0
   

Soldiers are saying - "Get us Outta Here!"

 
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 01:45 pm
McGentrix wrote:
My source was 89.5 on the FM dial while driving down US Route 5.


You made the point about the marines, yet you can't be bothered to reference your won source?

Why should anyone take anything you say seriously?
0 Replies
 
Questioner
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 01:50 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Only 9% of Marines polled believed they should leave. There were also vast differences between reservists and career military personel polled.


A poll by Le Moyne College and Zogby shows that if you want to support the troops you should be calling for an end to the war. An overwhelming majority, 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year. Among Reserves 90% favor withdrawal compared to 83% of the National Guard, 70% of the Army, and 58% of the Marines. Moreover, about three-quarters of National Guard and Reserve units favor withdrawal within 6 months.

SOURCE
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 01:53 pm
Questioner wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Only 9% of Marines polled believed they should leave. There were also vast differences between reservists and career military personel polled.


A poll by Le Moyne College and Zogby shows that if you want to support the troops you should be calling for an end to the war. An overwhelming majority, 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year. Among Reserves 90% favor withdrawal compared to 83% of the National Guard, 70% of the Army, and 58% of the Marines. Moreover, about three-quarters of National Guard and Reserve units favor withdrawal within 6 months.

SOURCE


Yeah, I think McG only heard what he wanted to on the radio. In that interview, I thinkit may have been said that 9% of Marines wanted out immediately, but that much greater percentages of them wanted out in 6-12 months. McG just ignores stuff that doesn't support his hastily reached conclusions.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 02:08 pm
Piss off now.

Quote:
Only 9 percent of Marines thought there should be an immediate pullout.


You guys are unbelievable. It's not like I don't post sources when they are available. Bunch of whiny children you are.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 02:15 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Only 9% of Marines polled believed they should leave. There were also vast differences between reservists and career military personel polled.


That implies that 91% believe they should stay. Compare that to your new quote.

Quote:
Only 9 percent of Marines thought there should be an immediate pullout.


In reality 58% of marines think we should leave within a year. You gave a wrong impression by leaving out some very important words in your first statement.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 02:44 pm
But we're whiny children for wanting you to support ridiculous claims?

Real thin, McG....
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 02:50 pm
No, you are whiny children for saying things like
Quote:
You made the point about the marines, yet you can't be bothered to reference your won source?

Why should anyone take anything you say seriously?


It was a radio interview. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 02:52 pm
A radio program the transcript of which is available online, and one the contents of which you willfully and knowingly mischaracterized.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 02:55 pm
McGentrix wrote:
No, you are whiny children for saying things like
Quote:
You made the point about the marines, yet you can't be bothered to reference your won source?

Why should anyone take anything you say seriously?


It was a radio interview. Rolling Eyes


...and it was pointed out to you that NPR is generally very good about cataloguing things for later reference - even interviews. But in your special tunnelvision kind of that's-my-story-and-I'm-stickin-to-it kind of dumbsky way, you missed that. You whiny child, you.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 02:57 pm
Then you guys should have no problem looking it up... as I suggested earlier.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 02:59 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Then you guys should have no problem looking it up... as I suggested earlier.

And that's a chickens*t answer - as has been pointed out to you...
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 03:02 pm
Another point needs to be brought up here. People have commented that "professionals" have not objected to the war (although that claim was based upon a false representation of the poll results), and that it is reservists and Guardsmen who have complained, and want the occupation to end. The Reserve and the Guard is staff with professionals--they receive exactly the same training as full-time, active duty members of the military, at the same training centers in the same courses with the same instructors and the same equipment and materials. Once a month they spend a weekend, and once a year two weeks to make sure that their knowledge and skills are up-to-date. They all enlisted knowing in advance that they could be called up for active duty, and they accept a disruption to their personal and work lives to fulfill their obligations.

Now we have a rogue admininstration which has decided to "retain" the Reserve and the Guard. They are being held past the expiration term of their enlistment, they are being sent back for second and even third tours in Iraq. It may not violate the fine print of their enlistment contract, although that depends on when they enlisted, as compared to the enabling legislation which is used to retain them, but at the very least, the spirit of the agreement they made with the government for a small check each month is being violated.

