Poll for Military Papers Finds Troops' Support for War Plunging

[ECW]

NEW YORK It's often written or said in the media that, despite public opposition to the Iraq war here at home, military personnel strongly back President Bush's handling of the conflict. But a poll for the Military Times newspapers, released Friday, shows that more troops disapprove of the president’s handling of the war than approve of it.

It came on the day that at least four more Americans died in the war, pushing the monthly total to 107, the high point for the year -- and the total figure to 2,997, near the milestone of 3,000.

Barely one in three service members approve of the way the president is handling the war, according to the new poll for the four papers (Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Times). In another startling finding, only 41% now feel it was the right idea to go to war in Iraq in the first place.

And the number who feel success there is likely has shrunk from 83% in 2004 to about 50% today. A surprising 13% say there should be no U.S. troops in Iraq at all.

This comes even though only about one in ten called their overall political views "liberal."

The annual mail survey was conducted Nov. 13 through Dec. 22. Among the respondents, two in three have deployed at least once to Iraq or Afghanistan.

Nearly three-quarters of the respondents think today’s military is stretched too thin to be effective.

"The poll has come to be viewed by some as a barometer of the professional career military," the Military Times wrote on Friday. "It is the only independent poll done on an annual basis. The margin of error on this year’s poll is plus or minus 3 percentage points."

While approval of Bush’s handling of the war has plunged, approval for his overall performance as president remains at 52%.

The poll also found that while the personnel believe the public has a positive view of them, they are convinced the media do not — only 39 % said they think the media have a favorable view of the troops.

"While President Bush always portrays the war in Iraq as part of the larger war on terrorism, many in the military are not convinced," the Military Times reported. "The respondents were split evenly — 47 percent both ways — on whether the Iraq war is part of the war on terrorism. The rest had no opinion."

When you lose the confidence of the military, you know things are pretty F***ed up. Surprising.

The Story (http://editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003526245&imw=Y)

[Waffletush]

When you lose the confidence of the military, you know things are pretty F***ed up. Surprising.

Double-edged sword. Check out what your article said about the media...

only 39 % said they think the media have a favorable view of the troops.

Guess the media's bias is pretty F***ed up as well.

[ECW]

But it's not the media that is sending troops to a war, is it?

[Thirdparty]

But it's not the media that is sending troops to a war, is it?


I can speak from experience that the armed services of this nation are intelligent and have opinions (despite what Sen. Kerry thinks :cool:). Many are concerned about the situation.

However, waffletush brings up a good point...the media NEVER covers good news out of Iraq, only bad. If you only listed to someone bring you bad news day after day, soon you would be glum too.

It will be interesting in the future to see how much role for better or worse the media had in the execution of this war.

Finally , you are right, ECW, the media does not send troops to war. However, why are you crying over spilt milk? We are there, no sense crying about it, and rather than being negative, lets come up with a game plan and figure things out.

[Oedipus Rex]

The Left are always using the military to push their opinions. Many soldiers think we're winning the war until they come home and start reading the newspapers. Go figure.

Poll time...

How many of you guys here have actually served in the Armed Services?

I esp. want to here from the card carrying Left.

[Buck Laser]

The Left are always using the military to push their opinions. Many soldiers think we're winning the war until they come home and start reading the newspapers. Go figure.

Poll time...

How many of you guys here have actually served in the Armed Services?

I esp. want to here from the card carrying Left.

If you mean by "card-carrying left" members of the ACLU (I've been a member since 1986), I'm a veteran of the Korean war. I served in the Army, 1953-56 in a field artillery missile battalion, but my unit was never deployed overseas. Is that military enough for you?

[Oedipus Rex]

The Left are always using the military to push their opinions. Many soldiers think we're winning the war until they come home and start reading the newspapers. Go figure.

Poll time...

How many of you guys here have actually served in the Armed Services?

I esp. want to here from the card carrying Left.

If you mean by "card-carrying left" members of the ACLU (I've been a member since 1986), I'm a veteran of the Korean war. I served in the Army, 1953-56 in a field artillery missile battalion, but my unit was never deployed overseas. Is that military enough for you?


Yep. That's all I asked.

