie, as a matter of fact it wouldn't suprise me if you were one of the punks spitting at Joshua Sparling and waiting after your acid trip painting of the capitol stairs to take out a one legged soldier(that could probably whip all three of you knumbskulls), yep, you definitely fit the "Like hell you do" category! For all the other "tired" Americans out there, when are you going to start listening to our countries best and stop listening to our countries bonafide pacifist acid heads?
16% of troops are Democrats. Less than that percentage are Army/Marine.
We've been telling you your actions were giving aid and comfort to the enemy. We've been telling you that the troops (our friends and relatives) don't appreciate it. Then, you respond to PROOF with more vitriol and hate. Asswipes.
You make heroes of the 1000 troops who protest and ignore the 100,000 who don’t. hmmmmm, I wonder if we just figured out the percentage of Democrats in the Army/Marines?
By the way, when is the last time you saw a report from an embedded reporter? Ever wonder why?
Maybe it's because this feeling of betrayal is widespread, and reports from embedded reporters would show that.
Look up the word betrayal and see what the base is.
FYI--MY SON IS OVER THERE RIGHT NOW, and he holds the same opinion as these fine soldiers on the video. They are America's finest, and you're not fit to lick their bootstraps, you maggot-infested waste of air.
Don't tell me I don't support our troops!
Goldang it if the pot isn't calling the kettle black. You'll take the small percentage of soldiers who disagree and try to make it like they speak for all soldiers. You'll take one Gold Star mother and hold her opinion above the majority other Gold Star parents who honor their sons' and daughters' sacrifices and the mission for which they shed blood.You hold in high esteem one turncoat, verifiably corrupt, self-serving Marine-turned-congressman named Jack Murtha and hold his word as gospel, while you grasp at any faux credibility you can get to spread your hollow lies.
And then you have the audacity to project your propagandist tactics onto those who actually believe in the mission and support our soldiers 100%?
Don't insult our intelligence with your drivel.
Take your liberal vomit to someone who will fall for it.
Published:
Dec. 29, 2006
Down on the war
Poll: More troops unhappy with Bush’s course in Iraq
By Robert Hodierne
Senior managing editor
The American military — once a staunch supporter of President Bush and the Iraq war — has grown in creasingly pessimistic about chances for victory.
For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president’s handling of the war than approve of it. Barely one-third of service members approve of the way the president is handling the war, ac cording to the 2006 Military Times Poll.
When the military was feeling most optimistic about the war — in 2004 — 83 percent of poll re spondents thought success in Iraq was likely. This year, that number has shrunk to 50 percent.
Only 35 percent of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42 percent said they disapproved. The president’s approval rating among the military is only slight ly higher than for the population as a whole. In 2004, when his popularity peaked, 63 percent of the military approved of Bush’s handling of the war. While approval of the president’s war leadership has slumped, his overall approval remains high among the military.
Just as telling, in this year’s poll only 41 percent of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place, down from 65 percent in 2003. That closely reflects the beliefs of the general population today — 45 percent agreed in a recent USA Today/Gallup poll.
Professor David Segal, director of the Center for Research on Military Organization at the Univer sity of Maryland, was not surprised by the changing attitude within the military.
“They’re seeing more casualties and fatalities and less progress,” Segal said.
He added, “Part of what we’re seeing is a recognition that the intelligence that led to the war was wrong.”
Whatever war plan the president comes up with later this month, it likely will have the re placement of American troops with Iraqis as its ultimate goal. The military is not optimistic that will happen soon. Only about one in five service members said that large numbers of American troops can be replaced within the next two years. More than one-third think it will take more than five years. And more than half think the U.S. will have to stay in Iraq more than five years to achieve its goals.
Almost half of those responding think we need more troops in Iraq than we have there now. A surpris ing 13 percent said we should have no troops there. As for Afghanistan force levels, 39 per cent think we need more troops there. But while they want more troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, nearly three-quarters of the re spondents think today’s military is stretched too thin to be effective.
The mail survey, conducted Nov. 13 through Dec. 22, is the fourth annual gauge of active-duty mili tary subscribers to the Military Times newspapers. The results should not be read as representa tive of the military as a whole; the survey’s respondents are on average older, more experienced, more likely to be officers and more ca reer-oriented than the overall mil itary population.
Among the respondents, 66 per cent have deployed at least once to Iraq or Afghanistan. In the overall active-duty force, according to the Department of Defense, that number is 72 percent.