Their gripe is just as legitimate as the complaint of any full-time, active-duty member of the armed forces, and arguably even more justified.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 03:05 pm
I was going to make that very point, earlier. The way the stats were used, it sounded like the Guard and Reserves' opinions about when and whether we should get the hell out of Iraq were somehow of less consequence. The Guard and Reserves have carried far more than their ordinate share of the burden in this conflict, and if anything, their words should carry more weight, not less.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 08:42 pm
"stop loss". the can call it what they want, but it still amounts to conscription.

but the bush administration has always known that the fastest way to lose the support of the public would be to restart the draft. although a couple of years ago there were a few reports that the draft boards had been reconvened. never heard anything else about it.

if the draft were to start sending out the "greetings" letters, bet a dollar to a donut that there's be a damn quick swing to the left among those college republican clubs. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 08:55 pm
TIME magazine reports in their March 13th issue :

"72% --Proportion of U.S. troops in Iraq who say a total pullout should occur in the next year.
85% -- Proportion who say the main mission in Iraq is to retaliate for Saddam's role in 9/11."

I guess the President has still got the troops buffaloed.

Joe(sigh)Nation
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 09:30 pm
Joe Nation wrote:
TIME magazine reports in their March 13th issue :

"72% --Proportion of U.S. troops in Iraq who say a total pullout should occur in the next year.
85% -- Proportion who say the main mission in Iraq is to retaliate for Saddam's role in 9/11."

I guess the President has still got the troops buffaloed.

Joe(sigh)Nation


'fraid so. I work long days with soldiers everyday - some of them not long ago were in Afghanistan or Iraq. The misinformation is huge, and it is like negotiating a mine field to try to educate some of them. It's a kind of willfull ignorance - they just want to think about their families, and their jobs and they don't want to threaten that by doing anything exotic like thinking for themselves.

Having said that, it doesn't affect what I've said about a lot of them wanting to get out of Iraq. Even the constant drumbeat of propaganda hasn't been able to squash that growing conviction. It's even obvious to the not-well informed.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 09:33 pm
And the Iranian President wants America "Wiped from the face of the earth"...

Where will the US military go home to then?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 09:36 pm
RexRed wrote:
And the Iranian President wants America "Wiped from the face of the earth"...

Where will the US military go home to then?

With this president in power, a lot of the US military won't be going home anyway...
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 09:49 pm
anton wrote:
I am astonished by your apparent lack of factual information in this argument,


There is no lack of factual information on my part, apparent or otherwise.



anton wrote:
how on earth do you see the invasion of Afghanistan as a just war of self defence …


Well, they started it by committing a crime against humanity against us, and we finished it in a way that fully complied with the laws of war.



anton wrote:
what did the Taliban have to do with 9/11,


The Taliban were supposed to become the government of Osama's empire once he started conquering other countries.

The Taliban were also likely to be the ones who would administer the planned genocide against all non-Muslims in the conquered countries.



anton wrote:
As for your thoughts on DU Munitions I'm certain there are many US veterans who would tell you the truth …


Maybe so, but I've already gotten the truth from the scientific experts.



anton wrote:
the use of such weapons is a crime against humanity.


No it isn't.

You should learn what words mean before you make accusations based on them.



anton wrote:
Follow the hyper-link below to get some opinions from the mouths of American citizens.

http://okimc.org/newswire.php?story_id=1371&language=en


The article is quite dishonest. Agent Orange is a defoliant, not a chemical weapon. And the only nuclear war fought by the US was in 1945.

It is likely that the people mentioned in the article never said what was claimed, and it is even possible that the people themselves were merely made up by the author.

Making up fictitious "experts" is a convenient tactic of the extremists on the fringe of the anti-war movement, because actual people may complain if they are misquoted, leading to bad press, but a fictitious expert will never complain.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 09:54 pm
parados wrote:
Isn't funding terrorists the same thing as being a terrorist?


No.



parados wrote:
I thought it was today?


Well, today is different from the cold war period.

During the cold war period, we might have looked the other way if an ally committed terrorism, if the ally was a good opponent of Communism.

That wouldn't happen today.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/15/2025 at 11:29:53