How does the Army feel about Rumsfeld? Here is the truth (1 Viewer)

[danarhea]

This poll is from our fighting Joes and Janes themselves.

Rumsfeld stays - 33.31%
Rumsfeld must go - 63.31%

Poll is here.

Kind of flies in the face of what some here are saying about the military supporting Rumsfeld, doesnt it?

 

[alphamale]

This poll is from our fighting Joes and Janes themselves.

Rumsfeld stays - 33.31%
Rumsfeld must go - 63.31%

Poll is here.

Kind of flies in the face of what some here are saying about the military supporting Rumsfeld, doesnt it?

Uh, not really. The poll is unscientific because it has a self-selected population. Obviously, that will attract all the whiners and losers.

 

[danarhea]

Uh, not really. The poll is unscientific because it has a self-selected population. Obviously, that will attract all the whiners and losers.

In other words, you claim that the Army Times is catering to the Liberals? :rofl Give it a rest before I die laughing.

And I already knew that it would be just a matter of time before someone would start accusing our own troops of being whiners and losers in order to defend Rumsfeld. Sheesh. Shame on you.

 

[jfuh]

Uh, not really. The poll is unscientific because it has a self-selected population. Obviously, that will attract all the whiners and losers.

:lamo Armytimes? Really? :2funny:

 

[Kandahar]

This poll is from our fighting Joes and Janes themselves.

Rumsfeld stays - 33.31%
Rumsfeld must go - 63.31%

Poll is here.

Kind of flies in the face of what some here are saying about the military supporting Rumsfeld, doesnt it?

This poll is completely unscientific. Why on earth should I trust its results?

 

[vibeeleven]

Hmm, last I heard Rummys was above Bush's and far above the numbers of congress.

 

[cnredd]

This should tell you all you need to know about this poll...

I just voted!!!

Where the hell does anyone get the idea that this is a military poll?!?

It's a vote on the bottom of a website!

Anyone...Con, Lib, or otherwise, can easily link this to their slanted website and beg people to vote according to their political affiliations...

For anyone to believe this one is not even funny...This is just sad...

 

[danarhea]

This should tell you all you need to know about this poll...

I just voted!!!

Where the hell does anyone get the idea that this is a military poll?!?

It's a vote on the bottom of a website!

Anyone...Con, Lib, or otherwise, can easily link this to their slanted website and beg people to vote according to their political affiliations...

For anyone to believe this one is not even funny...This is just sad...

1) Care to show the link you went to in order to vote in this poll? Your answer (or lack of one) will be quite illuminating.

2) This is not a biased poll, as you claim. This was one conducted by Army Times. The voters were subscribers to Army Times. You know....... Troops, vets, and their families.

3) You are now accusing our own troops, vets, and their families of being unpatriotic?

4) Yes, you are right. This IS sad.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

1) Care to show the link you went to in order to vote in this poll? Your answer (or lack of one) will be quite illuminating.

I just voted also... not only that I can vote more then once and I think I will....HAHAHAHAHAHAH

http://www.armytimes.com/index.php#poll

YOUr rebuttal to your obvious hope to demean will be illuminating. Your assertion aka LIE that this was "The voters were subscribers to Army Times. You know....... Troops, vets, and their families. " You forgot to leave out. And any liberal or conservative website that wants to link to it.... I can't wait for this........... Illuminate me please on how this scientifically or otherwise represents the milltary thinking? PLZ PLZ PLZ

2) This is not a biased poll, as you claim. This was one conducted by Army Times. The voters were subscribers to Army Times. You know....... Troops, vets, and their families.

WRONG least in part.. It is open to anyone with a computer in the entire world

3) You are now accusing our own troops, vets, and their families of being unpatriotic?

Nope..... I think you just saw a chance to jump on someone and didn't read enough to back up your assertions. But I have confidence you will :spin: your mistake into something grander

4) Yes, you are right. This IS sad.