Now, how about some other Lefties out there? Served?

[underdawg]

I was a medic in the 2/75 Ranger Bn at Ft Lewis WA. I served from 1985-1988. I was liberal then and liberal now.

[ECW]

The Left are always using the military to push their opinions. Many soldiers think we're winning the war until they come home and start reading the newspapers. Go figure.

Poll time...

How many of you guys here have actually served in the Armed Services?

I esp. want to here from the card carrying Left.

If you mean by "card-carrying left" members of the ACLU (I've been a member since 1986), I'm a veteran of the Korean war.Â*Â*I served in the Army, 1953-56 in a field artillery missile battalion, but my unit was never deployed overseas.Â*Â*Is that military enough for you?


Yep. That's all I asked.

Now, how about some other Lefties out there? Served?


How about the rightwingers here on this board? I know of one (Thirdparty) but have any of the rest of you served your country? Let's see how the shoe fits on the right foot.

[ECW]

But it's not the media that is sending troops to a war, is it?


I can speak from experience that the armed services of this nation are intelligent and have opinions (despite what Sen. Kerry thinks :cool:). Many are concerned about the situation.

However, waffletush brings up a good point...the media NEVER covers good news out of Iraq, only bad. If you only listed to someone bring you bad news day after day, soon you would be glum too.

It will be interesting in the future to see how much role for better or worse the media had in the execution of this war.

Finally , you are right, ECW, the mediaÂ*Â*does not send troops to war. However, why are you crying over spilt milk? We are there, no sense crying about it, and rather than being negative, lets come up with a game plan and figure things out.


Crying? Me? Only for the parents of the troops who died fighting a war that should never have been fought in the first place (and we have known each other long enough that you can verify that statement). I respect your service, my friend, more than you will ever know but I will disagree with you on this point.

The media DOES point out good things that happen in Iraq. The one paper I am most familiar with (the NYT) has run a number of stories on rebuilt schools, hospitals, and services. But it is also the responsibility of the press to report on stuff that goes wrong like foul water treatment plants for our military bases, sectarian violence, and decreased electrical power due to sabotage.

Let's come up with a game plan? Oh, God, brother, I wish your president had the mental faculties to actually come up with a plan that is more than Stay The Course. His legacy is tied to this conflict and it is his pride (and very little else) that is keeping us there in the middle of what has become a religious war. He ain't leaving until someone forces him to. Gerald Ford knew better than to rush into Iraq. Bush 41 knew better than to rush in there. Only this ideologically driven uberpatriot did not have the sense to stay out. If you have a game plan, I would be most anxious to hear it.

One little saying keeps coming to my mind when thinking about this war:

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

[Oedipus Rex]

The Left are always using the military to push their opinions. Many soldiers think we're winning the war until they come home and start reading the newspapers. Go figure.

Poll time...

How many of you guys here have actually served in the Armed Services?

I esp. want to here from the card carrying Left.

If you mean by "card-carrying left" members of the ACLU (I've been a member since 1986), I'm a veteran of the Korean war. I served in the Army, 1953-56 in a field artillery missile battalion, but my unit was never deployed overseas. Is that military enough for you?


Yep. That's all I asked.

Now, how about some other Lefties out there? Served?


How about the rightwingers here on this board? I know of one (Thirdparty) but have any of the rest of you served your country? Let's see how the shoe fits on the right foot.


Yep. 450th MP out of Muscle Shoals, Alabama. But I lived in Huntsville, Alabama.

How about you?

[Buck Laser]

Yep. 450th MP out of Muscle Shoals, Alabama. But I lived in Huntsville, Alabama.

How about you?


So that was National Guard, like Bush?

[ECW]

Yep. 450th MP out of Muscle Shoals, Alabama. But I lived in Huntsville, Alabama.

How about you?


Nope. You cannot be as anti-war as I am (and have been my entire life) and then agree to learn how to kill people. It might work for others but it never sat right with me. Besides, my religion forbids killing people and having an "in" with the Almighty is more important to me than pleasing some member of the draft board.

As for your veteran status, thank you for your service.

[Thirdparty]

Yep. 450th MP out of Muscle Shoals, Alabama. But I lived in Huntsville, Alabama.

