NationStates Jolt Archive

Poll shows troops in support of war
By Robert Hodierne, Army Times

Despite a year of ferocious combat, mounting casualties and frequent deployments, support for the war in Iraq remains very high among the active-duty military, according to a Military Times Poll.
Sixty-three percent of respondents approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, and 60% remain convinced it is a war worth fighting. Support for the war is even greater among those who have served longest in the combat zone: Two-thirds of combat vets say the war is worth fighting.

But the men and women in uniform are under no illusions about how long they will be fighting in Iraq; nearly half say they expect to be there more than five years.

In addition, 87%% say they're satisfied with their jobs and, if given the choice today, only 25% say they'd leave the service.

Compared with last year, the percentages for support for the war and job satisfaction remain essentially unchanged.

A year ago, 77% said they thought the military was stretched too thin to be effective. This year, that number shrank to 66%.

The findings are part of the annual Military Times Poll, which this year included 1,423 active-duty subscribers to Air Force Times, Army Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times.

The subscribers were randomly surveyed by mail in late November and early December. The poll has a margin of error of +/—2.6%.

Among the poll's other findings:

• 75% oppose a military draft.

• 60% blame Congress for the shortage of body armor in the combat zone.

• 12% say civilian Pentagon policymakers should be held accountable for abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

That's pretty good, although hardly unexpected... about 65-70% of the troops voted for Bush according to another poll.

Now the big question is, will this appear *anywhere* in the mass media?

(hmm, it did, sort of: it was in the USA Today, and about six regional newspapers, as far as I can tell... that's pretty weak... not in NY Times, LA Times or WaPo... not on TV... yep, they don't really want to pick up this story)

Well, I should hope troops are in support of this war...

... or why the hell else would they BE IN THE MILITARY?

Wow, the war industry is in favour of a war.

Boggles the mind, I tells ya! Boggles the mind... :rolleyes:

Is it just me or does anyone else think that since this poll was being done through a war magazine it would produce a mild pro-war bias?

I's just saying that if I were a fan of war I would be more likely to buy the magazine, and probably be more likely to be pro-Bush. That's all.

The reason this is news is?????

Is it just me or does anyone else think that since this poll was being done through a war magazine it would produce a mild pro-war bias?

I's just saying that if I were a fan of war I would be more likely to buy the magazine, and probably be more likely to be pro-Bush. That's all.
Its not biased. If you are in the military, you do so to support America's wars. You don't join the army just because you want a free education. If you did, you joined for the wrong reason.

In an all-volunteer military, of course you'd expect the majority of the servicemen over there to be in support of what they're doing.

These same guys probably are only left with Al-Jazeera for the news as well I bet

That's pretty good, although hardly unexpected... about 65-70% of the troops voted for Bush according to another poll.

Now the big question is, will this appear *anywhere* in the mass media?

(hmm, it did, sort of: it was in the USA Today, and about six regional newspapers, as far as I can tell... that's pretty weak... not in NY Times, LA Times or WaPo... not on TV... yep, they don't really want to pick up this story)
the reason that it wasn't publicised is because of the liberal media. they're still reeling from the election.

Well, it's good to know at least someone supports the war, I guess. I mean, I'd hate to think we were over there and absolutely no one wanted to be. But I have to say "Army Times" rings of a biased source. Maybe if it were even reported by Fox, it would sound better.

As far as people joining because of the money for education, I agree it's the wrong reason. However, when that's all your family can afford who's to say they shouldn't do it?

More interestingly, why did one deserter who joined the marines to mooch college tuition get far more coverage from the media than the countless acts of courage and compassion shown by members across the armed services?

Could they possibly have an agenda? ;)

Poll shows troops in support of war
By Robert Hodierne, Army Times

Despite a year of ferocious combat, mounting casualties and frequent deployments, support for the war in Iraq remains very high among the active-duty military, according to a Military Times Poll.
Sixty-three percent of respondents approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, and 60% remain convinced it is a war worth fighting.

Personally I'm rather worried about the fact that 40% of the military are not convinced it's a war worth fighting. I'd guess that puts it nearer to the level of support during Vietnam, rather than the first Gulf War, though I admit I'm pulling that out of my rectum and have no stats to back it up with.

I'm wondering if the number of soldiers being seriously wounded or dieing could account for the change in numbers ....

