NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1319718,00.html

Of course... every soldier just loves Bush.

just becasue a liar can trick people and people don't like war (no one does) doesn't mean the liar is right.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1319718,00.html

Of course... every soldier just loves Bush.

Noone ever said that EVERY soldier supported Bush...but they do 4 to 1.

also I bet that those are the only ones who sent an email, BECASUE BAD NEWS SELLS BETTER THAN GOOD NEWS.

Noone ever said that EVERY soldier supported Bush...but they do 4 to 1.

And where's your evidence for this wild claim?

just becasue a liar can trick people and people don't like war (no one does) doesn't mean the liar is right.

Are you questioning these soldiers' integrity? Why do you hate America? I guess you're like Bush. Send the men to war without proper armor or training for occupation insurgency, and then blame Kerry who voted against a version of the $87 billion dollar package after the soldiers had been fighting for some time. Why does Bush hate America?

bush doesn't hate america
he's just stupid

To die, the soldiers are good enough. To voice their disagreement against Bush and his cronies, they are unfit for. Oh the irony.

i spoke to some soldiers.. some support bush and others dont-

well when you're under attack by hostile iraqis (mainly non-iraqis these days) then you need to support someone or what els would you believe?

While Biff doesn't have any statistics to back his claim of support, I'm willing to bet he's on target on that one.

And where's your evidence for this wild claim?
republican psychic ability DUH

I concur with Thunderland. It seems probable that the soldiers would support Bush by a vast majority. Whether it's necessarily 4 to 1 though...meh.

Mike Moore and The Guardian teaming up. Just when I thought they couldn't become any less credible...

Mike Moore and The Guardian teaming up. Just when I thought they couldn't become any less credible...

Since when haven't they been credible? what do you read then?

Mike Moore and The Guardian teaming up. Just when I thought they couldn't become any less credible...
Just beause you don't believe them does not make them less credible

Since when haven't they been credible? what do you read then?

They post anything. Even the article claiming that Bush had an IQ of ~85. Credibility is not a prerequisite of their sources (eg, Moore). No one could cite The Guardian without getting laughed out of the room.

Me? I generally read the WSJ, Economist, and the FT. But I will delve into BBC, CNN, and even Al-jazeera. Anything is fine (even the Guardian) as long as you don't take it as your sole source of information.

They post anything. Even the article claiming that Bush had an IQ of ~85. Credibility is not a prerequisite of their sources (eg, Moore). No one could cite The Guardian without getting laughed out of the room.

Me? I generally read the WSJ, Economist, and the FT. But I will delve into BBC, CNN, and even Al-jazeera. Anything is fine (even the Guardian) as long as you don't take it as your sole source of information.

say that to my family, a long line of libertarians :p

This is also "unscientific"...but just FYI:

I'm a military instructor. I teach up to 60 students a year, max. The real average number is about 35 per year, with 5-7 students in each section. So far, for the past two years, virtually each section is composed of Bush supporters, with one, or rarely, two dissenters or Kerry supporters. That would put the average at about 5:1.

My students study in my hallway for 8 hours a day for an entire year. I get a very, very good feeling for their political views...in fact, we discuss them.

Last year, I had 37 students. 5 of them supported Kerry. These are students from all services (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines) and all parts of the country.

That doesn't make us right, though. (I'm in the military, too, and support Bush). It's just part of our culture, maybe, I don't know.

Those solders didn’t volunteer for a tea party. They knew that military = possibility of war. Is like a doctor complaining about the sight of blood! It is understandable that a large portion of solders are not going to like what is happening, war is not fun, however the USA does have a volunteer army and there are many solders that are returning for second and third voluntary terms of duty.

Noone ever said that EVERY soldier supported Bush...but they do 4 to 1.
I would guess that the reason Bush is so popular among soldiers is that they would be unemployed if there wasn't a war on.

They post anything. Even the article claiming that Bush had an IQ of ~85. Credibility is not a prerequisite of their sources (eg, Moore). No one could cite The Guardian without getting laughed out of the room.

Me? I generally read the WSJ, Economist, and the FT. But I will delve into BBC, CNN, and even Al-jazeera. Anything is fine (even the Guardian) as long as you don't take it as your sole source of information.
Don't tell me that you think al-Jazeera is more credible than the Guardian?

Even if they did team up with Moore, I've never seen any lies in that newspaper. They're much better than most others in the UK.

The British tropps are even more poorly equipped a man was forced to give up his bodyarmour to someone else just before getting shot in the chest. The irony

I am a liberial, and I have a question for my comrades.

Why do you care about the opinion of those stupid warpigs. They have choosen their own fate. And they ARE ALL REPBULICANS. And they all are very ignorant people that can't think for themselves. If the repbulicans are claiming the millitary as their own I'm fine with that. Their putting their lives in danger by voting for Bush. Their problem not mine, or yours.

How's Iraq, Bush lover? hahahaha

None of the soldiers I personally know who have come back from Iraq have anything good to say about Bush. They're all popping "happy pills" to keep from going nuts over all the hideous shit they've seen and done there.

Send the men to war without proper armor or training for occupation insurgency, and then blame Kerry who voted against a version of the $87 billion dollar package after the soldiers had been fighting for some time.
Kerry and the Democrats have stopped the US soldiers from being properly prepared. They also tried to get that bill passed to reinstate the draft, and then claimed it was only a scare tactic to get people to vote for them. Of course, its brilliant. Democrats are obviously more concerned with the people of this nation. So much so that they would send you off to war unwillingly if it would score them a few points. At least Bush only uses volunteers right now, and as has been reported in the only surveys I have found, they favor him over Kerry 4:1.
And thankfully, casualties have been extremely low, even without that much needed equipment that the Dems blocked.

1,064- Number of US troops killed in 566 days of action in Iraq

17,000- Number of people killed in drunk-driving related accidents in one year in the US

783,936- Number of deaths every year resulting from errors in hospitals

30, 708- number of deaths resulting from firearms, includes suicides

Put it all in perspective.

And where's your evidence for this wild claim?
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7171825&postcount=1

Put your arse in perspective then. The Democrats did introduce that bill as a rhetorical point. I just learned that myself from a Republican Senator. You still think there's a difference between democrats and republicans? It's the difference between all temperature Cheer and Tide. It's all corporate sponsors, most of whom are right wing. The left is somewhere out of the loop chasing it's tail after having been bitten in the ass by Nader for being so spineless.

And where's your evidence for this wild claim?
Some "unscientific" poll Eutrusca cited in another post.
Delightful.

Some "unscientific" poll Eutrusca cited in another post.
Delightful.

Almost all polls are "unscientific". Doesn't mean they arn't accurate and it doesn't mean it should be taken as absolute proof either. At least they were honest about it, which is more than I've seen from either side on a lot of issues.

Don't tell me that you think al-Jazeera is more credible than the Guardian?

Even if they did team up with Moore, I've never seen any lies in that newspaper. They're much better than most others in the UK.

Oh of course not. But I enjoy reading it. Always good for a laugh.