DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Does the Military Support Bush?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 19 of 19, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 10/28/2004 03:12:50 PM · #1
It's widely known that the officer corps of the military is far more conservative than the U.S. population as a whole; accordingly, it's not surprising that among the officer ranks support for Mr. Bush is likely to be extremely high. The enlisted ranks are a whole different animal, because they are far more diverse -- in terms of race, educational levels, socio-economic background, etc. Now, one can easily understand why, in a time of conflict, one is likely to support one's leader -- no matter who he or she is; this phenomenon alone goes a long way at explaining why, at this time, the military is far more like to support the Commander-in-Chief. One has to wonder, though, about the levels of dissent that I know exist among the military ranks. Oftentimes, dissent in the military is not reported on because access to the troops is well regulated, and because the pentagon has cracked down on those servicemen and women that have spoken against the war.

Here's an anecdote of a soldier from the 82nd Airborne:

"According to him, 75% of all soldiers want Bush defeated in the election and don't care who defeats him; anger and resentment are high. He says that 90% of the officers remain far out of harm's way, from lieutenants all the way up -- and that only about 10% of the officer corps has some reasonable concern for the troops. There is general understanding that the officers are hiding in holes, or holding back in well-defended buildings and quite cavalier about sending troops out for assignments and errands that are frequently stupid, poorly planned, and dangerous."

[...]

"Interestingly, he said that all enlisted men or officers in command positions have orders not to talk about their war experiences with the junior and fresh troops. He refuses -- and tells those people under him everything he knows because he thinks it will help save their lives. When he went to Afghanistan at the beginning, basically nothing was told to them; he kept repeating "nothing." And he said that their basic training in North Carolina was 180 degrees opposite of what they really needed to know for this kind of combat." [Full post here]

You have to read the entire thing... it's extremely powerful. Now, some may reflexively dismiss it, but from my experience I recognize the sentiments expressed in the post, and I know it -- in general -- to be true. I've recently spoken with some officers and enlisted men that served in Afghanistan and they all expressed the same level of frustration that this soldier from the 82nd spoke of.

Message edited by author 2004-10-28 15:28:16.
 10/28/2004 03:27:40 PM · #2
I find it interesting about the speculation. My immediate correspondance with military has been limited, but what they have told me contradicts what I'm hearing here and in the media.

Case in point -- My cousin's husband just came back from Iraq (and will be going back soon). My sister asked him, "what is it really like in Iraq?" His answer was that it was amazing. The people not only respected them (US/coalition forces), but offered to help in anyway possible. If that meant fighting beside them, then so be it. He said it was also neat to stand and watch the kids being able to go to school for the first time, or people sitting in cafes and coffee shops reading magazines and newspaper when before all they had was SH's propaganda.

Oh yea, he was voting for Bush (or already had) as were most of the others in his unit. Maybe because many of them agree with stuff a lot of you disagree with?

Oh, and another yeah, he is not some private being "brainwashed" into only hearing what his superiors tell him. He has worked his way up the ladder so to speak. Given a little time (running out the door right now), I'll find out his specifics.
 10/28/2004 03:45:20 PM · #3
How can anyone in the military support Kerry knowing his working for the enemy after his short stay in Vietnam? He should have been tried for treason.
 10/28/2004 04:08:02 PM · #4
If I were still in the military I would be supporting John Kerry; because, as I do now, I would have had a lot of respect for him knowing that he fought and served honorably and bravely. Moreover, I would've supported him further still, because, after serving in combat, he came back home to make sure that his brothers in uniform did not have to die needlessly.

I respect John Kerry, and think of him as brave, honorable and as a man of extreme integrity... I know he'll make a great president for all Americans and, too, know that he'll be an effective and admired Commander-in-Chief. I'd rather have John Kerry as my leader, in combat and in civilian life, because he truly lived up to the motto I firmly came to believe in, Leave no man behind. John Kerry lived up to that motto both in combat and at the home front.

