The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

My personal knowledge tells me that poll is FOS. Is it because it was written to be skewed, or for other reasons, I have no idea, but I am certain that the intent of the soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen questioned are not represented accurately by this poll. Neither you, nor I know what questions were asked, in what order and context, and in what manner. A trained pollster can easily influence responses through vocal inflection an facial expression.

You, ATV, have no knowledge of what troops believe and know, and, therefore, (as usual), rely on your chosen sources. We know how that goes.

I do believe that the Zogby's are not pure, in terms of their stance on the middle east (or, even, their willingness to tilt results to achieve political ends).

Dr. Zogby has also been personally active in U.S. politics for many years. Most recently, Zogby was elected a co-convener of the National Democratic Ethnic Coordinating Committee (NDECC), an umbrella organization of Democratic Party leaders of European and Mediterranean descent. On September 24, 1999, the NDECC elected Dr. James Zogby as its representative to the Democratic National Committee’s Executive Committee. In 2005 he was appointed as chair of the DNC’s Resolutions Committee.

The quote above is from the James Zogby biography page on The Arab American Institute's web site. James is John's brother. You make of that what you wish.

I doubt they openly criticized it while they were actively involved

I doubt they did too. There's a difference, though between openly criticizing a war and responding to an annonymous poll. Not that this really means much to the topic at hand.

Here's an idea. Let's unilaterally withdrawl all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Well, I never suggested a withdrawl from Afghanistan. We can't stay there forever, of course. Your analogy to Vietnam reminds me - Remember after we pulled out of there how eager the Vietnamese were to follow us back home to retaliate? Yea, sure, what a disaster. I'm sure those people still hold a big grudge.

My fellow "dellusional rednecks" and I are all busy keeping the sky from falling down around you.

No, not all troops are dellusional rednecks. In fact, most of the dellusional rednecks on this board aren't even in the military.

The quote above is from the James Zogby biography page on The Arab American Institute's web site.

Uh oh, here we go again, attacking the messenger. I could post a myriad of other polls which, again, demonstrate that the results of the zogby poll rouhgly mirror the average American sentiment (that we should exit Iraq). Am I supposed to be surprised that polls taken from people (the soldiers) over there, people that see first-hand their comrades being blown apart and witness the destruction of the Iraqi people and their infrastructure, would be no different?

ATV wrote:

I doubt they openly criticized it while they were actively involved

I doubt they did too. There's a difference, though between openly criticizing a war and responding to an annonymous poll. Not that this really means much to the topic at hand.

Here's an idea. Let's unilaterally withdrawl all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Well, I never suggested a withdrawl from Afghanistan. We can't stay there forever, of course. Your analogy to Vietnam reminds me - Remember after we pulled out of there how eager the Vietnamese were to follow us back home to retaliate? Yea, sure, what a disaster. I'm sure those people still hold a big grudge.

My fellow "dellusional rednecks" and I are all busy keeping the sky from falling down around you.

No, not all troops are dellusional rednecks. In fact, most of the dellusional rednecks on this board aren't even in the military.

The quote above is from the James Zogby biography page on The Arab American Institute's web site.

Uh oh, here we go again, attacking the messenger. I could post a myriad of other polls which, again, demonstrate that the results of the zogby poll rouhgly mirror the average American sentiment (that we should exit Iraq). Am I supposed to be surprised that polls taken from people (the soldiers) over there, people that see first-hand their comrades being blown apart and witness the destruction of the Iraqi people and their infrastructure, would be no different?

Again (and again) and again, what specific conclusion do you draw from a poll of the military in early 2006 we should withdraw within a year? You keep dodging this question becuase it doesn't mean anything. It's just an implication you are trying to convey the troops agree with the Democrats, which isn't in the poll, so I'm trying to nail you down because the data you provided doesn't say that.

And on attacking the messenger, you consistently do that for non-left sources. Tell me who you listen to or read you disagree with politically? I'll go first.

Sure, I like Neal Boortz and libertrian sites I generally agree with.

- Republicans - I'm not really into O'Reilly, but I do like Rush, Mark Levin, Laura Ingram and Curtis Sliwa among others becuase they are entertaining.