How about you?


Nope. You cannot be as anti-war as I am (and have been my entire life) and then agree to learn how to kill people. It might work for others but it never sat right with me. Besides, my religion forbids killing people and having an "in" with the Almighty is more important to me than pleasing some member of the draft board.

As for your veteran status, thank you for your service.



ECW,

I appreciate your religious beliefs. I am a Christian also, and believe Christ said "no greater love is this, that a man lay down his life for a friend.".

Throughout the history of Christendom many Christians, such as Quakers, Mennonites, et. al. have followed a pacifistic route. However, some of us also believe in that which was first formulated by Augustine and Aquinas, that you can have just reasons for going to war, such as self-defense, last resort, etc.

Just pointing out that not all Christians are pacifists.

[Oedipus Rex]

Yep. 450th MP out of Muscle Shoals, Alabama. But I lived in Huntsville, Alabama.

How about you?


So that was National Guard, like Bush?


No, it was the Reserves. But I did serve in GW1.

[ECW]

ECW,

I appreciate your religious beliefs. I am a Christian also, and believe Christ said "no greater love is this, that a man lay down his life for a friend.".

Throughout the history of Christendom many Christians, such as Quakers, Mennonites, et. al. have followed a pacifistic route. However, some of us also believe in that which was first formulated by Augustine and Aquinas, that you can have just reasons for going to war, such as self-defense, last resort, etc.

Just pointing out that not all Christians are pacifists.


I believe in defending myself but not to the point of killing another person. I make a bad fit for the military lifestyle and I know it. How you deal with your actions towards our fellow men in the face of the Creator is your deal. I got no problem with it. I'm already quite content with mine.

The point here is that people who feel like you do are now saying we made a big mistake. I agree.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

I was a medic in the 2/75 Ranger Bn at Ft Lewis WA. I served from 1985-1988. I was liberal then and liberal now.


Pecker inspectors don't really count.

Personal attacks such as this one will garner warning points very quickly

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

I was a medic in the 2/75 Ranger Bn at Ft Lewis WA. I served from 1985-1988. I was liberal then and liberal now.


Pecker inspectors don't really count.

Personal attacks such as this one will garner warning points very quickly


"Pecker inspector" is military slang for a medic.

[Thirdparty]

ECW,

I appreciate your religious beliefs. I am a Christian also, and believe Christ said "no greater love is this, that a man lay down his life for a friend.".

Throughout the history of Christendom many Christians, such as Quakers, Mennonites, et. al. have followed a pacifistic route. However, some of us also believe in that which was first formulated by Augustine and Aquinas, that you can have just reasons for going to war, such as self-defense, last resort, etc.

Just pointing out that not all Christians are pacifists.


I believe in defending myself but not to the point of killing another person. I make a bad fit for the military lifestyle and I know it. How you deal with your actions towards our fellow men in the face of the Creator is your deal. I got no problem with it. I'm already quite content with mine.

The point here is that people who feel like you do are now saying we made a big mistake. I agree.


Ah, I don't quite understand. Many are saying that this meets the just war criteria. Some do not. Some say it meets jus ad bellum others say no, jus en bello. Conduct vs. criteria. It is a bit more complex than you make it out to be .

[ECW]

War is never a simple prospect. This one was made to be a done deal by our imperious leaders and many people bought it. I never did.

You will recall our discussions on another forum to that extent. When a war is entered into on such flimsy pretexts and especially when it is made clear from the start that opposing voices are shouted down, castigated, called traitors, and disregarded with such impunity it was destined to be a fiasco.

I called this a quagmire more than a year ago and you crawled all over me for it. Seems like the opinions of the men and women who are fighting it have caught up to where I was a year ago. It will take another year for them to see that this is a civil war and we need to get the hell out.

More troops isn't the answer. The opportunity for that is long past. Unless we can get Maliki to call off the dogs (his Shia militias) and have an Arab League Force come in and suppliment our troops, Iraq is a lost cause just like Lebanon was. Only when they get tired of killing each other will it stop.

[Viper2]

ECW:
How about the rightwingers here on this board? I know of one (Thirdparty) but have any of the rest of you served your country? Let's see how the shoe fits on the right foot.