Originally posted by David Ey:
How can anyone in the military support Kerry knowing his working for the enemy after his short stay in Vietnam? He should have been tried for treason.


Message edited by author 2004-10-28 16:08:13.
 10/28/2004 05:32:36 PM · #5
It is plain to see, you don't know John Kerry.
 10/28/2004 06:09:59 PM · #6
But will their ballots get counted? Word from Afghanistan is that most of my son's unit voted for Bush, However they did not get absentee ballots in time so they used provisional write in ballots. Those ballots were never counted in the 2000 election.
 10/28/2004 07:35:27 PM · #7
The facts on the casualties....

Killed in action - 540
Died later of combat wounds - 129
Died while missing in action - 8
Died while captured - 3
Deaths by accident - 205
Illness - 33
Self inflicted - 34
Homicide - 6

Total enlisted - 873
Total Warrant officer - 34
Total officer - 93

Active duty - 812
Total reserve - 188

White - 699 (71.4%)
Black - 120 (12.3%)
Hispanic - 114 (11.4%)
Other - 46 (4.7%)
Male 977 (97.7%)
Female 23 (2.3%)

May each soldier and their family find the solice they seek in the comfort of their God. May America be ever grateful for these scarifices. May success come swiftly and may we have the strength as a nation to see this through.

In time we (americans and perhaps the world body) will get a glimpse of the tangled web of deceit between a defeated dictator, the UN, and various governments. This defeated dictator had a score to settle with the US. He had a vendetta to repay. He saw firsthand a successful application on American soil (9-11) and it surely piqued his salivory glands to envision a larger more deadly attack in the future, a future where he was "free" to trade, barter, coerce, and manipulate even more than under the "restrictions" of sanctions.

The soldiers numbered above, did indeed die to protect America. The fact that women and children can now go to school is simply an added bonus.

My deepest appreciation to all who serve.

Flash
 10/28/2004 07:39:27 PM · #8
One can also find detailed facts on the US and coalition casualties here: //icasualties.org/oif/. The latest US casualty count in Iraq is 1,111.
 10/28/2004 07:46:42 PM · #9
Originally posted by Flash:
......where he was "free" to trade, barter, coerce, and manipulate even more than under the "restrictions" of sanctions.
Flash


....and we all know WHO he was conducting this business with. In my eyes, they too are the enemy.
 10/28/2004 09:32:52 PM · #10
âIt might be interesting to wonder why all the generals see it the same way, and all those that never fired a shot and are really hell-bent to go to war see it a different way."

Gen. Anthony Zinni (Ret.), U. S. Marine Corps,

former Commander of U. S. Central Command

I wonder who he's voting for.

10/28/2004 09:36:59 PM · #11
Retired General Tony McPeak, the Air Force Chief of Staff during the first Gulf War, a former fighter pilot who campaigned for Bob Dole in 1996 and for George W. Bush in 2000, say Bush's first 3 years have been "a national disaster", but John Kerry is "up to the task" of re-building. General McPeak says Bush has "alienated our friends, damaged our credibility around the world, reduced our influence to an all-time low in my lifetime, given hope to our enemies."

I wonder who he's voting for.

Republicans for Humility
 10/28/2004 09:38:18 PM · #12
Originally posted by bdobe:
One can also find detailed facts on the US and coalition casualties here: //icasualties.org/oif/. The latest US casualty count in Iraq is 1,111.


US Killed in Aghanitan Currently 141.
 10/28/2004 09:40:24 PM · #13
If your info is right than why is it that democrats always suppress the vote of the military?
 10/28/2004 09:42:58 PM · #14
"From the outset, George W. Bush adopted an overbearing approach to America's role in the world, relying upon military might and righteousness, insensitive to the concerns of traditional friends and allies, and disdainful of the United Nations,'' said the group, Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, in a statement Wednesday. They said Bush should be defeated, without explicitly endorsing Kerry, 60.