- Democrats - I like Ron Kube, Air America, Sam Greenfield and Alan Colmes.

You learn a lot by listening to people you disagree with. You lecture us for questioning left wingers but you reject out of hand everyone non-left. Tell me where I'm wrong.

what specific conclusion do you draw from a poll of the military in early 2006

That the large majority of our troops believed (and still believe) that the U.S. Should put a plan in place to exit Iraq.

I could post a myriad of other polls which, again, demonstrate that the results of the zogby poll rouhgly mirror the average American sentiment (that we should exit Iraq).

So, do it.

Sure. In chronological order.......

Newsweek Poll of 3/14-15/07 - "Do you favor or oppose congressional legislation that would require the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by the fall of 2008?"

Favor - 59%
Oppose - 34%
Unsure - 7%

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm


CNN poll of March 9-11, 2007 - "Which of the following comes closest to your view? The U.S. should immediately begin to withdraw all its troops from Iraq. The U.S. should withdraw all its troops from Iraq within a year. The U.S. should keep its troops in Iraq as long as is needed to turn control over to the Iraqi government."

Withdraw Now - 21%
Withdraw Within Year - 37%
Stay as Long as Needed - 39%
Unsure - 4%


NBC/WSJ poll of 3/2-5/07 - "What concerns you more -- that Congress will go too far in pressing the President to reduce troop levels in Iraq, or that Congress will not go far enough in pressing the President to reduce troop levels in Iraq?"

Too Far - 41%
Not Far Enough - 51%
Unsure - 8%



USA/Gallup poll - "Here are four different plans the U.S. could follow in dealing with the war in Iraq. Which ONE do you prefer? Withdraw all troops from Iraq immediately. Withdraw all troops by March 2008, that is, in 12 months' time. Withdraw troops, but take as many years to do this as are needed to turn control over to the Iraqis. OR, Send more troops to Iraq."

3/2-4/07
Withdraw Immediately - 20%
Withdraw in 12 Months - 38%
Take as Long as Needed - 26%
Send More Troops - 13%
Unsure -3%

1/12-14/07
Withdraw Immediately - 17%
Withdraw in 12 Months - 39%
Take as Long as Needed - 29%
Send More Troops - 13%
Unsure -2%

1/5-7/07
Withdraw Immediately - 15%
Withdraw in 12 Months - 39%
Take as Long as Needed - 31%
Send More Troops - 12%
Unsure - 2%

These were all posted on....

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

ATV wrote:

what specific conclusion do you draw from a poll of the military in early 2006

That the large majority of our troops believed (and still believe) that the U.S. Should put a plan in place to exit Iraq.

I'm willing to bet that all our troops believe there should have been a plan in place to exit Iraq before going into Iraq. As things changed on the ground said plan could have been adjusted as time went, but every service member wants a exit plan. On the other hand I can remember a couple of exit plans that went perfect until the locals realized we were leaving, at that point plans always change.

BTW: Before any "exit plan" is implemented there will be a large rotation to the area to facilitate this exit you want How many of those service members have you seen polls on?

You haven't said if you believe a plan should be in place or not, personally I believe there should be and is a plan in place.

I guess you haven't seen any polls that ask if there IS a plan in place or not.

What would your exit plan be?

What would your exit plan be?

Well, the Sunnis and Shias don't want our armies there. The Kurds love us. So, I would remove our troops from everywhere except maybe Kurdistan. That is, I might move some into Kurdistan if they so wanted. How? Immediately, basically. The specifics of how would be up to the generals. I would offer amnesty to Iraqi government officials and supporters of the puppet regime, who in all likelyhood would/will be killed otherwise.

ATV wrote:

what specific conclusion do you draw from a poll of the military in early 2006

That the large majority of our troops believed (and still believe) that the U.S. Should put a plan in place to exit Iraq.

Wow, troops think we should have a "plan in place," what a zero answer that is.

Having spent time with the article. This poll is a clinic in left skew. As an expert witness I call myself. I'm a certified Six Sigma Blackbelt. For those who don't know that means I am an expert in data collection and analysis. So, among the problems with this poll, I'll stick to big ones.