The poll has come to be viewed by some as a barometer of the professional career military. It is the only independent poll done on an annual basis. The margin of error on this year’s poll is plus or minus 3 percentage points.
While approval of Bush’s handling of the war has plunged, approval for his overall performance as president remains high at 52 percent. While that is down from his high of 71 percent in 2004, it is still far above the approval rat ings of the general population, where that number has fallen into the 30s.
While Bush fared well overall, his political party didn’t. In the three previous polls, nearly 60 percent of the respondents identified themselves as Republicans, which is about double the popula tion as a whole. But in this year’s poll, only 46 percent of the military respondents said they were Republicans. However, there was not a big gain in those identifying themselves as Democrats — a fig ure that consistently hovers around 16 percent. The big gain came among people who said they were independents.
Similarly, when asked to de scribe their political views on a scale from very conservative to very liberal, there was a slight shift from the conservative end of the spectrum to the middle or moderate range. Liberals within the military are still a rare breed, with less than 10 percent of re spondents describing themselves that way.
Seeing media bias
Segal was not surprised that the military support for the war and the president’s handling of it had slumped. He said he believes that military opinion often mirrors that of the civilian population, even though it might lag in time. He added, “[The military] will always be more pro-military and pro-war than the civilians. That’s why they are in this line of work.”
The poll asked, “How do you think each of these groups view the military?” Respondents over whelmingly said civilians have a favorable impression of the mili tary (86 percent). They even thought politicians look favorably on the military (57 percent). But they are convinced the media hate them — only 39 percent of mili tary respondents said they think the media have a favorable view of the troops.
The poll also asked if the senior military leadership, President Bush, civilian military leadership and Congress have their best in terests at heart.
Almost two-thirds (63 percent) of those surveyed said the senior military leadership has the best interests of the troops at heart. And though they don’t think much of the way he’s handling the war, 48 percent said the same about President Bush. But they take a dim view of civilian military lead ership — only 32 percent said they think it has their best inter ests at heart. And only 23 percent think Congress is looking out for them.
Despite concerns early in the war about equipment shortages, 58 percent said they believe they are supplied with the best possi ble weapons and equipment.
While President Bush always portrays the war in Iraq as part of the larger war on terrorism, many in the military are not convinced. The respondents were split evenly — 47 percent both ways — on whether the Iraq war is part of the war on terrorism. The rest had no opinion.
On many questions in the poll, some respondents said they didn’t have an opinion or declined to an swer. That number was typically in the 10 percent range.
But on questions about the president and on war strategy, that number reached 20 percent and higher. Segal said he was surprised the percentage refus ing to offer an opinion wasn’t larger.
“There is a strong strain in mili tary culture not to criticize the commander in chief,” he said.
One contentious area of military life in the past year has been the role religion should play. Some troops have complained that they feel pressure to attend religious services. Others have complained that chaplains and superior officers have tried to convert them. Half of the poll respondents said that at least once a month, they attend official military gather ings, other than meals and chapel services, that began with a prayer. But 80 percent said they feel free to practice and express their religion within the military.
Incredibly, the "we hate the MSM" crowd here cherry-picks a bone-headed story from, of all places, that "liberal bastion" NBC news which shows these poor soldiers spouting "love us, love our mission" rhetoric and report it as gospel.
Honestly, how do you people sleep at night?
Tell me, did you support EVERY military decision that Clinton ever made? If you didn't, you hate the troops. You HATE them. Isn't that the way the logic works?
According to the proprietors of this website: If the president- any president- makes a bad decision, we must support that decision NO MATTER WHAT because if we don't...we hate the troops.
You're telling me that there are people in the world who actually believe this drivel? If so, please stand up and be counted. I double dog dare you.
My heart goes out to these guys. We owe them the best strategy for winning possible. The question in my mind is... is Bush offering that strategy?
To me, it is both as simple and as complex as that. I don't hate Bush. But personally, I am not convinced that his new way forward is the best way forward. I am NOT convinced. At the very least his plan is incomplete. Granted, no plan could fully be complete, because it has to deal with unknowns. But what it COULD be is better. WAY better. And that seems to be the overwhelming consensus among congress and among skilled military planners both active and inactive. And why is that? Because there are many, many questions in Bush's plan that remain not only unanswered (which is understandable to a certain extent, given the intrinsic uncertainties) but unaddressed (which is totally unforgiveable).