Hrmmmm ...

Sounds nice, though, on the face of it, doesn't it?

100 soldiers go to war. 75 of them think it's a bad war. After a year, 10 soldiers are dead. People applaud that now only 65 of them think it's a bad war and use it to show military self-support is on the rise.

Ah well ... it's all just speculation. I can't imagine being on the field of battle, waiting for that bullet with my brain's name on it, using 100% of my training and experience to ensure that bullet never finds me and hearing from the shadows behind me, "Would you like to take a survey?"

You know Eutrusca, the last time you posted this kind of thread, I noted how terribly unreliable mail polls are--they're statictical toilet paper because they depend on respondents instead of random sampling. They're about as accurate as Nationstates polls. That's all I'm saying.

Well, I should hope troops are in support of this war...

... or why the hell else would they BE IN THE MILITARY?


most join for the education offered, and becuase they dont know what to do with their lives.

In a recent survey, it has been showed that Kyle Morton does not give a fuck.

Here's a breakdown of the polls:

Gives a fuck: 0 (0%)
Does not give a fuck: 1 (100%)

The poll also has incredibly high numbers indicating that he "is still against the war" and that he is unsure about weither this is supposed to change anyones' mind or not.

In a recent survey, it has been showed that Kyle Morton does not give a fuck.

Here's a breakdown of the polls:

Gives a fuck: 0 (0%)
Does not give a fuck: 1 (100%)

The poll also has incredibly high numbers indicating that he "is still against the war" and that he is unsure about weither this is supposed to change anyones' mind or not.



actually, dave, we have an update!

Gives a fuck: 0 (0%)
Does not give a fuck: 2 (100%)

this is staggering news!

Is it just me or does anyone else think that since this poll was being done through a war magazine it would produce a mild pro-war bias?

I's just saying that if I were a fan of war I would be more likely to buy the magazine, and probably be more likely to be pro-Bush. That's all.

You know Eutrusca, the last time you posted this kind of thread, I noted how terribly unreliable mail polls are--they're statictical toilet paper because they depend on respondents instead of random sampling. They're about as accurate as Nationstates polls. That's all I'm saying.

Both two very good points. I'm suprised so many troops were against the war even with how bad its been. The sampling techniques just add to that.

actually, dave, we have an update!

Gives a fuck: 0 (0%)
Does not give a fuck: 2 (100%)

this is staggering news!


Make that 3 (still 100%)

I really don't want to get all flamey here, Eutrusca, but why the fuck did you even create this thread?

More interestingly, why did one deserter who joined the marines to mooch college tuition get far more coverage from the media than the countless acts of courage and compassion shown by members across the armed services?

Could they possibly have an agenda? ;)


Becaue the liberal media does not want us to see that anything good has happend over there.

Becaue the liberal media does not want us to see that anything good has happend over there.

This would only be a story if they did not support the war. One would expect the military to support a military action as a basic, fundamental perquisite. If it did not then you have real problems.

I'm sure German soldiers supported the invasion of Poland in 1939 and American Cavalry supported the war against the plains Indians and the European knights were all in favor of a Crusade against the Arabs in Jerusalem.

What does any of that have to do with the issue of whether or not those wars (or this one) are right or wrong?

the reason that it wasn't publicised is because of the liberal media. they're still reeling from the election.
Not the liberal media. The sensationalist media. You see, there isn't an explosion or sex in this story, so they don't bother with it.

My goodness! Soldiers support fighting! What an incredible insight into the military mind!
What will be Eutrusca's next thread?
Let me guess:
'Studies have confirmed that sea water is wet'

My goodness! Soldiers support fighting! What an incredible insight into the military mind!
What will be Eutrusca's next thread?
Let me guess:
'Studies have confirmed that sea water is wet'

Let's not go overboard, DH. We're still conducting research into this area. So far results are inconclusive but I'll post an update as soon as possible.

So a non-scientific poll has shown that Military servicemen who read the military times magazines are pleased that they can see action? Wow...ish.

Lets break down the numbers shall we?
37 percent of respondents to the poll disapprove of the Commander in Chief's handling of the war; and a full 40% believe the war is not even worthy of fighting.

A full third of the troops who saw action think that the war is not worth fighting, while the remaining 66% have directly tied their lives to the enterprise; so its little wonder that they don't want it to be for nothing.