I did Nam 9/60 thru 6/61 CIAMICO.

Consider the following if you would - only a portion of the article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/05/AR2006110500770.html?referrer=email

Soldiers in Iraq Say Pullout Would Have Devastating Results
By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 6, 2006; Page A13

FORWARD OPERATING BASE SYKES, Iraq, Nov. 5 -- For the U.S. troops fighting in Iraq, the war is alternately violent and hopeful, sometimes very hot and sometimes very cold. It is dusty and muddy, calm and chaotic, deafeningly loud and eerily quiet.

The one thing the war is not, however, is finished, dozens of soldiers across the country said in interviews. And leaving Iraq now would have devastating consequences, they said.

With a potentially historic U.S. midterm election on Tuesday and the war in Iraq a major issue at the polls, many soldiers said the United States should not abandon its effort here. Such a move, enlisted soldiers and officers said, would set Iraq on a path to civil war, give new life to the insurgency and create the possibility of a failed state after nearly four years of fighting to implant democracy.

"Take us out of that vacuum -- and it's on the edge now -- and boom, it would become a free-for-all," said Lt. Col. Mark Suich, who commands the 1st Squadron, 89th Cavalry Regiment just south of Baghdad. "It would be a raw contention for power. That would be the bloodiest piece of this war."

The soldiers declined to discuss the political jousting back home, but they expressed support for the Bush administration's approach to the war, which they described as sticking with a tumultuous situation to give Iraq a chance to stand on its own.

"We'll pull their feet out from under them if we leave," Lingenfelter said.
"It's still fragile enough now that if the coalition were to leave, it would embolden the insurgents. A lot of people have put their trust and faith in us to see it to the end. It would be an extreme betrayal for us to leave."
Sgt. Jonathan Kirkendall, 23, of Falls City, Neb., said he fears that many Americans think that building the country to viability will be "quick and easy," when he believes it could take many years. Kirkendall, of the 2nd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division in Baghdad, is on his third deployment to Iraq and celebrated his 21st and 23rd birthdays here.

"If they say leave in six months, we'll leave in six months. If they say six years, it's six years," said Kirkendall, who is awaiting the birth of his first daughter, due next week.

"I'm just an average soldier, and I'll do what they tell me to do. I'm proud to be a part of it, either way it goes, but I'd like to see it through."

And:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20061206-112927-7374r.htm

Troops unmoved by policy debate
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
December 7, 2006

Troops on the ground in Iraq are not bothered by outside commissions such as the Iraq Study Group recommending new military strategies, former officers said yesterday.

And soldiers do not mind frank talk, such as Defense Secretary-designate Robert M. Gates saying at his Senate confirmation hearing this week that the United States is neither winning nor losing in Iraq.

"What we're not winning is the nation building," said retired Marine Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong, the deputy commander of U.S. Central Command when the U.S.-led coalition toppled Saddam Hussein. "The troops know exactly what they're doing and they know basically that in 14 out of 18 provinces, that they are winning the war on the ground."
Gen. DeLong said the real enemy is sectarian violence. Until the Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims stop killing each other, the United States can take only limited steps to end the fighting.

In any war or armed conflict you will have those service members who will at one time or another gripe or complain - but that's true of any occupation in life. So to take the few that do, and push that as if it was the majority IMHO does a disservice and defrauds the public.

[Viper2]

But it's not the media that is sending troops to a war, is it?


No argument there - however, it is the media that reports the war. Ever since the imbedded reporters came out of Iraq, the slant has been negative, plain and simple. What do you hear about constantly is body counts of soldiers, and so many assassinated or blown up because of sectarian violence and bickering.

So, that begs the question "Is all our troops do is just kill the enemy?"

Answer, no - that's why I started two threads about the good that these brave American service members have accomplished in Afghanistan and Iraq, in the hopes that those of you who actually take the time to view the articles can appreciate our troops a little more, and realize that they do care that their missions can be accomplished, and appreciated.

[Viper2]

The Left are always using the military to push their opinions. Many soldiers think we're winning the war until they come home and start reading the newspapers. Go figure.

Poll time...

How many of you guys here have actually served in the Armed Services?