We have heard over and over again that to support the troops you have to support the war. By implication that means that you have to support EVERY FREAKIN' CHOICE Bush offers up without question. How much evidence to you need that that attitude is BS?? It has become patently obvious that we owe our troops more than what The Decider unilaterally decides.
Just the other day I posted a comment on Mark's "Bad News for the Democrats: We're Winning in Iraq" post in which I pointed out that he was advocating an article by a guy that is essentially a Chalabi stooge and one who both trashed Gen. Petraeus and the whole "surge" concept. Mark's response: "we'll see if Petraeus turns out to be a McClellan or a Grant."
You tell me how ridiculous that is, and on how many levels.
Petraeus said that this surge may work, but ONLY IF many other things fall into place. Unfortunately, those "other things" are completely out of his control. They are, however, under the control of the president. And so far Bush has been holding his cards very close to his vest. That would be fine if there was ever any reason to believe, either now or at any time in the recent the past, that he's holding any. But there isn't. And that's the problem.
Look at his body language in any of his recent major speeches. He leans into the microphone, purses his lips, rolls his shoulders forward, keeps his elbows close to his body and/or his hands in front of him. I haven't seen his trademark smirk in about a year, at least not in contexts he can't control. The only thing he hasn't done is blink a lot. Good for him, I guess. Anyway, if I were sitting across the table from him in a poker game, I'd double my bet. Perhaps that explains at least Ahmadenijad's attitude. Or maybe he's just reacting to the LLL. Yeah, right.
Whatever else you can say about what happens, this is our last chance to create something positive out of Iraq. So we better be goddam freakin' sure we do the right thing right. This time, for the last time. And that, it seems to me, requires that we ensure Bush's feet are held to the fire until they blister. If he wants to be The Decider, then he needs to feel the heat in no uncertain way.
How many of you have contacted your congresscritters, asking them to demand more complete answers? Or do you care?
Leo,
I have had two daughters, an exson-in-law, a nephew and at least a dozen former students serve in Iraq. Some of them support the president and the mission, others don't. I have disagreed with the reasons we went into this war from the beginning but my wife and I have sent over 30 packages and a hundred letters to the troops since this started. If that's not support I don't know what is. There are a lot of people that disagree with this war and still support the troops.
Opus,
You are way out of line. Calling Leo a traitor is disgusting. His son and my kids are what stand between you and some very nasty people. You can disagree with someone without being disagreeable.
Ricorun,
I agree this is Bush's last shot at winning this. If it succeeds I would be more than happy to plan the victory parade. If it doesn't, I just hope that whoever we elect in 2008 can clean up the mess.
I continue to be deeply touched by the commitment of family members of several who post here. Like Leo and Casper, I hope the surge works since it is a done deal no matter who objects.
My sense of the situation is that this war will end when Shia and Sunnis get tired of killing each other. I don't see how marginal increases in troop levels change that reality at all.
My sense of the situation is that this war will end when Shia and Sunnis get tired of killing each other. I don't see how marginal increases in troop levels change that reality at all.
This pretty much sums up my opinion, although I believe the "surge," coupled with some behind-the-scenes arm-twisting of Maliki, may bring about positive results.
Sure, Baghdad's a mess, and sure, some mistakes were made, as is the case in all wars. However, we're there, and "redeployment" is a poor strategy. So we can sit here and argue who's smarter, as Opie and Cybie always prefer to do, or we can become real Americans and really support the effort. I realize how hard it will be for the Opie's and Cybie's to become something they hate, but give it a try anyway. Or go away; nobody here likes you lot anyway...
My sense of the situation is that this war will end when Shia and Sunnis get tired of killing each other. I don't see how marginal increases in troop levels change that reality at all.
This pretty much sums up my opinion, although I believe the "surge," coupled with some behind-the-scenes arm-twisting of Maliki, may bring about positive results.
Sure, Baghdad's a mess, and sure, some mistakes were made, as is the case in all wars. However, we're there, and "redeployment" is a poor strategy. So we can sit here and argue who's smarter, as Opie and Cybie always prefer to do, or we can become real Americans and really support the effort. I realize how hard it will be for the Opie's and Cybie's to become something they hate, but give it a try anyway. Or go away; nobody here likes you lot anyway...
I apologize to anyone who has family in Iraq. I've been very critical of those who, according to the pentagon, have not provided adequate armor or armored vehicles, and thought there might be a connection between the lack of armor and the number of injured and dead.
next time I hear of a soldier dying, I will not be critical, but will merely clap louder. What better way to honor the dead than to treat it as just another statistic.