"Which candidate we can trust to protect our national security and manage successfully our relations with the rest of the world for the next four years is the fundamental and most important issue in the upcoming election. On the evidence of the past four years, that person is not the incumbent president, George W. Bush."

full article at:
Diplomats and Military Commanders for a Change
 10/28/2004 09:43:45 PM · #15
Why would any military personel vote for him?

He has basically called them a bunch of bumbling idiots. For or against the war, you cant just shoot your mouth off about things that are unsubstanciated or give an advantage to the enemy during a time of war that may harm troops.

And he has done it in TWO wars.
 10/28/2004 09:48:42 PM · #16
And who is naive to suggest that the UN should get out ear. This is a crooked organizations which has produced the now unfamous oil for food, where the French, the Germans and the Russians governments were on the take. George Bush broke up this wicked circle. Does it not make sense why they did not support us.
 10/28/2004 09:59:38 PM · #17
Originally posted by emorgan49:
Originally posted by bdobe:
One can also find detailed facts on the US and coalition casualties here: //icasualties.org/oif/. The latest US casualty count in Iraq is 1,111.


US Killed in Aghanitan Currently 141.


Thanks for posting this URL, I had not visited that section of the site.
 10/28/2004 10:24:30 PM · #18
Here's a very interesting excerpt from an interview by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! in which she's interviewing Adam Cohen, editorial writer for the NY Times on voter suppression and fraud in the 2004 election. They touch on many topics concerning the election but I'm only including an excerpt that relates to how voting is done by the military overseas. The whole interview can be accessed at:
Democracy Now.

"AMY GOODMAN: The military. How does the military vote?

ADAM COHEN: Well, again, it's shocking how little transparency there is about this. You would think that people who are handling federal votes in a presidential election would have it all written down somewhere, and we would all be able to see how it's done and be sure it's fair. Completely not true. In this year's election, there was a little bit of a dust-up over the fact that two states said they would allow the military to e-mail non-confidential ballots. A bunch of us wrote about that.

AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean, ânon-confidential ballots?â

ADAM COHEN: When you e-mail a vote, if you are a soldier and e-mail your vote, it's not a secret ballot. Your vote is an attachment to an email that anyone along the way can read. There's controversy about that, but then it led us to realize, 37 states allow the military to vote by fax. Also not a secret ballot.

AMY GOODMAN: Where are you faxing to?

ADAM COHEN: You have two choices. You can fax to your local elections office, but what the Pentagon has done for your convenience, you soldiers around the world, is they have set up a hotline that you can fax to, which goes to Washington. So, I called the Pentagon and I said, could you explain to me where these non-secret ballots that come in from soldiers go? Do they go into the Pentagon? How do we know that you're -- they're supposed to then send these ballots to the correct states, to the correct county offices. I said, could you please explain how we know that you're sending them off the way they should be sent? That you're sending all the votes for both candidates? They said, actually, these ballots, the faxed ballots from soldiers and the e-mailed ballots from soldiers don't come to the Pentagon, they go to a defense contractor called Omega Technologies. Well, I had never heard of Omega Technologies. It seems that it had been never described anywhere. It was not in any written materials that I could find. I talked to Omega Technologies. It turns out it is a Pentagon contractor. The CEO of it is a contributor to the Republican Congressional Re-election Committee. In this cycle, she's given $6,600. She's on a committee of this Republican Congressional Re-election Committee. She's handling the non-secret ballots, and there's no oversight of any kind. There's no ability for the parties or the candidates to go in and make sure that the ballots are being handled correctly, and that they're all being transferred to the states. I mean, we don't know that they're not, say, throwing out the John Kerry ballots. It's just shocking. The other thing we don't know is how many ballots get handled in this way. There seem to be no reporting requirements. We have no idea how many ballots go in, how many come out. One little disturbing thing that I learned is that this is the process that was used in 2000. Remember when the military ballots came in at the last minute in Florida and may have changed the outcome of the election? We don't know how many went through this office. Now, I should say, many of them went directly to county elections offices, and it may be that this office only handled a few ballots, but we really don't know.

