| Author |
Message |
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
 Sat Oct 16, 2004 8:52 pm Poll: Troops, families question the Bush Iraq strategy |
|
| Quote: |
Poll: Troops, families question Iraq strategy
Most surveyed say Bush sent too few troops; relied too much on Guard
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Members of the military and their families say the Bush administration underestimated the number of troops needed in Iraq and put too much pressure on inadequately trained National Guard and reserve forces, according to a poll released Saturday.
The National Annenberg Election Survey questioned active duty troops in the regular military and the National Guard and Reserves, as well as family members of active duty members.
Family members were more critical of the administration's Iraq policy than those on active duty.
The poll found that 62 percent in the military sample -- 58 percent of troops and 66 percent of family members -- said the administration underestimated the number of troops that would be needed to establish peace in Iraq. (Part 1 of the Annenberg survey results)
And 59 percent -- 56 percent of troops and 64 percent of family members -- said too much of a burden has been put on the National Guard and the reserves when regular forces should have been expanded instead.
This critical view comes from a military group that has a more favorable view of President Bush, Iraq, the economy and the nation's direction than Americans in general.
A slight majority of the military and families, 51 percent, said showing photos of flag-draped coffins being returned to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware would increase respect for the troops.
That broke down to 47 percent of troops and 56 percent of family members. Less than 10 percent of the sample said it would decrease respect for the troops.
The Pentagon has refused to release government photos of the coffins, saying it has begun enforcing a policy installed in 1991 intended to respect the privacy of the families of the dead soldiers.
Other military matters
Four in 10 respondents -- 42 percent -- said gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the military and 50 percent said no.
Family members narrowly supported the idea by a 51 to 41 percent margin, while 57 percent of those in the active military opposed it.
One-fourth said the military draft should be reinstated, three-fourths said no.
That is about the same level of opposition to the draft in the general population.
Six in 10 of the regular military in the sample said they were properly trained and equipped.
Only four in 10 of the Guard members and reservists questioned said they were properly trained and equipped.
The military sample overwhelmingly approved of the work of women in the armed forces. Three-fourths said they performed as well as the men they work with.
Eight in 10 said soldiers responsible for the Abu Ghraib prison abuse and their immediate commanders should be punished. Half said higher-level commanders should be punished and three in 10 said civilians in the Pentagon should be punished.
The poll of 655 in the active military (both regulars and reserves) and their families was taken September 22 through October 5 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Their answers were compared with those of 2,436 adults surveyed September 7 -- October 3 with a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/16/military.poll2.ap/index.html
|
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Oct 17, 2004 8:56 pm |
|
Okay, so they speak out. Are they right or not? I just don't know.
I think that Bush and Rumsfeld DEFINITELY could have planned the aftermath better, but I don't know nor can make many judgements beyond that.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:16 am |
|
The reason it wasn't thought out too well was because the war was rushed into. This was because summer was coming and the tempratures would go up into the 50's+. If the majority of the war was fought in that heat then it would have caused far more problems.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:41 pm |
|
| Jeremy wrote: | | The reason it wasn't thought out too well was because the war was rushed into. This was because summer was coming and the tempratures would go up into the 50's+. If the majority of the war was fought in that heat then it would have caused far more problems. |
I disagree. I do NOT believe that we rushed into war. We HAD to act on the immidiate threat. We couldn't wait any longer to be destroyed, perhaps. Although now it seems that we were wrong, but at the time...And also, the Dulfer Report CONFIRMS that UN Sanctions weren't working.
They said:
1) Saddam hasn't created WMDs since 1991
2) In 1995 the UN Sanctions were squeazing him and his regime would have collapsed, had it not been for OIL FOR FOOD!
3) The UN Sanctions started to wear down after that, and Saddam was waiting until he could convince France, Russia, Germany, etc to get the UN to release the sanctions, then he would have re-started his WMD programs.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Tue Oct 19, 2004 5:53 pm |
|
I'm slightly puzzled - | Quote: | | I do NOT believe that we rushed into war. We HAD to act on the immidiate threat. |
- it basically contradicts itself.