#1: The time choices given soldiers were: 0-3 months, 3-6 months, 6-12 months, "as long as they are needed." Anyone who thought it would take say 2-3 years had to choose between 12 months and endless, This is a MAJOR flaw. If you think 2-3 years but do not want endless you are very likely to say the longest commitment in the poll, 12 months..

#2: The first part of the article they say then 72% of the troops believe we should leave within the next year. But remember the poll questions, they gave 3 timeframes in under a year and then "endless." Does anyone with intellectual integrity think if the question had been phrased "should the US leave within a year" have yielded 72% saying yes?

#3: And what does "should" mean? Does should mean they think conditions will permit us to leave or that we should leave regardless of conditions as is being portrayed by the poll writers?

#4: What does a year mean? When you are taking a poll, does a year really mean you are saying one year from today or do you mean not now, not forever, maybe a year sounds right?

#5: How did they ensure representative sample? They talked to less then 1% of troops and just said locations were withheld for security, but how do we have any idea the samples were random to project the results to the whole set of troops?

There are a lot of other problems, but the biggest left skew was the method of picking three timelines under a year and everything else is "endless" and then not presenting the results consistent with the questions.

If a Greenbelt came to me with this poll I would throw it out saying to redesign it and retake it and if they want to know how many want to leave in a year to ask it that way, not by giving time frames under a year and endless over.

Actually as you read the article there are actually interesting results (assuming they are statistically valid) that aren't skewed. The problem is that most people don't read the whole thing and the major result trumpeted by the poll that the troops want to leave in a year was collected in a manner so flawed it is completely bogus.

ATV wrote:

What would your exit plan be?

Well, the Sunnis and Shias don't want our armies there. The Kurds love us. So, I would remove our troops from everywhere except maybe Kurdistan. That is, I might move some into Kurdistan if they so wanted. How? Immediately, basically. The specifics of how would be up to the generals. I would offer amnesty to Iraqi government officials and supporters of the puppet regime, who in all likelyhood would/will be killed otherwise.

I concur on the Sunnis and the Kurds, but what are you basing your Shiite statement on? What I've seen is when they are asked if they want us to leave they say yes. When followed up with "now?" They say no.

You made the claim, show us where the Shiites want us to leave now.

I could post a myriad of other polls which, again, demonstrate that the results of the zogby poll rouhgly mirror the average American sentiment (that we should exit Iraq).

So, where are the polls of the military, which is what that particular Zogby poll purported to be? Don't pretend you didn't know.

You didn't, because you can't.

So, where are the polls of the military, which is what that particular Zogby poll purported to be?

I could post a myriad of other polls which, again, demonstrate that the results of the zogby poll rouhgly mirror the average American sentiment (that we should exit Iraq).

I just posted "a myriad of other polls which, again, demonstrate that the results of the zogby poll rouhgly mirror the average American sentiment". I was referring to more overall polls, of American sentiment. Polls of the troops are more limited, and the latest from Military Times does not ask the question directly....

http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php

Anyone with half a brain, though, can see the writing is on the wall - Or is the Military Times not Right Wing enough for anyone?

By the way, thank you Kazoo for your thorough and definitive debunking of every one of those illegitimate polls. Your retard badge is in the mail. Congratulations.

As things changed on the ground said plan could have been adjusted as time went, but every service member wants a exit plan.

You've fallen for that "exit plan" crap, too, huh?

You are correct. Every service member want an exit plan. In the US military, that is generally called "victory".

Either we strive for that, or pull them now, because anything else is crap, and will increase the risks and hazards faced by our troops. The concept of an "exit plan" was developed towards the end of Vietnam, as a means of pretending to achieve victory. If there was any lesson from Vietnam, it is that you cannot do war half assed. You either do it, or you don't.

It was dusted off and pulled out by idiots as a means of harrassing Clinton during the Somalia debacle and the intervention in Kosovo. New idiots have rehabilitated it for use in harrassing the Bush White House.

To actually attempt to invoke an "exit plan" is to undermine the effort. It does this in two ways.
1. Soldiers see the constant carping as an attempt to undermine their efforts. (pretend otherwise all you want... I hear it frequently) They also know that it makes them more vulnerable.
2. It presents a time-table for the enemy to use in developing their own strategies. (pretend otherwise all you want, but if I were with the enemy, I would be gleeful to have such information, and would use it to create as many advantages as possible.)