I esp. want to here from the card carrying Left.


See my answer to ECW above.

[Viper2]

I was a medic in the 2/75 Ranger Bn at Ft Lewis WA. I served from 1985-1988. I was liberal then and liberal now.



Any short arm inspections :D:D

Hey, thanks for your service.

[Viper2]

ECW:
The media DOES point out good things that happen in Iraq. The one paper I am most familiar with (the NYT) has run a number of stories on rebuilt schools, hospitals, and services.

How many times, in what section and on what page - certainly not the front, like the 58 straight days about Abu Garhaib.

[Viper2]

Nope. You cannot be as anti-war as I am (and have been my entire life) and then agree to learn how to kill people. It might work for others but it never sat right with me. Besides, my religion forbids killing people and having an "in" with the Almighty is more important to me than pleasing some member of the draft board.

I sincerely respect your religious beliefs - I am a Christian, and in case you were unaware - God has specific laws and directives concerning "war".

[Viper2]

Thirdparty:
ECW,

I appreciate your religious beliefs. I am a Christian also, and believe Christ said "no greater love is this, that a man lay down his life for a friend.".

Throughout the history of Christendom many Christians, such as Quakers, Mennonites, et. al. have followed a pacifistic route. However, some of us also believe in that which was first formulated by Augustine and Aquinas, that you can have just reasons for going to war, such as self-defense, last resort, etc.

Just pointing out that not all Christians are pacifists.

Amen brother - service and sacrifice.

[Viper2]

ECW:
I believe in defending myself but not to the point of killing another person. I make a bad fit for the military lifestyle and I know it. How you deal with your actions towards our fellow men in the face of the Creator is your deal. I got no problem with it. I'm already quite content with mine.

I appreciate your honesty - not everyone is cut out for the riggors of military life.

Now, supposed in defending yourself, your wife or a loved one you actually did take another's life - then what.

[piratemonkey]

ECW:
I did Nam 9/60 thru 6/61 CIAMICO.

Consider the following if you would - only a portion of the article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/05/AR2006110500770.html?referrer=email

Soldiers in Iraq Say Pullout Would Have Devastating Results
By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 6, 2006; Page A13

And:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20061206-112927-7374r.htm

Troops unmoved by policy debate
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
December 7, 2006

You've gotta figure out the difference between anecdote and real evidence, Grim.

What you've quoted above are anecdotal stories.Â*Â*The survey done by the Military Times hopefully was done scientifically and the results statistically verified.

Anecdotes prove nothing... ever.Â*Â*E.g. I'm sure you could have found a couple of slaves in the South that were just fine with their lot in life.Â*Â*It doesn't mean most were.

Only 41% of our service members think we should have invaded Iraq.

41%

Most of our military types disagree with you, Grim. Doesn't that give you the slightest pause?

[Viper2]

piratemonkey:
You've gotta figure out the difference between anecdote and real evidence, Grim.

What you've quoted above are anecdotal stories.Â*Â*The survey done by the Military Times hopefully was done scientifically and the results statistically verified.

Anecdotes prove nothing... ever.Â*Â*E.g. I'm sure you could have found a couple of slaves in the South that were just fine with their lot in life.Â*Â*It doesn't mean most were.

Only 41% of our service members think we should have invaded Iraq.

41%

Most of our military types disagree with you, Grim.Â*Â*Doesn't that give you the slightest pause?

Did you read both articles in their entirety ???

So, you just sluff off the remarks of those who are / have been there as anecdotal - how damned disrespectful of you - and yet you live under the very rights and freedoms that these men and women lay down their lives for.

Did the "survey" account for every single service member in all the branches of the Armed Forces ????? Oops

Perhaps you should be certain of your stats before giving them out as absolute facts.

And the survey has a 3% error factor of those surveyed as well.

[ECW]

You've gotta figure out the difference between anecdote and real evidence, Grim.

What you've quoted above are anecdotal stories.Â*Â*The survey done by the Military Times hopefully was done scientifically and the results statistically verified.

Anecdotes prove nothing... ever.Â*Â*E.g. I'm sure you could have found a couple of slaves in the South that were just fine with their lot in life.Â*Â*It doesn't mean most were.