After this thread you would know....LOL

 

[danarhea]

I just voted also... not only that I can vote more then once and I think I will....HAHAHAHAHAHAH

http://www.armytimes.com/index.php#poll

YOUr rebuttal to your obvious hope to demean will be illuminating. Your assertion aka LIE that this was "The voters were subscribers to Army Times. You know....... Troops, vets, and their families. " You forgot to leave out. And any liberal or conservative website that wants to link to it.... I can't wait for this........... Illuminate me please on how this scientifically or otherwise represents the milltary thinking? PLZ PLZ PLZ





WRONG least in part.. It is open to anyone with a computer in the entire world


Nope..... I think you just saw a chance to jump on someone and didn't read enough to back up your assertions. But I have confidence you will :spin: your mistake into something grander


After this thread you would know....LOL

Who reads Army Times or goes to their website? According to you, the Army Times caters to the left wing of America, and it is only them voting. So dishonest to imply that, isnt it? My contention is that the vast majority of those taking the poll are subscribers, that is, unless you would have us believe no vets or soldiers go to that site.

I stand by what I said.

Next thing you know, you will be trying to convince people that soldiers go to the Village Voice and take THEIR polls. Give it a rest.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

A poll's sample can make or break a poll.

All that you can say about this poll is that it measures the resoponses of the folks who decided they wanted to respond to it.
There's not enough to say that it reflects the sentiments of the Army. The population is not well sampled by this poll.

Perhaps it ended up being an accurate indicator, perhaps it did not. There's not enough info to make a conclusion other than there's not enough info.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Who reads Army Times or goes to their website? According to you, the Army Times caters to the left wing of America, and it is only them voting. So dishonest to imply that, isnt it? My contention is that the vast majority of those taking the poll are subscribers, that is, unless you would have us believe no vets or soldiers go to that site.

I stand by what I said.

You can stand by it.... But it's wrong and a lie....LOL I never stated who the hell the armytimes caters to. I know this poll is an open public poll that does not accurately depict the US soldier. My contention is the people taking this poll are Soldiers....... soldiers wives, soldiers children, ex-soldiers, ex-soldiers wives, wives, husbands, twentysomethings that have a interest in the military, thirtysomethings that have a interest in the military, fourty somethings that have a interest in the military, fifty somethings that have a interest in the military, sixty somethings that have a interest in the military ect ect ect....How about anyone interested in politics or debate that is combing over the web...... Kinda like you....

The point is it is not a military poll depicting the mood or feelings of the US soldier. And that is what you set it up as.

 

[danarhea]

A poll's sample can make or break a poll.

All that you can say about this poll is that it measures the resoponses of the folks who decided they wanted to respond to it.
There's not enough to say that it reflects the sentiments of the Army. The population is not well sampled by this poll.

Perhaps it ended up being an accurate indicator, perhaps it did not. There's not enough info to make a conclusion other than there's not enough info.

I respectfully disagree with you on that. Do you think Teddy Kennedy, and those like him, read the Army Times and respond to their polls? Since the readership of the Army Times reflects, for the most part, troops, vets, and their families, I would say that my claim is accurate.

 

[oldreliable67]

I respectfully disagree with you on that. Do you think Teddy Kennedy, and those like him, read the Army Times and respond to their polls? Since the readership of the Army Times reflects, for the most part, troops, vets, and their families, I would say that my claim is accurate.

The key words here are "for the most part" and "I would say...".

You are in effect, setting up an hypothesis that the poll accurately measures the sentiment among, to use your characterization in the thread title, "Army" personnel. The problem that you have in doing so is that you don't have enough information to judge the accuracy of your hypothesis. It can't be accepted because you have no idea about the strength (or lack thereof) of the population that responded to the poll with the "Army". Moreover, that strength of association (or lack thereof) is highly likely to impact the respondent's choice of preferences, e.g., an Army wife left at home after her husband's repeat deployment to Iraq might well respond differently than one whose husband has yet to be deployed to Iraq.

