2008 Military Times poll: Wary about Obama, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 14 times

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 12:29 PM by die_another_day

He's definitely not the fighter type, but what do we know. Maybe he's like Robert E. Lee.

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 12:32 PM by Cudafox

My guess and just a guess would have to be more on cuts. I joined the Army just before Bush Sr. left and Clinton was sworn in. Times changed fast bases and funding was cut. Our millitary was cut down. I was in a few deployments while serving Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and a few others. The biggest thing I saw negitive while under Clinton was the feeling of is our base/our unit the next to go? Also policy changing the don't ask don't tell the Stress cards in boot camp??? What the heck was that about?? We had new recruits coming in thinking it was ROTC and they could get away with just about anything.

For the ones who have never served its nothing against you but you may never under stand why one will sacrifice their own freedom to protect and serve against forgien or domestic threats that want to take them away

For the ones that have served or are still in service, Thank you for your lack of selfishness.

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 12:33 PM by Jadette

Originally posted by spellbound
reply to post by Mirthful Me

Hi,

I said this long ago, and was put down, of course - but I have felt very uneasy about Obama being elected president, when his name is SOOO close to terrorist names - OBAMA and OSAMA - also it is like SIN LADEN and BIN LADEN - also note that SIN - not a good sign. I am not surprised that the Armed Forces are alarmed.

I am alarmed as well, but else can we do?

Are you kidding me? And shame on those of you who starred his post. No matter how you feel about politics, left/right/whatever, associating Obama with Osama because of the name is ignorance at it's purest and two steps away from superstition.

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 12:39 PM by Kaploink

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Being in the military during Clinton’s eight years was not good. He was an embarrassment and both he and Hilary had open distain for us. Our effectiveness was at its worst since the Vietnam War. Many still remember that time and so there is a good chance that things will go that direction once again.

I thought the military was currently unprepared to handle any major incident due to having so many resources tied up in Iraq. Which would make one think the effectiveness has decreased despite increased defense spending.

The Iraq war has strained the US military to the extent that America could not fight another large-scale war today, according to a new survey of military officers. Nine in 10 officers said the war had stretched the military “dangerously thin”. However, 56 per cent disagreed with the suggestion that the conflict had “broken” the armed services, while 64 per cent said morale was high.

source (Financial Times)

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 12:50 PM by Mirthful Me

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
Of course the military is wary, but 4 out of 10 is almost 50-50 and not bad for a service that generally aligns itself with the right politically. And why wouldn't they? Follow the money trail.

Four out of ten is almost 50-50? And you think I need to save face? There's not even a four out of ten... 33% are "optimistic," 35% are "uncertain" and 25% are "pessimistic." The truth will come out after the first full budget year... My bet is a significant reduction in our military's morale and combat effectiveness... And we have even begun to discuss the guaranteed 25% force reduction due to the Messiah's policies.

You attempt to spin and obfuscate is duly noted.

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 12:54 PM by wdkirk

Originally posted by dominicus
No offense to people who have been or are in the military.

But when I was in high school, "they" kept trying to recruit me and my friends, even going so far as getting out home phone numbers from scholl records and calling weekly.

I stood up to the recruiters and told them the military is Government slavery, making you a pawn t be on the front lines of any war possible.

I always viewed joining the military as something done by the extremely desperate (no money no family) or the extremely stupid, or people who like to be ordered around like some pawns.

So in my perspective, the U.S. military is mostly made up of a bunch of half-waitted pawns. Not stereo-typing, see I just said most of the military. SO when 6 out of 10 say they dont believe in Obama ...that proves that 60% are a bunch of inbred fools.

These pawns would rather have a Country gun toting, inbred shoot-em-up president who wants war with everybody instead of a diplomatic strategist,

There were 10 million pet rocks sold in the U.S. so you do the math. Surrounded by idiots!!!!!

Wow, glad to see you respect the US military. You didn't mention those in the military that have had family in the military. I graduated in the top of my class in high school and could not join the military (medical reason). I wanted to because the hardware they use is top notch. What I could learn hands on there just is not available in college/university system. You have to have disposition to be in the military if you are going to do it as your job. Wanting to serve in the military means something different to everyone who has or will join in the future.

Calling "most" of the US military inbred/poor/stupid/pawns/poor took your post and flushed it down the toilet before you even hit the "post reply" button.

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 12:55 PM by marg6043

reply to post by Mirthful Me

While is true that "experts" see a reduction on military budget just like Obama's predecessor "Clinton" he would not stop "government spending" as his proposed "bail out package" to rescue the nation will run in trillions of dollars.

This money will come in part from China as they are our biggest lenders but now Also from Arabs nations that are willing to finance US debt with a price tag attached to it.

The only reason US still keeps "superpower" status is due to its military.

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 12:58 PM by spec_ops_wannabe

reply to post by Irish M1ck

So by dirty tricks, what exactly do you mean? The guy who recruited me into the Army didn't have any crap he tried pulling. He is pretty honest and down to Earth, far more than 80% of the idiots who come here on ATS as far as I'm concerned.

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 01:02 PM by Major Discrepancy

Originally posted by dominicus
No offense to people who have been or are in the military.

But when I was in high school, "they" kept trying to recruit me and my friends, even going so far as getting out home phone numbers from scholl records and calling weekly.

...

So in my perspective, the U.S. military is mostly made up of a bunch of half-waitted pawns. Not stereo-typing, see I just said most of the military. SO when 6 out of 10 say they dont believe in Obama ...that proves that 60% are a bunch of inbred fools.

...

There were 10 million pet rocks sold in the U.S. so you do the math. Surrounded by idiots!!!!!

Emphasis by the Major.

The Major has no doubt that your phone was ringing morning, noon and night.