Only 41% of our service members think we should have invaded Iraq.

41%

Most of our military types disagree with you, Grim.Â*Â*Doesn't that give you the slightest pause?


When the military is losing confidence, and they are on the front lines, we should pay attention.

Only 35 percent of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42 percent said they disapproved. The president’s approval rating among the military is only slightly higher than for the population as a whole. In 2004, when his popularity peaked, 63 percent of the military approved of Bush’s handling of the war. While approval of the president’s war leadership has slumped, his overall approval remains high among the military.

Just as telling, in this year’s poll only 41 percent of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place, down from 65 percent in 2003. That closely reflects the beliefs of the general population today — 45 percent agreed in a recent USA Today/Gallup poll.

Facts are damnable things, pirate.

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

[piratemonkey]

So, you just sluff off the remarks of those who are / have been there as anecdotal - how damned disrespectful of you - and yet you live under the very rights and freedoms that these men and women lay down their lives for.

I'm listening to the MAJORITY of men and women in our military.

You are listening to the MINORITY of men and women in our military.


Did the "survey" account for every single service member in all the branches of the Armed Forces ????? Oops

Ooops?

You need to learn what a survey is, apparently.Â*Â*In a survey, they take a statistically representative sample so that "every single" person doesn't have to be asked what they think.

That's what makes it a survey and not a census.

Sample surveys collect information on only a sample from the population, in contrast to censuses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survey


Perhaps you should be certain of your stats before giving them out as absolute facts.

And the survey has a 3% error factor of those surveyed as well.


So that means as many as 44% may agree with you... or as little as 38%.Â*Â*Neither is a majority, is it?

The majority of people in the military agree with me, not you.Â*Â*I hope you can come to grips with that soon, or it's going to be a long year for you, my friend.

[Waffletush]

The majority of people in the military agree with me, not you.

No. The majority of those polled agree with you. Just like the majority of those polled after voting said Kerry was going to beat Bush.

Next.

[ECW]

The majority of people in the military agree with me, not you.

No.Â*Â*The majority of those polled agree with you.Â*Â*Just like the majority of those polled after voting said Kerry was going to beat Bush.

Next.


Irrelevant.

The survey results stand since you all failed to produce contrary evidence.

Next.

[BoogyMan]

I would like to see the numbers of respondants in comparison to each service as a whole. Obtaining those figures would go a long way in determining the validity of the polling as an indicator of military attitudes. I found the Military Times polling data page at the URL below:

http://www.militarycity.com/polls/rawdata/index.php

Anyone care to download the data and crunch the numbers? If I am interpreting the Excel file for the 2006 poll correctly there were 956 respondents.

[BoogyMan]

Any takers on looking at the poll data?

[piratemonkey]

The majority of people in the military agree with me, not you.

No.Â*Â*The majority of those polled agree with you.Â*Â*Just like the majority of those polled after voting said Kerry was going to beat Bush.

Next.


Ummm.... if it's a statistically significant sample, then it's accurate for the entire military within the margin of error.

That's Statistics 101.

The exit polling number were also within the margin of error.Â*Â*When the difference between two choices is less than the margin of error, you can't say the data shows one position or the other winning.

In the data we are looking at, the diference between the "we should not have invaded iraq" side and the other was much greater than the margin of error.

If you don't understand how statistics works, please don't criticize the data or people's interpretation of it.

[piratemonkey]

Any takers on looking at the poll data?


I'm going to make the rash assumption that the Military Times didn't bias the data analysis.

[BoogyMan]

Any takers on looking at the poll data?


I'm going to make the rash assumption that the Military Times didn't bias the data analysis.


I think you misunderstand my intent pirate.Â*Â*It appears that the survey was sent out to 6000 randomly selected armed forces members and only 956 responded (only 4000 of which were active duty and eligible for inclusion in the survey) and were included in the survey, unless I am looking at the raw data improperly.Â*Â*While the survey was certainly not intentionally stacked by its creators, I feel it reasonable to at least question the results based on the amount of participation.

I also wonder about the sample since participation was optional.

