Note to Michael Moore: Bush has the Support of Uniformed Men and Women by 3-to-1

[revprez]

Annenberg uncovers what everybody knew four years ago and seem to forget.

[budullewraagh]

perhaps you should write that to michael moore. it sorta figures that they support bush, as they are filled with propaganda to no end. of course, the ones that actually see the horrors of war (not the nintendo pilots) tend to go against the war itself and the president that backed it.

[Pangloss]

it sorta figures that they support bush, as they are filled with propaganda to no end

 

I have a problem with that statement. Do you need me to elaborate what it is, or would you like to amend it a bit on your first? I think perhaps you didn't quite mean that as it sounded.

[SubJunk]

I think if anyone were to be free of propaganda (or indoctrination as you seem to be implying) it would be the soldiers, as they're the first to see the blatent truth of what's really going on.

[Glider]

Soldiers see what's going on. They have to rely on what they're told by their senior officers for why.

[SubJunk]

Although you make a good point, I think you're under-estimating soldier's intellienge just a bit.

[Sayonara]

It's not really a matter of intelligence, but of what information they have access to.

[revprez]

It's not really a matter of intelligence, but of what information they have access to.

 

How much access to information do you think is denied to the American soldier?

[Sayonara]

How much access to information do you think is denied to the American soldier?

I didn't mean to suggest that they are denied access to information, more that the joint chiefs of staff, politicians and military commanders don't sit them all down and tell them what role their orders will fulfill in the overall strategy.

[revprez]

Soldiers see what's going on. They have to rely on what they're told by their senior officers for why[/i'].

 

That seems to be an extraordinary, almost movie cliche, claim. You imply that servicemen and women are less capable than others to acquire and analyze information and as a result are intellectually more pliable than the general population. To me, that indicates a familiarity with the services extending no farther than the movie theater.

 

When it comes to national security matters, servicemen and women have an intellectual advantage over the general population--they at least speak the language. They are also more educated than the general population. Americans in uniform are more likely to be exposed to opportunities to demonstrate leadership, management, and analytical skills than the general population. The US warfighter tends to hold more conservative values than the general population.

 

Try crafting an argument from there instead of resorting to bad movie aphorisms.

[revprez]

I didn't mean to suggest that they are denied access to information, more that the joint chiefs of staff, politicians and military commanders don't sit them all down and tell them what role their orders will fulfill in the overall strategy.

 

1) Why do you claim that unit leadership doesn't clarify the role their men and women will play in a particular operation and what that operation means to the country?

 

2) Why do you imply that the general population is better informed?

[Sayonara]

1) Why do you claim that unit leadership doesn't clarify the role their men and women will play in a particular operation and what that operation means to the country?

 

2) Why do you imply that the general population is better informed?

I did not claim (1) and I certainly did not imply (2).

[revprez]

I did not claim (1) and I certainly did not imply (2).

 

You did say that "the joint chiefs of staff, politicians and military commanders don't sit them all down and tell them what role their orders will fulfill in the overall strategy."

 

All right. Why should I believe you understand the strategy (if there is a strategy) and the role American servicemen and women than people in uniform do?

[Sayonara]

You did say that "the joint chiefs of staff, politicians and military commanders don't sit them all down and tell them what role their orders will fulfill in the overall strategy."

Yes, I did. Notice how it's not the same as what you told me I said?

 

 

All right. Why should I believe you understand the strategy (if there is a strategy) and the role American servicemen and women than people in uniform do?

I did not claim to understand any particular strategy, nor does my point require that I do.

 

I am not sure where you are trying to go with this. It's really perfectly simple.

[revprez]

Yes, I did. Notice how it's not the same as what you told me I said?

 

Either you brought up a superfluous point or your claiming to posses some special knowledge servicemen and women do not.

 

I did not claim to understand any particular strategy, nor does my point require that I do.

 

Then what is your point?

[Sayonara]

Either you brought up a superfluous point or your claiming to posses some special knowledge servicemen and women do not.

Or you just don't understand what I wrote.

 

 

Then what is your point?

Re-read thread. It really is not complicated and duplicating the information is not necessary.

[Sayonara]

Oh wait, I see what's happening here.

 

You are adopting the notion that because I agree with one part of Glider's argument, I am attempting to justify the argument as a whole.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with him, but my explanation as to why troops on the ground may have a poor view of the overall picture was to illustrate how it is not really to do with intelligence. It was not supposed to involve any comparison between what the soldiers and the general public know.

[revprez]

Or you just don't understand what I wrote.

 

I think I do. Tell me where I'm wrong.

 

Re-read thread.

 

I started the thread.

 

It really is not complicated and duplicating the information is not necessary.

 

So we're back at where we started. Either you issued a non sequitur or believe you (or the general population) are better informed about national security affairs than the warfighters.

[Sayonara]

See previous post.

[Pangloss]

That's all well and good, Say, certainly the JCS don't sit down and go over everything with all of us. But I still have a problem with this statement:

 

it sorta figures that they support bush, as they are filled with propaganda to no end.

 

It requires a defense as to the claim that they are filled with propaganda. It also suggests that soldiers are not capable of making up their own minds. I'll be happy to keep an open mind about the former. The latter is indefensible.

[Sayonara]

Well, I don't particularly want to get involved with defending that quote too, but it seems to me that where you have said "not capable", it might be wiser (seeing as you are positing this as having been suggested, rather than stated) to use "not willing" or "not likely".

Which might be defensible, but we'd have to know more about the situation.

[Pangloss]

True.

 

I hope I haven't turned this into an anti-budullewraagh thing, which was not my intent at all. Nothing but respect here.

[Douglas]

A strident minority: anti-Bush US troops in Iraq.

 

Though military personnel lean conservative, some vocally support Kerry - or at least a strategy for swift withdrawal.

 

By Ann Scott Tyson | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

.

[Glider]

That seems to be an extraordinary, almost movie cliche, claim. You imply that servicemen and women are less capable than others to acquire and analyze information and as a result are intellectually more pliable than the general population..

There is no such implication. I refer to opportunity. The military may represent and fight for democracy, but it is not, in itself, a democracy. Soldiers in tactical situations rely on their senior officers and NCOs for all information concerning their aims and objectives. When confronted with other information, especially that which contradicts the information you have been given, you are going to believe the people who are there with you and who are senior to you. This for several reasons: 1) There is no room for debate in such situations. 2) You are more likely to believe people who are from your own 'ingroup' and with whom you identify. 3) As a human being, you are more likely to be sympathetic to views that provide a positive rationale for what you are doing and present it in a good light. 4) They are your senior officers and (within certain bounds) you have to obey them. This is easier to do effectively, if you believe them.

 

To me, that indicates a familiarity with the services extending no farther than the movie theater.

My familiarity with the military extends to a significantly greater depth than that.

 

When it comes to national security matters, servicemen and women have an intellectual advantage over the general population--they at least speak the language.

What?

 

They are also more educated than the general population.

Recruits are drawn from the general population, so this is not so. The tests required to enter the forces at a basic level are little more than filters to ensure literacy and basic competency in practical skills and learning ability. They may be more educated by the time they are trained, but that education will have been provided by their respective regiments.

 

Americans in uniform are more likely to be exposed to opportunities to demonstrate leadership, management, and analytical skills than the general population.

This is true of military personnel in most western forces.

 

The US warfighter tends to hold more conservative values than the general population.

So is this, but I fail to see how these latter four points relate to the original point.

 

 

 

Try crafting an argument from there instead of resorting to bad movie aphorisms.

 

“Warfighter”? Is that what you call your soldiers now?