How does the Army feel about Rumsfeld? Here is the truth

[KCConservative]

I just voted again. That makes 11. God, I love scientific polls.

 

[Kandahar]

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.

ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN run scientific polls that are unbiased and randomly sample people. An internet poll that anyone can vote in (and as many times as they want) is not scientific.

You asked who would vote in it besides military folks...well, I think lots of people on this thread have answered that question by doing exactly that. And since people here have voted, I'm sure there are other people being encouraged to do the same elsewhere on the WWW.

This poll has about as much credibility as a poll posted on this forum...actually, it has less because you can vote multiple times.

 

[KidRocks]

If it looks like a duck...

The Army Times is not the NY Times!

Face it you r-wingers, this poll is straight from the horses mouth and no doubt very accurate, maybe not very scientific but that makes it all the better, it closely resembles the mood of the American public which is giving President Bush a 32% approval-rating nationwide.

Thank you Army Times!
__________________

 

[oldreliable67]

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.

You, and all of us, should do ourselves a favor and make a couple of distinctions as far as polls go. First, recognize the difference between the 'casual' polls on web sites. These are the polls like this one at MSNBC, here, and the Army Times poll, that have no demographics, no descriptive info about those responding to the poll. They just report the numbers voting yes, no, maybe. Often interesting but without the ability for viewers to judge the accuracy of the results. I'm sure you're aware of the games played by both the left and the right with some these 'unregulated, open to all comers' polls: Hey, here is a poll we can pack! Activate the e-mail/IM chain! How many times did you vote? etc. (BTW, I'm not alleging that this happened with the Army Times poll. I doubt it, but neither you, nor I, nor anyone else knows for sure.) Don't mistake these casual polls for the stratified samples found in the polls conducted by professional polling organizations for the major media outlets.

Second, even with the polls conducted by the professional polling organizations, form your own judgements as to the efficacy of the polls by reading the questions carefully. On occasion, and some polling organizations have gained a reputation for 'coordinating the questions with the sponsoring organization', which is a euphimism for couching poll questions in terms that pre-dispose self-selection to support the sponsoring organization's agenda.

Thirdly, sometimes polls are not 'corrected' for the characteristics of the sampled population. Most of the major polling organizations are professional and these things rarely occur, but thats 'rarely', which is not the same as 'never'. Be wary of any poll that does not furnish the characteristics of the sample and compare them to the characterisitcs of the population from which the sample was (supposedly) drawn.

Finally, never forget that if a professional polling organization sets out to 'prove' a certain viewpoint, it can be done.

 

[oldreliable67]

this poll is straight from the horses mouth and no doubt very accurate, maybe not very scientific but that makes it all the better,

And you know this how?

 

[Stinger]

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?

That is an outright fabrication I just voted in the poll and I assure you I am NOT in the army, anyone can vote.

This is one of the most dishonest post I have ever seen posted here or anywhere else.

 

[Stinger]

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

I just voted!!!

SO DID I!!

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

Talk about it, I think Danarhea just got caught being dishonest again.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

If it looks like a duck...

The Army Times is not the NY Times!

Face it you r-wingers, this poll is straight from the horses mouth and no doubt very accurate, maybe not very scientific but that makes it all the better, it closely resembles the mood of the American public which is giving President Bush a 32% approval-rating nationwide.

Thank you Army Times!
__________________

Exactly how accurate knowing that people on this site in the last three hours have voted at least a dozen times...LOL

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Talk about it, I think Danarhea just got caught being dishonest again.

You'd be hard opressed to prove dishonesty. You'll have to show that he's not merely mistaken - which I doubt you can do.

 

[Stinger]

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.

armytimes.com bottom of the page. I just voted myself.

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.

Lie.

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

Lie

 

[Calm2Chaos]

And you know this how?

He doesn't ... But it's negative and thats what gives him wood.. Sohe'll jump on it like ole dano there and then he will be wrong .... again ....

 

[Kandahar]

You'd be hard opressed to prove dishonesty. You'll have to show that he's not merely mistaken - which I doubt you can do.

Willful ignorance, then. When someone gets the facts wrong and is called on it, he becomes dishonest when he stands by his mistake. And it isn't like this is the first time this has happened with Danarhea.

 

[Stinger]

You'd be hard opressed to prove dishonesty. You'll have to show that he's not merely mistaken - which I doubt you can do.

That's up to him, the cite is clearly not a subscription service as claimed the poll does not claim to be a scientific one, does not say who conducted it what the margin of error is, as opposed to the claims made. It is no different than if I claimed an ORielly online poll was scientific or one of polls here was scientific.

If he made a mistake it is GLARING, but I'll take his word for it if he admits it. So far all I've seen in other post are his defending it and it he didn't go and try to correct his mistake when first noted that IS dishonesty.

I just asked him for his original source to the poll and the website. Let's see if he is honest enought to supply it.

OH guess what, here is his reply when caught

"I stand by what I said."

That's dishonest to stand by those blantantly false statements.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

You'd be hard opressed to prove dishonesty. You'll have to show that he's not merely mistaken - which I doubt you can do.