People can pick on it semantically, but generally, when people say "I support the troops but not their mission" what they mean is:
- they want the troops to be well armed, well fed, well rested, well cared for, and well protected
- they want the troops to have every piece of equipment that they need while fighting
- they want veterans to be treated with respect and to have access to good, free medical care
- they want as few troops maimed and killed as possible
- they want as few civilians maimed and killed as possible
- they think the Iraq war was a mistake
There is no contradiction in these statements, and any reasonable person knows it. All this "you can't have it both ways" and "you can't support the troops if you don't want them to win" baloney is just semantic "framing" done either BY simple-minded people or FOR simple-minded people.
Re-read those six statements -- they don't contradict one another, they don't equate to wanting something "both ways," and they don't imply that the anyone wants our troops to "lose."
I can't believe I actually have to explain this stuff. Geez.
I can't believe I actually have to explain this stuff. Geez.
Posted by: yekepyt at January 31, 2007 02:31 PM
It's nice that you "think" you have to explain this stuff yek, it goes hand in hand with the condescending, "I'm an open minded liberal that stands for nothing syndrome".
Now let me explain something to you. The troops have yet to find a bastion of supporters amongst the left! To this day the left shows their disdane & contempt for our fighting men and women and their ability to "WAGE WAR". You see, that is what irks the left the most. The fact that these men and women are willing to go KILL for you & me.
Now let me explain something else to you. Who you described in your post are not the lefty's Leo is referring to, but the masses that hold the MSM's word as gospel OVER our own men & womens opinions.
The mind-numb, "I'm so tired", masses that haven't sacrificed hardly a thing!
Geez, I CAN believe I have to explain these things!!!
So..... why did we lose Viet Nam?
Weren't the troops fed?
Weren't the troops armed?
Weren't the troops rested?
Maybe the troops were spit on?
Maybe the enemy was heartened by resistance in the USA and tailored their attacks to highten anxiety?
Maybe the troops were hamstrung by the press and politicians (like not being able to pursue combatants into North Viet Nam, Cambodia, or Laos and have severely restricted target lists? - Like NOW with the Iranians...)
Maybe the support for the mission actually matters?
So hopefully by now:
- you understand what someone means when they say that they support the troops but not their mission,
and
- you understand that there is no contradiction in someone holding that position.
If you still don't get it, just re-read my earlier post.
yekepyt - Nope, still don't get it. What about the Viet Nam example? What about the damage done to our troops and military by refusing to let them win? You don't understand - do you? You think you've got it all covered, but you're missing it.
Leo,
how pathetic can you be? A traitor to your Country who celebrates the death of our soldiers and then tries to rationalize it by using a member of your own family to hide behind.
If your son (I say if because I've yet to see you speak anything near the truth) is in Iraq then he is a hero who should be held to the highest regard, should be celebrated and looked up to...not relegated to a meat bag to fit neo-con political agenda like you do.
"maggot-infested waste of air."
typical response from someone who knows their wrong but are terrified to admit it
Opus - next time you call a cop; while he's helping you call him a meatbag and tell him he's evil for carrying a gun.
Some people earn the title asshole all on their own... you are one of them.
I knew it Opie, you WERE one of the blowhard pussies waiting in the alley after your acid trip to attack a one legged soldier. Good thing Josh didn't get a hold of you, you probably wouldn't be spouting around here if he had!!!
Hey - It's January 31st and we're not out of Iraq yet? Democrats lied and people died.
Kahn, I am just trying to explain what people mean when they say that they support the troops but not the Iraq war. By your logic, if I disagree with a war, then I must also hold individual soldiers in contempt. That's not realistic, or accurate.
Step One toward helping you understand this position would be for you to agree that it is perfectly reasonable for someone to hold the six beliefs that I outlined in my post. If you think that those six positions cannot be held by the same person at the same time, I would like to know why.
People can pick on it semantically, but generally, when people say "I support the troops but not their mission" what they mean is:
- they want the troops to be well armed, well fed, well rested, well cared for, and well protected
B-WELL PROTECTED? Are you kidding me, who the ..ck do you think we are? Your neighbor 2yr. riding our tricycle? WE PROTECT YOU Yek!!! We are well armed(best in the world), we are certainly well fed(even in the field for the most part), WELL RESTED(sh.., even we civilians know that in dire times they require dire actions), why don't you encourage every young man & woman you know to join the Army or Marines, then we'll get the rest we need!