The military reports today that a full quarter of its active duty servicemen will leave the service as soon as humanly possible. And over half expect to be kept in Iraq for over 5 years. This in no way can reflect growing dissaffection with military overstretch problems.

"We must find and destory the weapons of mass documentation!" Doesn't ring a bell does it? Remember that unless you have photos of homoerotic torture, it doesn't qualify as newsworthy abuse.

My goodness! Soldiers support fighting! What an incredible insight into the military mind!
What will be Eutrusca's next thread?
Let me guess:
'Studies have confirmed that sea water is wet'
Actually someone tampering with the experiment makes all the reearch faulty. It will take a year or two to figure out the validity of the experiment.

More interestingly, why did one deserter who joined the marines to mooch college tuition get far more coverage from the media than the countless acts of courage and compassion shown by members across the armed services?

Could they possibly have an agenda? ;)

Perhaps because there's an estimated 5,500 deserters?

And a hell of a lot of the military signed up before 9/11. A lot of people signed up to defend the nation, and are now unhappy with the service. Course, that discussion goes on in the deserter storm thread.

Polls from the military...HAH!!!

Everyone knows the US Army Brainwashes their "voulenteers", and replace it with Neo-con Nazi shit. You wonder why they never think for themselves. I've seen the busses of free thinking people go into a reeducation center, and come out zombies to the Nazi Bush Cronies.

I've got pictures from inside the Reeducation centers to prove it.

This is why Conservitives should all be shot.

Polls from the military...HAH!!!

Everyone knows the US Army Brainwashes their "voulenteers", and replace it with Neo-con Nazi shit. You wonder why they never think for themselves. I've seen the busses of free thinking people go into a reeducation center, and come out zombies to the Nazi Bush Cronies.

I've got pictures from inside the Reeducation centers to prove it.

This is why Conservitives should all be shot.
Watch that trolling, Adipokine, and we've never been too big on letting people support wholescale violence against others on these boards.

Do it again and you're in a world of hurt.

In addition, 87%% say they're satisfied with their jobs and, if given the choice today, only 25% say they'd leave the service.


So there are 12% who are satisfied and would leave the service today if they could. That makes sense.

Great news and all, but I think it's not the active duty Army we're worried about, the Reserve and National Guard I would imagine are far more dissenting, not that I wholly trust an army magazine to report something like most are against the war.

Poll shows troops in support of war
By Robert Hodierne, Army Times

Despite a year of ferocious combat, mounting casualties and frequent deployments, support for the war in Iraq remains very high among the active-duty military, according to a Military Times Poll.
Sixty-three percent of respondents approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, and 60% remain convinced it is a war worth fighting. Support for the war is even greater among those who have served longest in the combat zone: Two-thirds of combat vets say the war is worth fighting.

But the men and women in uniform are under no illusions about how long they will be fighting in Iraq; nearly half say they expect to be there more than five years.

In addition, 87%% say they're satisfied with their jobs and, if given the choice today, only 25% say they'd leave the service.

Compared with last year, the percentages for support for the war and job satisfaction remain essentially unchanged.

A year ago, 77% said they thought the military was stretched too thin to be effective. This year, that number shrank to 66%.

The findings are part of the annual Military Times Poll, which this year included 1,423 active-duty subscribers to Air Force Times, Army Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times.

The subscribers were randomly surveyed by mail in late November and early December. The poll has a margin of error of +/—2.6%.

Among the poll's other findings:

• 75% oppose a military draft.

• 60% blame Congress for the shortage of body armor in the combat zone.

• 12% say civilian Pentagon policymakers should be held accountable for abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
The interesting thing to note is that 40% of active-duty military do NOT remain convinced it is a war worth fighting.

Perhaps because there's an estimated 5,500 deserters?

And a hell of a lot of the military signed up before 9/11. A lot of people signed up to defend the nation, and are now unhappy with the service. Course, that discussion goes on in the deserter storm thread.
The US Military as a matter of fact does not have that many deserters. All of our people are highly trained and highly motivated. They are the best of the best.

Polls from the military...HAH!!!

Everyone knows the US Army Brainwashes their "voulenteers", and replace it with Neo-con Nazi shit. You wonder why they never think for themselves. I've seen the busses of free thinking people go into a reeducation center, and come out zombies to the Nazi Bush Cronies.