The raw poll data can be obtained here: http://www.militarycity.com/polls/rawdata/index.php

The information as to the methodology for the poll can be obtained here: http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_how.php

What is a reasonable % of participation for the results to be considered germain to a conclusion?

[piratemonkey]

What is a reasonable % of participation for the results to be considered germain to a conclusion?


Excellent question.

I'd want to see what kind of participation we see in other poll data from other sources.

I have heard that in national polls, if they get ~1200 responses, they consider it a valid sample size, but how many the 1200 is out of, I don't know.

On the other hand, if they had the same level of participation in 2005 when they got 65% instead of 41%, then the trend is the important part, not so much the actual numbers.

[ECW]

Any takers on looking at the poll data?


"Dammit, Jim, I'm a political junkie, not an accountant."

[Viper2]

So, you just sluff off the remarks of those who are / have been there as anecdotal - how damned disrespectful of you - and yet you live under the very rights and freedoms that these men and women lay down their lives for.

I'm listening to the MAJORITY of men and women in our military.

You are listening to the MINORITY of men and women in our military.


Did the "survey" account for every single service member in all the branches of the Armed Forces ????? Oops

Ooops?

You need to learn what a survey is, apparently.Â*Â*In a survey, they take a statistically representative sample so that "every single" person doesn't have to be asked what they think.

That's what makes it a survey and not a census.

Sample surveys collect information on only a sample from the population, in contrast to censuses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survey


Perhaps you should be certain of your stats before giving them out as absolute facts.

And the survey has a 3% error factor of those surveyed as well.


So that means as many as 44% may agree with you... or as little as 38%.Â*Â*Neither is a majority, is it?

The majority of people in the military agree with me, not you.Â*Â*I hope you can come to grips with that soon, or it's going to be a long year for you, my friend.


I am fully aware of what constitutes a survey, thank you very much.

You persist in using the results as published as a red herring to in someway show this is what the entire military feels - however, you also persist in ignoring the questions and conditions I previously stated - which by the way is more of a "scientific" way of looking at it even if only a survey:P

And nothing you have posted proves that it is the opinion of ALL Men & Women, Officers and Enlisted personnel of all 5 branches of the Armed Forces. Thus, until and if you can prove otherwise, I will claim, and rightfully so - that your using the results do not show this is the "complete opinion of the military" :P

[Viper2]

The majority of people in the military agree with me, not you.

No.Â*Â*The majority of those polled agree with you.Â*Â*Just like the majority of those polled after voting said Kerry was going to beat Bush.

Next.


Thank you. It would be nice if more civilian types actually attempted to understand the military a little more - then perhaps we'd see more politicians get kicked in the ass, wake up to the fact that they are Americans first, stop aiding and abetting the enemy, give our troops full support so we could get this damn thing over with and finally come home.

[Viper2]

BoogyMan:
Anyone care to download the data and crunch the numbers? If I am interpreting the Excel file for the 2006 poll correctly there were 956 respondents.

Thanks for the info

Here, let me use your link and post what it stated for all to read:

HOW WE DID IT
On Nov. 13, we mailed questionnaires to 6,000 people drawn at random from our list of active-duty subscribers.

Recipients were asked to mail their answers to an independent firm that machine-tabulated the results to guarantee anonymity. We stopped processing incoming questionnaires Dec. 22.

About 4,000 of the 6,000 people who received questionnaires turned out to be on active duty.

Only responses from active-duty personnel were tabulated. Of those 4,000, 954 responded.

The margin of error in the survey is plus or minus 3 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence interval, meaning there is a 95 percent probability that results of the poll are accurate within 3 percentage points.

Those polled differ from the military as a whole in important ways.

They tend to be older, higher in rank and more career-oriented.
Even so, it is perhaps the most representative independent sample possible because of the inherent challenges in polling service members, according to polling experts and military sociologists.

The annual poll has come to be viewed by some as a barometer of the professional career military.

6000 questionaires - 4000 actual active duty members and only 954 responded - that's 3046 who did not respond :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

And this is supposed to be definative ?????????? Oops

[Viper2]

ECW:
Irrelevant.

The survey results stand since you all failed to produce contrary evidence.

Next.

In light of the above, would you care to rephrase your statement ?????