- they want the troops to have every piece of equipment that they need while fighting
B-Do you know anything about combat equipment Yek? Back during Desert Storm we were the best equipped military in the world & we still are,( that doesn't mean we can't improve, but your arguement is moot, it has nothing to do with this thread!!
- they want veterans to be treated with respect and to have access to good, free medical care
B-And they do! As active military men & women their medical & dental is absolutely & completely free!!! When inactive, your medical is based on a disability rating or %, it may not work for every single veteran, but it worked for me & all the DAVs I know!
- they want as few troops maimed and killed as possible
B-Oh, and we don't? Anyone in their right mind wants that Yek, that however does not mean you are supporting the troops and their mission(which is absolutley vital to our victory.
- they want as few civilians maimed and killed as possible
You know, I lay awake at night counting dead civilians in my head with a maniacal grin on my face! I just love to watch them get blown to pieces. Then of course, I have secret conversations with the government & our soldiers about how, it's really them killing all those civilians and not the terrorist. Would you like to get in on our little secrets Yek?
- they think the Iraq war was a mistake
B-Mistake or NOT, we should set these foolish thoughts aside and support our troops and their mission as long as they are over there!!! You do know what their mission is don't you Yek? They constantly are SAVING LIVES on a daily basis over there. Of course your not going to hear about all that good stuff, just the bu..sh.. bombers that go around killing people regardless of age, gender, or race!
B-My brother did 3 tours between Afghanistan & Iraq Yek, & he'd go back willingly if they called him. I know 1/2 a dozen other soldiers that feel the same way, and that's just in a little ol' town in the sierra nevadas.
There is no contradiction in these statements, and any reasonable person knows it. All this "you can't have it both ways" and "you can't support the troops if you don't want them to win" baloney is just semantic "framing" done either BY simple-minded people or FOR simple-minded people.
Re-read those six statements -- they don't contradict one another, they don't equate to wanting something "both ways," and they don't imply that the anyone wants our troops to "lose."
I can't believe I actually have to explain this stuff. Geez.
Posted by: yekepyt at January 31, 2007 02:31 PM
B-I think you need to re-read your six sentences and tell me how they address the issue of lack of support amongst the American people these days.
Uh, why the rant, bearmanUSMC?
I want the best for the troops... and my six statements are consistent with that.
I state that I want the troops to be well protected (e.g., have body armour) and you throw a fit.
I state that I want the I want as few troops maimed and killed as possible and you just launch into a defensive little tantrum ("Oh, and we don't?") If you read my posts, I never suggested that "you" didn't want many/most of the same things that I want for the troops... you see, you and I BOTH support the troops! See how that works?
I could go on but your post is just ludicrous. I would still like Kahn to read my six statements, and explain why it is impossible for a reasonable person to hold all six.
And, bearmanUSMC, I think that you need to calm down, because it will help you think more clearly.
I will calm down when people as yourself begin to realize that "dissent"(supposed) is what gets our boyz & girlz killed alot of times. How can you read irrefutable proof about how the insurgency uses & manipulates the media and propaganda to it's benefit, and tell me in the same breath that you care about the lives of our boyz & girlz. If you really do, then save your dissent for the history books or at least until we have won the battle for Iraq. There has been a defeatist agenda since before we ever invaded and that has taken over the majorities thought process, instead of a "we are there, and we must win", thought process. I have been a proponent of putting 500,000 troops in there to secure the borders and create a buffer against the terrorist, that is the kind of dissent that doesn't get people killed! Why can't we hear more of that kind of disagreement with the administration instead of the "cut & run", the Americans don't have the resolve, the Americans are going to leave you in the lurch, the Americans don't have the stomach to fight a war.
The Iraqi people think they are going to have to go it alone, which is why there is more & more sectarian violence than when we first went in there.
The terrorist think that the more chaos they create, the more it gets reported, the more worn down the American resolve is, the sooner we leave Iraq/Iran to them. Now that sounds like a good Idea eh!
Support the troops & THEIR MISSION!
Sorry, bearman. You either intentionally miss the point or stubbornly refuse to consider any opinion but your own. I am not, nor have I ever been, in support of the invasion and occupation of Iraq and the fact that Bush has stranded thousands of our soldiers there does nothing to change my opinion. Why would it?