There was no immmediate threat although he was supposed to have WMD so that's not a reason for going in quickly. Partly it was the climate, and partly it was that they needed to keep the political pressure going on, so that it didn't fall flat. There is also the thought that if they had waited longer the UN could have proved as much as they could that there was no WMD, and so the reason for rushing was for oil. That's just a general view, and it's not my own but I'm throwing it in to be talked about.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:34 pm |
|
| Jeremy wrote: | I'm slightly puzzled - | Quote: | | I do NOT believe that we rushed into war. We HAD to act on the immidiate threat. |
- it basically contradicts itself.
There was no immmediate threat although he was supposed to have WMD so that's not a reason for going in quickly. Partly it was the climate, and partly it was that they needed to keep the political pressure going on, so that it didn't fall flat. There is also the thought that if they had waited longer the UN could have proved as much as they could that there was no WMD, and so the reason for rushing was for oil. That's just a general view, and it's not my own but I'm throwing it in to be talked about. |
We thought that there was an imminent threat! Are we NOT supposed to take that seriously, huh?
Plus, no, that wouldn't have happened with Saddam's restrictions on the inspectors.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Thu Oct 21, 2004 4:43 am |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Jeremy wrote: | I'm slightly puzzled - | Quote: | | I do NOT believe that we rushed into war. We HAD to act on the immidiate threat. |
- it basically contradicts itself.
There was no immmediate threat although he was supposed to have WMD so that's not a reason for going in quickly. Partly it was the climate, and partly it was that they needed to keep the political pressure going on, so that it didn't fall flat. There is also the thought that if they had waited longer the UN could have proved as much as they could that there was no WMD, and so the reason for rushing was for oil. That's just a general view, and it's not my own but I'm throwing it in to be talked about. |
We thought that there was an imminent threat! Are we NOT supposed to take that seriously, huh?
Plus, no, that wouldn't have happened with Saddam's restrictions on the inspectors. |
You said that we didn't rush in, but now you're saying that we had to act on an immediate threat - so in other words get in there quickly.  I'm not saying that it should not have been taken seriously, I would have had to be stupid (or be able to see the future,  ) to say that. What I'm saying is that the war was entered quickly, so there wasn't much time to plan for the aftermath.
It wouldn't have mattered if the weapons inspectors had full access, they could not have proved there was no WMD. But if they had had more time then they could have shown there was less of a risk than thought.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Oct 21, 2004 4:59 pm |
|
| Jeremy wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | Jeremy wrote: | I'm slightly puzzled - | Quote: | | I do NOT believe that we rushed into war. We HAD to act on the immidiate threat. |
- it basically contradicts itself.
There was no immmediate threat although he was supposed to have WMD so that's not a reason for going in quickly. Partly it was the climate, and partly it was that they needed to keep the political pressure going on, so that it didn't fall flat. There is also the thought that if they had waited longer the UN could have proved as much as they could that there was no WMD, and so the reason for rushing was for oil. That's just a general view, and it's not my own but I'm throwing it in to be talked about. |
We thought that there was an imminent threat! Are we NOT supposed to take that seriously, huh?
Plus, no, that wouldn't have happened with Saddam's restrictions on the inspectors. |
You said that we didn't rush in, but now you're saying that we had to act on an immediate threat - so in other words get in there quickly. I'm not saying that it should not have been taken seriously, I would have had to be stupid (or be able to see the future, ) to say that. What I'm saying is that the war was entered quickly, so there wasn't much time to plan for the aftermath.
No, I'm not saying that. When you say that we have to act on an imminent threat, that does NOT mean that it was rushed into.
It wouldn't have mattered if the weapons inspectors had full access, they could not have proved there was no WMD. But if they had had more time then they could have shown there was less of a risk than thought. |
You got that one right, though.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