The Major regrets to inform you that the tried and true military doctrine of cannon fodder has been long eschewed by the U.S armed forces ad the vast majority of industrialized nations. The emphasis is on quick witted, motivated individuals that can integrate with a cutting edge, technology driven force. We salute and appreciate your disinterest.

The Major does agree that you have us surrounded.

In the immortal words of General Anthony McAuliffe at Bastogne: "Nuts!"

Dismissed.

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 01:03 PM by spec_ops_wannabe

Also a scientific poll taken back in October over the members of the military over who they wanted for CinC was McCain overwhelming.
www.militarytimes.com...

All I can say is for my fellow servicemen and women, we didn't want Obama.

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 01:05 PM by Irish M1ck

reply to post by Mirthful Me

Fair enough, but granted, when I wrote that I had just come off of reading your attack on my intelligence right on the first line of your OP and also the misleading statistic:

...six out of 10 active-duty service members say they are uncertain or pessimistic

Lumping uncertain and pessimistic is most certainly a divisive tactic taken by the author, and an extreme skewing of the actual truth. I made the unfortunate mistake of thinking that the rest of the 4 (out of 10) were optimistic, but forgot about the usual 5-10% of people who are to apathetic to care about anything.

Of course, here's the true headline of your article:

Military optimistic about future president
Only 1/4 have a pessimistic feeling about the incoming president while 1/3 feel good about the changes to come

But hey, that's just the way us NY Times readers look at those numbers.

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 01:14 PM by Irish M1ck

reply to post by spec_ops_wannabe

You read the story I posted right under, correct? Those are part of the tactics. They will lie about statistics, they will recruit in poor areas, and other tricks to get people to sign up who otherwise might not.

Military recruiters are expected to get a certain number of sign-ups, and like any other salesmen, they will do whatever it takes to hit their numbers. The difference between military recruiters and a used car salesman is, of course, in the contract they get people to sign.

Many of those kids coming straight out of high school are like fish in a bucket.

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 01:15 PM by SLAYER69

Originally posted by whoshotJR
Do the same poll about any candidate that was running and I wouldn't be surprised you get close to the same percentage. Ask them this same question about their current president and I'm betting they felt even worse.

I think you would be surprised about both your questions. Bush was disliked by the public but the military was a different story. do the leg work you'll see.

Also I think this present poll is skewed a bit.

I think a lot of people missed something in Obamas acceptance speech listen closely. jump to 11:50 I didn't vote for the man but this doesn't sound like somebody who will fall back to the Carter mentality of inaction.

YouTube Link

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 01:17 PM by Benevolent Heretic

And don't forget to read the whole article.

The responses are not representative of the opinions of the military as a whole. The survey group overall under-represents minorities, women and junior enlisted service members, and over-represents soldiers.

So, if you remove all the people that like and trust Obama before you do your survey, you might get some interesting poll results.

Sampling the Military

About 36,000 subscribers received invitations via e-mail to participate. Of those, 5,181 completed the survey. Except where noted, data were filtered to include 1,947 responses from active-duty subscribers.

Originally posted by jibeho
I doubt that he even knows how to shoot a gun let alone be Commander in Chief.

And we all know how often the CinC is called upon to shoot a gun.

[edit on 2-1-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 01:19 PM by maybereal11

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
due to the Messiah's policies.

How does the saying go.."there are lies, damn lies and statistics"?

A greater number were Optimistic than Pessimistic concerning our President Elect.

Unfortunately a fair measure of comparison isn't possible...polling the troops to assess their confidence level in their CURRENT POTUS isn't ever done for obvious reasons.

and while it is just word of mouth...I have a sibling with the 101st Airborne who was home on leave this holiday and said that the troops within his unit were very hopeful and positive on the prospect of a new commander and chief.

Lastly...the "Messiah" bit...I am accustomed to political baiting and disrespectful name calling from general posters, but it is very dissapointing comming from a Mod....your bias and bitterness is clear.

Try "President Elect" or even Obama...you can still make your point without being offensive to our new President and those who support him.

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 01:19 PM by Irish M1ck

reply to post by SLAYER69

Absolutely. He has made it abundantly clear that he plans of being a strong leader of this nation. While us NY Times reading liberals do not necessarily think that a strong nation needs to spend half of its budget on the military, we are just as willing to fight as the rest.

Obama has done everything he could to make it obvious that he plans on focusing on Afghanistan - not just running from the entire thing. He, like much of the rest of the country, feels that Iraq was a blunder (to say the least), and that it took focus off of the real issues in the region.

Third, none of this surprises me at all. I don't think I need to go to any great extent to discuss the well-known fact that military families are generally conservative. If anything, I am surprised that more people are optimistic in the military than pessimistic.

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 01:20 PM by fio1968

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 01:21 PM by Article11

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
More were optimistic than pessimistic. Only 25% were pessimistic. And "Uncertain" just means they don't know.

Busted by his own link. Daaaamn BH.

Monkey see, monkey repost.

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 02:00 PM by Mirthful Me

reply to post by Article11

Ahhhh, the sheep come bleating in. The graphic break down does indeed tell the story. The "Messiah" (or Barack Hussein Obama, take your pick) hasn't fooled our military, 25% are pessimistic, and 35% are unsure... What do they know that the lemmings in the civilian population don't? Easy, that a dope smoking cocaine snorting misfit who can't even decide what his name is, isn't Commander in Chief material. Just because the civilian population has drunk the Kool-aid doesn't mean that military must join in.

The sad thing is, withe his drug use and multiple identities Barack Hussein Obama couldn't get a security clearance to wash pots and pans on a military base, and save the SCOTUS actually embracing the U.S. Constitution and enforcing the requirements for the Office of U.S. Presdident, this fraud will have keys to the football.

[edit on 2/1/2009 by Mirthful Me]

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >> ^^TOP^^