Further, no information is furnished as to the demographics of the respondents; demographics in the case of such a poll referring to the number of respondents that are active duty, the number that are retired, the number that are in the 30 - 40 age group, the number that are in the 40 - 50 age group, etc., and the number that are officers, the number that are enlisted, etc, etc, etc.

Without this kind of info, one simply cannot accept this hypothesis. Perhaps this info will subsequently be furnished and a better assessement can be made, though the last time I looked, it wasn't available.

You "would say that your claim is accurate" is indeed an accurate characterization of the strength of your claim: you would say, but you don't know. Acceptance that this poll accurately reflects the attitudes of "Army" personnel requires acceptance of unwarranted assumptions as truth.

Accept it if you wish, but as it stands, more careful observers will properly note it as interesting - but not very.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Do you think Teddy Kennedy, and those like him, read the Army Times and respond to their polls?

Very much immaterial.

Since the readership of the Army Times reflects, for the most part, troops, vets, and their families, I would say that my claim is accurate.

While it may be an accurate recording of the folks who responded to the poll, there's no indication that the folks who responded to the poll are an appropriate sampling of the larger Army population. W/o such an indication, it can't be said to represent any population other than the population of folks who chose to respond to the poll.

You can't fudge on the sampling and expect much signifcance or meaning from a poll.

 

[danarhea]

The key words here are "for the most part" and "I would say...".

You are in effect, setting up an hypothesis that the poll accurately measures the sentiment among, to use your characterization in the thread title, "Army" personnel. The problem that you have in doing so is that you don't have enough information to judge the accuracy of your hypothesis. It can't be accepted because you have no idea about the strength (or lack thereof) of the population that responded to the poll with the "Army". Moreover, that strength of association (or lack thereof) is highly likely to impact the respondent's choice of preferences, e.g., an Army wife left at home after her husband's repeat deployment to Iraq might well respond differently than one whose husband has yet to be deployed to Iraq.

Further, no information is furnished as to the demographics of the respondents; demographics in the case of such a poll referring to the number of respondents that are active duty, the number that are retired, the number that are in the 30 - 40 age group, the number that are in the 40 - 50 age group, etc., and the number that are officers, the number that are enlisted, etc, etc, etc.

Without this kind of info, one simply cannot accept this hypothesis. Perhaps this info will subsequently be furnished and a better assessement can be made, though the last time I looked, it wasn't available.

You "would say that your claim is accurate" is indeed an accurate characterization of the strength of your claim: you would say, but you don't know. Acceptance that this poll accurately reflects the attitudes of "Army" personnel requires acceptance of unwarranted assumptions as truth.

Accept it if you wish, but as it stands, more careful observers will properly note it as interesting - but not very.

What would your alternative explanation be then? That a bunch of left wingers, who wouldnt be caught dead reading Army Times, decided all at once to blitz the Army Times to ruin a poll? If that is what you are claiming, then perhaps this thread should be moved to the Conspiracy Theory forum.

 

[danarhea]

Very much immaterial.
While it may be an accurate recording of the folks who responded to the poll, there's no indication that the folks who responded to the poll are an appropriate sampling of the larger Army population. W/o such an indication, it can't be said to represent any population other than the population of folks who chose to respond to the poll.

You can't fudge on the sampling and expect much signifcance or meaning from a poll.

Come on. You first say that my point about left wingers not being likely to take the Army times poll is immaterial, then you turn around and say that there is no indication that the folks who took the poll represented the Army. Again, we are talking about the Army Times. Who reads Army Times, and who peruses their web site? Of course, maybe a bunch of left wingers invaded the FOX News website and skewed their poll too, which rated President Bush at 33%...... Not.

With all due respect, your claim is illogical.