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.


Theres nothing in the above statement that sounds like an opinion. He is stating facts as he wants you to see them. Within the one sentences there are multiple errors... Sounds like a lie to me... Walks like a duck and talks like a duck.........................

 

[Stinger]

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

I can just imagine some freshman anti-war protestor stumbling over the site, seeing he can vote, and then getting the massive email campaign going to get all his anti-war/anti-Rumsfield buddies to vote to skew the results.

Hey I just voted again.

 

[Stinger]

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?

What was your source for the poll and the website?

 

[Stinger]

What was your source for the poll and the website?

Danarhea???

 

[KCConservative]

If it looks like a duck...

The Army Times is not the NY Times!

Face it you r-wingers, this poll is straight from the horses mouth and no doubt very accurate, maybe not very scientific but that makes it all the better, it closely resembles the mood of the American public which is giving President Bush a 32% approval-rating nationwide.

Thank you Army Times!
__________________

Kidrocks, We have all seen you wiggle and dodge many times on this forum, but never quite like this. :lol: I voted in this poll a dozen times. Not only is not representative of the Army (horse's mouth, indeed), it's a sham if one person can skew the results (you call it accurate). Let me guess, you call the 900 numbers each week on American Idol, right? Here's a clue. When danarhea abandons his own thread, it's officially dead in the water. :mrgreen:

 

[Davo The Mavo]

Yeaaah.. Lets look at the specifics here:

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

AHHHH, a flaming response I did not expect. OWWWW, you really hurt me with your innuendo. Why don't you just call me a liar. True Story; when I was in Basic Training at Fort Mcclellan in Alabama about a thousand years ago, there was one guy in our unit that had to wait three-weeks for his 2-pairs of Combat Boots-----because the Army did not make them in his size. For three-weeks he wore the old standby, white Converse All-stars, yes a pair of Chuck Taylor's. Ever see a picture of a GI wearing a set of Converse All-stars in a photo or video shot? Do you think it is the first time the Military had supply problems? When I say (so to speak) "Vietnam Era", please understand the phrase is meant to inform those who do not know that the technology for the Flack Jacket was born in the Vietnam era-----but we still used them, we still manufactured them, and the Military still procured them at least until 1992, when I was retired.

Yep, everyone over there has had Armor from day one----no exceptions----right? My nephew is a weight lifting, professional wrestler looking, HUGELY Muscular man-----pish posh it all you want Goobie, your experiences, your knowledge, and your deductive reasoning does not make his experience untrue. You are not The "Universal Man", sorry, but you do not get to determine what is true and what is not, based on your life experiences. Googling information about body armor does not quell the fact that yes indeed-----there were, and probably still are guys without proper Body Armor.

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.

He knew wasn't going to make a $100K, true enough, but that is not the point now is it. It does not mean much to you, but I can assure, he is not the Lone Ranger as it relates to his feelings regarding the Civilian Workers tapped by the Administration to Streamline our Military. As a SSG, he was in the Military before it became privatized by a bunch of Corporate, Chicken Hawks devoted to their friends in the Business World.

Yep, just like me, he remembers when the Army did its own laundry, cooked its own food, built its own roads, delivered its own gas, patched up its wounded, and provide its own security. Had many of the guys in the Military had known they could make this kind of dough as a civilian working for the military, perhaps they would have chose another route? So, really, truth be known, they did not know it was gonna be like this, and animosity towards these civilians seems to be warranted, and not just by my one nephew.

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.

You are right, but my Daughter (Balad), my Nephew (In between Ramadi and Falluja), AF Medic, and a Navy Corpsman, have stated the same. I was in the first rumble in the Desert and we fudged numbers there too. Here's my problem; I have what the Administration and Media are reporting as casualties, and I have what my daughter and her two cousins have relayed to me, taking that into account and remembering my own participation of lying to our citizenry (saying one thing publicly, and doing exactly the opposite) while in the Military, I have to choose who to believe. My family or the government? Who benefits from lying about what they witnessed or from skewing casualty figures?

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.

OUCH!!! Low Blow, that's mean and it minimizes the sacrifices he has made. Way to support the Troops. Was this designed to make me all pissed off or something? I laugh (HA HA!!!) at your insults. I don't need, and my family does not need your blessings. However, by your statement, ANY military person who has taken a position about the politics and policies of the War in Iraq, and it differs from what you believe, then they are immature? Yes my friend, there is a Boy in the House, but it is not my Nephew, because despite his feelings, he still goes OFF to war for his Guys----what have you done lately Goobie?

There, now that the personal insults have been addressed, I would like to remind people once again, Military People are regular Americans too. They are not monkeys or robots. Ask yourself; if you had to be on rotating deployments over and over again into the land of the Butt Pucker, how would you feel after 3-years and no apparent stability? Yes, human nature effects Military People just like regular civilians.

 

[oldreliable67]

there was one guy in our unit that had to wait three-weeks for his 2-pairs of Combat Boots-----because the Army did not make them in his size.

But he did get them, right?