No one in the US military trains to "achieve an exit plan".

I actually find that poll to be rather accurate. The problem is, it does not ask the same questions. In fact, no where does it ask if the US should get out, or when the US should get out. You are comparing apples and ducks. I'm sure the distinction is lost on you, however.

It is asking about the running of the war, and, indeed, there is disatisfaction. Opportunities have been squandered. Plans were incomplete. Rules of Engagement were excessively restrictive, and probably resulted in higher casualties. All of these problems were the result of political determinations, and generally not consistent with tactical needs.

As I said in my immediate previous post... you cannot do war half assed. You do it, or you don't. THAT is what these troops have a problem with, and it is reflected in the Military Times poll (you'll notice that Bush continues to maintain a good approval rating overall... ) I'll also point out that the Military Times papers are considerably more liberal than the Military in General... though, I'm sure, you find them to be to the right of Attilla the Hun.

The war has long been over. This is an occupation of a people that don't want us there, by a people that don't want us there, in a world that doesn't want us there. The only people who want the occupation to continue is the administration and their continuously dwindling number of supporters. If Bush has his way it will be left to the next President, a Democrat, who will be the one to order the troops out of there. It's horrendously sad that so many people have died and will continue to die, so many resources wasted and will continue to be wasted, only to save the face of a politician.

Countertrey wrote:You've fallen for that "exit plan" crap, too, huh?

Exit Plans aren't crap, the crap comes in when non-combatants become aware of them and feel it's time to execute them, To them a timeline doesn't matter. It's "we have a plan let execute it" . Same goes for repercussions. I'm sure there is a true plan to get out of Iraq. But the time line is at least a decade down the road.

If we don't exit Iraq for another ten years, I'll.....I'll.....well, actually I'd be in Canada by then. BUT - I hereby promise to kiss your behind if we haven't (or some other gratuitous gesture of your choosing).

ATV wrote:Duh, I don't get it

Yes, we know. Thank you for that deep insight to my analysis.

If we don't exit Iraq for another ten years, I'll.....I'll.....well, actually I'd be in Canada

If you start walking now, I'll bet you can make it in less than one.

Bye bye!

Not going to happen.

Zounds. My computer has been broken -- someone snapped the on-off switch, which is about the only thing that can't be fixed easily -- so I miss afew weeks...and the best Redskins board becomes loaded with deep thought -- you're a lunatic, no you're a moron, no you're the moron...

It's as if I've stepped back to Bunker Hill Elementary School in 1954, except that we had more cogent arguments: the Baltimore Orioles should go back to St Louis because Baltimore is a bush-league town. (I could fake a link to that, but it was what we all said...I'm quoting my Dad, as almost everyone else quoted their fathers.)

Meanwhile, this discussion has ripped through the fundamentals of Christianity, congratulated itself that everyone able to conect two consecutive thoughts is a "liberal" and therefore ought to be ignored (sorry, Chuck Hagel and various "paleo-conservatives" who were written out of the Republican Party), and concludes by proclaiming that all 1.5 million people in the military (US Army plus National Guard plus Reserves plus Navy/Marines, plus Air Force, plus Coast Guard) believe either This or That about the Midddle East.

(My own un-social-scientific survey says that if you can name an opinion on anything you can find some soldier somewhere who holds it. As the father of a Soldier, I promise that in June, 2003, I sincerely hoped that the fighting was over; the last thing I wanted was for killing to continue anothe four or five or ten years. I intended to vote against Bush, but hoped to do so on the basis of his position on health insurance, pollution, social security, and education. Not because of the occupation of Iraq.)

Sir Monk asked,

Quote:
He thinks the 4 liberal ex-generals willing to undercut the military are more credible then the hundreds who support it.


Who are the 4 generals that you are referring to?