 

[Goobieman]

Come on. You first say that my point about left wingers not being likely to take the Army times poll is immaterial, then you turn around and say that there is no indication that the folks who took the poll represented the Army. Again, we are talking about the Army Times. Who reads Army Times, and who peruses their web site? Of course, maybe a bunch of left wingers invaded the FOX News website and skewed their poll too, which rated President Bush at 33%...... Not.

With all due respect, your claim is illogical.

His claim is on the money.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Come on. You first say that my point about left wingers not being likely to take the Army times poll is immaterial, then you turn around and say that there is no indication that the folks who took the poll represented the Army.

What I said was immaterial is who I thought was taking the poll. Doesn't matter.

With all due respect, your claim is illogical.

Perhaps what you think I'm saying is. But what I'm getting at is straight from Stat101. You don't have a sample that lets you draw conclusions about a population larger than the folks who responded to the poll.

 

[oldreliable67]

What would your alternative explanation be then? That a bunch of left wingers, who wouldnt be caught dead reading Army Times, decided all at once to blitz the Army Times to ruin a poll? If that is what you are claiming, then perhaps this thread should be moved to the Conspiracy Theory forum.

No, that is not at all what I said. To put it as simply as possible, I said that the Army Times did not furnish enough info on their poll with which to make a judgement as to whether the poll was scientifcally accurate or not. In any population from which a sample is drawn, before one can draw inferences about the population, one must judge to what extent the sample is representative of the population.

Re-read my example list of possible demographics for a poll such as this. There is not a 'left-winger' or such in there. But, there are groups whose characteristics might suggest varying views on the poll questions. The Army Times provides no breakdown on the makeup of the respondents relative to any of these considerations. Nor is their any effort to estimate a margin of error.

You are asserting the simply because the poll was in the Army Times, it must be scientifically valid. In reality, this kind of poll is subject to the same sampling errors and bias as those on the web sites of, say, MSNBC, the Wall St Journal, etc., etc., etc. On most of those websites, you will find a disclaimer with words to the effect that the polls are not scientific.

So accept the poll as interesting and perhaps even suggestive, but you would do yourself a disservice if you accepted it as truth. Unless, of course, the results are what you want them to be, then you would be simply deluding yourself.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

So accept the poll as interesting and perhaps even suggestive, but you would do yourself a disservice if you accepted it as truth. Unless, of course, the results are what you want them to be, then you would be simply deluding yourself.

Exactly.
It may be 100% accurate, or it may be 100% wrong (though I doubt it's either of these extremes). The thing is we just don't have enough info to tell.

I think it's enough that it is what it is. I think the results are surprising and noteworthy for what they are in and of themselves w/o having to try to make it into something larger than what it is.

 

[Davo The Mavo]

Polls, Shmoles-----The affection or any affection held for Rummyhead by our folks in Uniform WAS affected by his "Your stuck with the Lady you brought to the dance" comment. Example of how this affected attitudes directed toward the Rumster:

A Gung Ho, U.S. Army SSG is sent to Iraq and forced to wear a Vietnam Era Flack Jacket instead of Body Armor because the Army does not issue armor in large Chest sizes to accommodate weight lifters. It is either that, or having to buy armor on the civilian market. The Gung Ho SSG is assigned to a Infantry unit where his duties are to save front line troops and arrange for transportation back to a Field Hospital.

During the course of many medivacs the SSG witnesses American civilians working in both the Green Zone and the AF Hospital Complex in Balad, and while he goes without armor, these civilians are doing six month tours working for the likes of your Halliburtons and such. Ka-Ching goes the government register, as these civilians rake in over a $100,000 in tax free income for their 6-months of work in gated American communities over there----meanwhile, an E-6 in the Military is not making half that for the entire year.

The SSG witnesses Fuzzy math when seeing how the casualties are being reported. The numbers do not make sense, unless it was only his unit that suffered casualties over there. The SSG is no longer Gung Ho, not for the cause anyway-----he returned to the U.S. once, and will go back again----but next time it is just for the troops, not for the government.