He knew wasn't going to make a $100K, true enough, but that is not the point now is it. It does not mean much to you, but I can assure, he is not the Lone Ranger as it relates to his feelings regarding the Civilian Workers tapped by the Administration to Streamline our Military. As a SSG, he was in the Military before it became privatized by a bunch of Corporate, Chicken Hawks devoted to their friends in the Business World.

Yep, just like me, he remembers when the Army did its own laundry, cooked its own food, built its own roads, delivered its own gas, patched up its wounded, and provide its own security. Had many of the guys in the Military had known they could make this kind of dough as a civilian working for the military, perhaps they would have chose another route? So, really, truth be known, they did not know it was gonna be like this, and animosity towards these civilians seems to be warranted, and not just by my one nephew.

Not quite sure what your complaint is here. "Animosity toward these civilians seems to be warranted" - for what reason? Because your nephew chose a different career path than someone else? Sounds like sour grapes to me. I certainly have no definitive info on this, but it is my impression from various media reports that many of the civilians working for the private contractors in Iraq are ex-military - does that somehow contribute to your nephews untoward attitude toward these people?

Look, your nephew is a big boy, a SSG. He has been in long enough to have been around the block a couple of times. Lord knows, his service is appreciated, at least by me. But your characterization sounds more like jealous whining or envy or personal problems than anything else, and that is not typical of any SSG's that I ever knew. Is that how you really want to describe him? Maybe, being a former SSG, its just my impression; maybe others are getting something different from your description.

As a former SSG (11 Bravo, US Army, RVN, '67, '68), I also remember the days when we pulled our own KP, etc., etc., etc. I also remember what a relief it was (early on, when still a Sp4) that we contracted civilian labor for our base camp mess hall (even though we didn't get to see a heckuva lot of it, on those occasions when we were at the base camp, there was KP to be pulled).

Even in the bad old days, there were always things that somebody was going to gripe about. Some griped about this, some griped about that. There was, and is, always something. The Army was, and is, a huge organization. Sounds like nothing has changed in that respect.

 

[Davo The Mavo]

OldReliable,

Respectfully, I will agree that a Biatchin Soldier is a Happy Soldier. Yes, and my Nephew got his Armor as well----again that was not the point, it goes back to going to the Dance with an Ugly Girl when you did not have to. The personal story was meant to make people understand that you can be a Patriot and EVEN fight in a War you do not agree with politically. Little moments in time which affects ones attitude.

You look at a SSG who sees inconsistencies with casualty figures and the absurd claims that by using civilians the Military is saving money. He doesn't want to be a civilian working in Iraq, and he doesn't want any civilians working in Iraq. To be upset with that, is to be a whiner in your thought process? He is due to go back this summer and he will go not only willingly, but with a true love of our country----a true "Love it or Leave it" American attitude, as do the thousands of other troops who do not agree with the Clusterfarck. Yeah, I am pretty sure that's how I want to describe him, he's a true patriot. When you love someone, and they sometimes act out of line or do something stupid----it is your duty to tell them they are screwing up their life----you don't just walk away from who you love----for that would be the act of a whiner.

"Mine is not to reason why, mine is just to do or die"

All personal reasoning and disgust for the Administration and its motives can be turned off when you are in Country. As a 11-Bang bang who was stationed in the shite, you more than anyone else know the commitment you had for your brothers. Its a small fraternity of people who know how that feels----go back, remember it. What was his name? You know, the guy you would have died for?

I was there from just prior too, and until the end of April in 1991 during the First rumble

My Son Spent 512 days on Southern Watch and 9 months in country after we invaded this time around.

My Daughter has done 4-months in the AF Hospital in Balad (First Female from our Family in the Military).

Two of my sisters have kids who have done their tours, including Afghanistan.

My brother was in the Nam the same years you were there.

My dad fought in Korea.

I have Eight Uncles, six of them served in Major Combat during WWII.

My Gramps fought in WWI.

His Dad fought in the Philippines after the Spanish American War

My Great Grand Pop's Great Grand Pop served in the Civil war.

My Nephew does not wear his political leanings on his sleeve and I believe the Family History earns us the right to us the 1st Amendment after we are out of the Military or in private company----it does not however, make us whiners.

 

[oldreliable67]

Diavo,

Now that is a much more comprehensible post. I actually now have a much better idea about what you're talking about. So, thanks for that.

he doesn't want any civilians working in Iraq. he doesn't want any civilians working in Iraq. To be upset with that, is to be a whiner in your thought process?

Not at all, not now that you have explained it a lot more. But, I still don't get why he doesn't want civilians working in Iraq.

Its a small fraternity of people who know how that feels-

For sure. If they would take me and my pacemaker and prothestic knee, I would re-up tomorrow.

 

[KCConservative]

:lol:

Is it my imagination or did Danarhea bail on his own thread once it was revealed that anyone could vote in the poll as many times as they like?

 

[Davo The Mavo]

I do Hate polls.

 

[KCConservative]

I do Hate polls.

Oh come on, this poll is from the fighting Joes and Janes themselves. It's the real deal. In fact, I think I'll go vote again.