I've got pictures from inside the Reeducation centers to prove it.

This is why Conservitives should all be shot.
Everything you just said is total BS. Come back when you know what you are talking about and you stop spouting typical partisan Democrat lines.

Great news and all, but I think it's not the active duty Army we're worried about, the Reserve and National Guard I would imagine are far more dissenting, not that I wholly trust an army magazine to report something like most are against the war.
Active Duty would support the war because, we prepare for it, we keep in mind that when you join any of the armed forces there is always a high probability of deployment. The Reserves and NG on the other, don't prep for war and tend to be your typical cry babies. Most of the people in the Reserves and NG join up for selfish reasons rather than wanting to defend their own nation. Hence, active duty are more supportive of their nation than the reservists or NG are. I also note that is the reservists and NG who tend not to have any morals or discipline as proven by the fact that Abu Graib and all instances of torture and the recent spring breakish behavior of troops in Afghan and Iraq was committed by reservists and not active duty soldiers.

If there was really a way to make a political party based on apathy work, it would unify America. I know I would vote for I Don't Give a Fuck, and would proudly display myself as a member of the I Don't Give a Fuck party. I'd show my support enthusiastically by taking, and keeping, all my fucks.

The interesting thing to note is that 40% of active-duty military do NOT remain convinced it is a war worth fighting.
The opinions of that 40% does not matter, the US military is not a democracy. That has never been the way we operate. We go where the President tells us. That is the job of the American soldier. It is not the American soldier's job to question orders. That is the job of the politicians.
The only thing we are supposed to question is if an order violates the Geneva Convention. The fact that most reservists are flagrantly violating the Geneva Convention or don't know about it, pretty much proves the reserves and national guard haven't been doing their job or haven't been training properly while we was at peace.
If they want to fix the problem, they would remove the reservists and NG from Command and put regular active duty troops in charge over the reservists and NG. That would fix the problems of moral, discipline, and high casualties pretty quick since most of the casualties being reported are reservists. Again, proof they didn't do their job back home. When are you reservist, your job is not to go to college or focus on your regular job, your job is to make sure you are ready to deploy to highly violatile combat zone. To ensure this the reserves are supposed to do proper training at least 2 weekends a month. But apparently, most of the nation's reservists be doing nothing but bullshitting during those two weekends a months and two weeks a year. Otherwise, their casualty rate in Iraq would not be so high.

Actually, it is indeed the soldier's job to question orders. If they are illegal, they have to be disobeyed. That does not solely mean the Geneva Convention.


As for the prison guards, they were "following orders". The didn't "question orders".

The job of a reservist is to do whatever his job is in his normal life. If they aren't prepared to "deploy to highly violatile combat zone" they should lose their position in the reserves, but notice the word "reserves". They are meant to be an auxiliary body of people trained to fight in case of extreme need. In case you hadn't noticed it, the advertising campaigns for the reserves emphasized a great deal the low amount of time taken from your regular life.

lol

this article cracks me up - you post it as proof that the soldiers are in support of the war, which I never doubted (except for the few thousand trying to go to Canada) and it turns out that 40% of our troops are against it! That was a shocker to me. And these are troops that read a pro-war magazine for fun?

and Whittier you crack me up too with your statement about how those 40% dont matter! HAHHAHAHAHAH - I think that all 100% of the troops opinion matter wether I agree with them or not. Everyone matters Whittier - don't hate/dismiss people just because they have a different opinion from you. You could learn alot if you opened your eyes to different viewpoints.

To flip those poll numbers around, 40% of troops oppose the war, which means that 4 in 10 people on the ground in Iraq don;t think they should be there.

And let's face it, if there is ever a group of people who have some need to find support for a war - it is the people fighting it. After all, they are the ones that will have to live with the memories of buddies that died or people they killed. Being able to tell yourself that it was in a just cause gives you a better psychological position in which to deal with those memnories.

Also, 1 in 4 of the troops would quit the army rather than be where they are.

Finally, I should note that the most recent poll I could find - from August of last year in Pennsylvania - the families of the servicemen were 54% opposed to the war, although of course very supportive of the troops.


So frankly I don't see this poll as a ringing endorsement of the war, which is - I assume - why you posted it.