A boy leaves to fight a war because they attacked us on 9/11-----a MAN returns convinced the Administration is committed to lining the Pockets of its supporters-----a War for Oil and the contracts that are generated just by our being there. He is Angry----not only at George Bush, but the entire administration, with extreme prejudice directed toward the Rumster.

For all those who think our military is full of trained monkeys and would continue supporting "Stuck on Stupid" indefinately? The Military is a microcosim of our society, except there are way less rich people. They are also human, and if you lost Buds, or you had to keep returning to Iraq for multiple tours, and if you did not see a lot of progress being made, you too may change your mind. Having a PX, Burger King, Pizza Hut, and Taco Bell does not a home make.

The above story is the basic gist of what one of my nephews experienced and the end result as it pertains to his true feelings about the war, the Prez, and Rummyhead (he was in country when Rumsfeld used the "Dance" analogy, and boy it pissed him off). They are not robots nor monkeys, they can think on their own. I would guess the majority feel the same way the majority of the country does.

 

[KCConservative]

Hey, Dan, thanks for showing us this website. I just voted....10 times. :2wave:

 

[Goobieman]

The above story is the basic gist of what one of my nephews experienced

Yeaaah.. Lets look at the specifics here:

A Gung Ho, U.S. Army SSG is sent to Iraq and forced to wear a Vietnam Era Flack Jacket instead of Body Armor because the Army does not issue armor in large Chest sizes to accommodate weight lifters.

Vietnam-Era flak jackets? Like these:
http://www.olive-drab.com/od_soldiers_gear_body_armor_vietnam.php

I havent seen a sinlge photo of a soldier in Iraq wearing one of these.
Anyone have one? If this is so common, why do we see nothing other than troops wearing this:
http://www.olive-drab.com/od_soldiers_gear_body_armor_pasgt.php
or this:
http://www.olive-drab.com/od_soldiers_gear_body_armor_interceptor.php

Note, speficically the size range for the Interceptor vest:
The unisex Outer Tactical Vest is made in eight sizes from x-small to xxxx-large. OTV NSNs are not in a single range, examples are 8470-01-497-8599 for x-small and 8470-01-518-5894 for xxxx-large. The SAPI plates for the front and back of the vest are available in five sizes from x-small to x-large


civilians are doing six month tours ... these civilians rake in over a $100,000 in tax free income for their 6-months of work in gated American communities over there----meanwhile, an E-6 in the Military is not making half that for the entire year
Of course he isnt. He's in the military. he knew when he went in the military he wouldnt make $100k in 6 monthts. NO one in the military makes $100k in 6 monthts and FEW make that in a year.

In other words... that some people make more than him doesnt mean much.

The SSG witnesses Fuzzy math when seeing how the casualties are being reported. The numbers do not make sense, unless it was only his unit that suffered casualties over there.

Ancedotal evidence is taken in the small-scale and in no way reflects the reality in the large scale. Just because you unit suffers casualties far higher than whats reported overall in no way means that the overall casualty reports are wrong.

A boy leaves to fight a war because they attacked us on 9/11-----a MAN returns convinced the Administration is committed to lining the Pockets of its supporters

If the the above items are the reason for this, it sounds like he left the US a man and has returned as a boy.

 

[danarhea]

Exactly.
It may be 100% accurate, or it may be 100% wrong (though I doubt it's either of these extremes). The thing is we just don't have enough info to tell.

I think it's enough that it is what it is. I think the results are surprising and noteworthy for what they are in and of themselves w/o having to try to make it into something larger than what it is.

OK. Your answer is an honest one, although I dont happen to agree with it. However, it is noteworthy to bring up the fact that there are some here who never fail to claim that polls from ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN are biased, and that left wing viewership tilt the polls in their favor, but at the same time, would say that the Army Times poll cannot reflect its own viewership. I am not saying that you are one of those. Just that this view is hypocritical, and that some people want it both ways.