Tell me- did you support every military decision made by Bill Clinton? You supported, I can only assume, not just the soldiers, but the missions in Kosovo, Bosnia, etc., correct? And you are willing to pledge that, in the future, you will support EVERY mission that EVERY president will EVER involve us in, right? Have I got that straight?
If so, you're not a free-thinking human being, bearman. You're a sock puppet. I am not obliged, compelled or expected to support each and every military operation in which our soldiers are engaged. In fact, I am obliged, compelled and expected to protest those engagements in which I disagree.
To question the wisdom of a President who sends our soldiers into harm's way is not an unpatriotic act. It is the opposite. One of the great things about being an American is the right to question the decisions our leaders make. You're going to deny me that right? Dream on.
And when I DO exercise that right to question my leaders, it has nothing whatsoever to do with my support for the soliders. Nothing.
Can you grasp that concept?
see, bear likes to say he supports the troops, but his drunken rants prove otherwise, his blind hatred for anything that isn't supported by the neocons means he will support anything they do.
He's not for supporting the troops, he only wants to support the policy in hope of being able to say "see, I told you so" no matter how much he know that policy is a load of crap.
bear, THAT'S what gets troops killed and THAT'S what gives aid and comfort to the enemy, you don't care about the troops, you only care about Bush looking good, if some Americans die along the way, so what...
Dissent has never killed anyone in Iraq…your ignorant blind devotion has killed 3 thousand plus
The Actor says-Tell me- did you support every military decision made by Bill Clinton? You supported, I can only assume, not just the soldiers, but the missions in Kosovo, Bosnia, etc., correct? And you are willing to pledge that, in the future, you will support EVERY mission that EVERY president will EVER involve us in, right? Have I got that straight?
Yes I did, yes I would, and yes I will! As long as we remain a democracy & not a dictatorship my loyalties to this country and IT'S decisions will remain firm & true. The fact that yours aren't doesn't make you a free thinker actor! It doesn't matter who the president is actor, you see as a "free thinker" I grasp the simple concept that GEORGE BUSH did not mislead us(he is not the U.S.), as a matter of fact the list would be extremely long if we were to make one of all who fit that category. Nice try though!!!
Whats wrong Opie? Did Josh scare your socks off....no? you weren't wearing any socks! I see, typical acid head!
bear are you just an absolute idiot or what??
have someone with an education higher than the third grade tell you what's wrong with these two sentences:
"yes I did, yes I would, and yes I will! "
then,
"you see as a "free thinker" "
really? a free thinker who's already made up his mind about future decisions?
and what's your obsession with acid heads?
Get out of the ‘60s man, you’re living in the past, what, did the 'cool kids' pick on you in high school or something? Still have some deep seated emotional problems from that one? Maybe you should keep that to yourself and not share it with the group.
That and your unhealthy obsession with Josh is frankly a little creepy, you should be honoring him, not fantasizing about the two of you taking each others’ socks off in some weird drug induced haze…and stop thinking about me with my socks off…you really need some help.
What Oputz has failed to see is that the terrorists in Iraq see the dissent here, see the talk of pulling out and it sends them the message to keep up or increase their attacks.
Dissent, Oputz, MAY have not killed anyone in Iraq, but it demoralizes our troops and embolds our enemies.
Ever think of that?
......What am I asking? A lib think about consequences from his/her actions? How can a lib think about consequences of their actions when they whole-heartedly believe that their actions are benevolent and pure?
Opus, If being a "free thinker" mean that I have to believe your B.S. about living in a dictatorship, then I'll just stick with being open minded.
Anyways, a word of advice Opie, You really need to lay off the acid. It's beginning to melt your sense. Oh yah, and leave the one legged soldiers alone, I can guarantee serious consequences for those that try to turn this into another vietnam. Think about it tough guy!!!
"Dissent, Oputz, MAY have not killed anyone in Iraq"
then STFU because your blind loyalty has...
Oputz huh? did I miss the rule that cons weren’t allowed to have an education past the fourth grade?
can I play? hey beargalUSO, now you're thinking of 'toughguys'(sic)? what is your obsession w/ one legged soldiers and LSD??? Really, try to stay on point, Your lack of a response to the fact that you're partially responsible for the deaths of 3000+ American soldiers only shows that not only do you agree, but you're happy about it, probably get off on it somehow the way you keep taking about taking the socks off other guys.
Hey Idiot, what's the difference between "free think" and someone with an "open mind"? Are you really just that stupid?
Why don't you go play with your little one legged soldier dolls...freak