AMY GOODMAN: Do they say? Have you talked to the head of Omega Technologies?

ADAM COHEN: I talked to the head of Omega Technologies, and all I can say is it was very confusing. She said to me that she was very angry because we had written that she handled the actual ballots because this was not true. And I said to her, âWell, the Pentagon says that you are handling them this year and you have in the past.â When I talked to her again, she admitted that they had handled actual ballots, but she seemed unaware of that the first time. They now say that it's a matter of hundreds of ballots an election. I think they said 300 or so. We have no idea if that's true. We have no idea if they have taken all of the ballots -- if they have reported them accurately and transferred them accurately.

AMY GOODMAN: And if these are not secret ballots, what does it mean if you decide not to vote for your commander in chief?

ADAM COHEN: Well, people who know the military have said to me this is a huge issue. It could mean a lot. Because it's not only not secret at the Pentagon level, it may not actually be secret at your base, wherever you are. You may have to take your ballot into the commanding officer's office. That might be the only fax machine on the base. His secretary or he himself may be leaning over the fax machine. Absolutely, there could be ramifications. It's often said that the commanders in the military are very Republican, that the lower-level soldiers less so. It can have a lot of ramifications. There is no legitimate reason for having this not be a secret ballot. It's not clear to me that, you know, that isn't one of the intentions in all of this, is to make sure that, you know, voters in the military feel they are being watched a little bit.
10/29/2004 01:41:02 PM · #19
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
ADAM COHEN: I talked to Omega Technologies. It turns out it is a Pentagon contractor. The CEO of it is a contributor to the Republican Congressional Re-election Committee. In this cycle, she's given $6,600.


A little guilt by inuendo, eh? So, I guess since executives and employees of CNN have donated over $5,000, entirely to Democratic candidates, and CBS executives and employees have donated over $100,000, almost entirely to Democratic candidates or causes, and NBC executives and employees have donated over $150,000, entirely to Democratic candidates or causes, by the same inuendo they should be suspect and recuse themselves from reporting on the election. But, oh, wait, we have more than inuendo going for us there, now don't we?

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
ADAM COHEN: I talked to the head of Omega Technologies, and all I can say is it was very confusing. She said to me that she was very angry because we had written that she handled the actual ballots because this was not true. And I said to her, âWell, the Pentagon says that you are handling them this year and you have in the past.â When I talked to her again, she admitted that they had handled actual ballots, but she seemed unaware of that the first time.


Now this is an interesting little twist in the wording. He apparently writes a story based on the same meaningless inuendo above and accuses her of handling those ballots with her own partisan little hands, to which she rightly objects. Then he makes it sound like he's managed to extract the hidden truth from her by getting her to "admit" that they had handled actual ballots.

The first deep thought that comes to mind? DUH!!!

Because they, the company, handled ballots does not mean that she, the person who dared contribute to a republican campaign, was in there manipulating the ballots.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
ADAM COHEN: They now say that it's a matter of hundreds of ballots an election. I think they said 300 or so. We have no idea if that's true. We have no idea if they have taken all of the ballots -- if they have reported them accurately and transferred them accurately.


And the rest follows the same baseless innuendo. There's hardly a fact in that entire interview, and the few facts that are there don't really prove, or even imply, anything. Its all just nod-and-wink inuendo. "I think they said 300 or so" - but we have no idea because we know all Republicans are evil little slugs who lie, cheat and steal whenever they can - John Kerry even told us so.

And so on, and so on... The democrat "Steal the Vote" campaign is in full swing.

Message edited by author 2004-10-29 15:53:43.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 10:58:16 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 10:58:16 AM EDT.