I'll name four generals who warned against invading Iraq, or warned against some of the practice followed in the occupation:

- Genral Anthony Zinni, USMC (retired) commanded CENTCOM before Tommy Franks, and authorized the basic invasion plan because, he said, he was far more worried that several Iraqi generals would rebel under US pressure, and he wanted some plan. He was not the least concerned that Saddam might invade another country, and he was fairly certain that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, and he was quite certain that he had absolute air superiority and a view of every inch of Iraq ("If, by some miracle, they had a few mustard gas shells buried someplace, I sure wouldn't have wanted to be told to truck them out to a firing position with the US Air Force and Navy able to hit me about five minutes after I started". Rough paraphrase.). Zinni insisted, and still insists, that Saddam was contained, adding that CENTCOM was able to do it with about 15,000 people, or fewer than go to work at the Pentagon every day.

- General Eric Shinseki, chief of staff, US Army (also retired), who warned Congress early in 2003 that an invasion of Iraq would require several hundred thousand troops several years to complete, based on Zinni's planning. Rumsfeld immediately announced that Shinseki would be retiring, and the Defense Department neo-con cult gave "deep background" interviews hinting that Shinseki was over-cautious. A day after Shinseki's testimony, Rumseld assured Congress that we could do the job with less than 100,000 troops in just a few months. (Do we at least agree that Zinni and Shinseki were right?)

- Lieutenant General Pete Chiarelli, former commander of the First Cavalry Division and later commander of US ground forces in Iraq, said last year that it was pointless to kill insurgents because custom in the Middle East required the family/tribe of the insurgent to kill five Americans in revenge. (Anyone with an interest in The Bible might want to consider if the culture of revenge has changed in 3,000 years. Did Christ have a specific practice in mind when he preached against "an eye for an eye"?). Chiarelli is probably a 4-star general by now, and I don't know where he commands. I have read that he is a friend of Shinseki.

- Lieutenant General Tom Metz, commander of III Corps until last May or June, who told the Killeen Daily Herald that he agreed with Chiarelli. III Corps includes 1Cav, and Metz was ground forces ("Multi-National Corps / Forces", or MNC) commander in 2004.

Hence, four generals: two with overall command who warned us against chaos before we invaded Iraq, and two who fought there. Note that Chiarelli and Metz are both, presumably, on active duty, and are more careful than Zinni and Shinseki.

Incidentally, none of the generals have any obvious political affiliation. (Zinni wrote a book with Tom Clancy, if that means anything...)

[quote="welch"][/quote]

This post reflects a lot more writing of the author's views then reading and addressing points made by the participants. The post does impressively register a 10 on the pompous scale. I like how your son is in the military. Again more reading of the forum would have found you're not the only one either in Iraq or with close family who were or are. This is such a shallow post to the conversation I'm not going to bother repeating the discussion.

Suffice it to say while quoting me, you didn't actually contradict my overall point both parties have us up to their eyeballs in the Middle East and both parties got us into Iraq. My point was the press ignores that and only quotes the liberals willing to blame Republicans and let Democrats off the hook for their equal culpability. Something your post does as well.

Thanks for your post adding nothing. To say the conversations was "you are a moron, no you are" was in fact a moronic beginning to the post and it pretty much stayed there.

Looks like you're at a new low, Kazoo. I just wonder whether you'll still be this way once you grow up.

ATV wrote:Looks like you're at a new low, Kazoo. I just wonder whether you'll still be this way once you grow up.

You just liked it because he agreed with your stereotypical left views. This is Bush's fault. 8 years of Clinton bombing "WMDs" and 2 years of senate democrats on the intelligence committee are to be ignored in blame, it was just Bush.

I blame both parties, but that's just supporting the right. Yeah. The same argument you keep giving me. Sorry, BOTH parties got us in this and it is a low for Democrats to refuse to take the blame for their EQUAL part and just blame others for what is wholly their own responsibility as well.

And when you grow up, you will realize that. You start by taking responsibility for your own actions BEFORE you start pointing your finger at others and playing the blame game.

And the son thing pissed me off given my brother and cousin were in Iraq and at least one soldier in Iraq was on the forum, but we should shut up and blame Bush because he is the father of a soldier.

Right is right. And both parties are equally to blame and the reason I attack Democrats more on this is they are the finger pointers.

And the son thing pissed me off given my brother and cousin were in Iraq and at least one soldier in Iraq was on the forum, but we should shut up and blame Bush because he is the father of a soldier.

Nothing impresses me more then people who hide behind their family members while they themselves have never served.