user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Herzog, you're overlooking the fact that any criticism of an elected government official is punishable under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (Art. 88) for any active duty military officer who dares to speak out.
They are gagged, all except retirees.
OK, maybe you hadn't overlooked that fact, but that may be why there isn't more vocal opposition to current Pentagon policy under Rumsfeld.
The 4700 in mention are all retired, I did not include active military personnel.
Take nearly 5000 people, any group you like, and I'm sure you could get at least 7 who agree with just about any statement (aliens control the government, the world is flat, those enviromentally friendly hand driers in restrooms actually work, anything).
I'm not saying they don't have valid complaints, just that 7 out of 4,700 is not as big of a deal as the media has made it out to be.
How do we know those statistics are correct?
I'm sure many, many more may be just as vocal behind closed doors, as those seven.
Every retired member of the armed forces probably has something forceful to say, at least privately.
Zig: how do we know that many aren't saying positive things about him privately? Not everyone grabs a mike everytime they need to vent.
Why speculate, with no evidence, that the silent majority is opposed to Rumsfeld?
The facts are, the so far 7 have come out publicly against him, 4 in favor, and many thousands said nothing.
Forgive me, but it appears that you may be speculating that all those retired generals who haven't yet spoken out may be somehow approving of Rumsfeld's leadership, by mistaking their silence for silent acquiescence.
The opposite may be true.
Face it. Both of us are speculating.
Not at all. I never gave my opinion on what that majority was thinking.
I gave the facts on what an extreme minority were saying, and pointed out that they were an extreme minority.
You're the one who speculated that they are secretly opposed to Rumsfeld.
When the reality of the situation is that the media has made these 7 generals out to be some sort of massive resistance to Rumsfeld, when in reality they are so small a minority as to be almost inconsequential, and they've thus far mostly ignored the 4 who came out in favor of the secretary of defense.
(they haven't all ignored them ,I've seen interviews with two of them.)
(not taking a side on this, mind you, just saying..)
by Jyl on Tue Apr 18, 06 5:47pm
[+]
Hmmm. You're still speculating, herzog.
'99.8% staying out of it' doesn't equate to a 99.8% approval rating... and you know it. 
Yes, that's what I've been saying all along, it doesn't count as anything. Which means there isn't overwhelming disapproval of Rumsfeld, as some have been making it out to be. I never said there was overwhelming approval, nor did I ever once imply it.
Please find where I said that the silent majority was voting one way or another.
What I actually said was that they were silent, and did not voice an opinion. Please, don't put words in my mouth.
These generals were all involved with Iraq, either in the planning or execution of the war. One was the chair of the Joint Chiefs. This IS a big deal and rather unprecedented.
'Please, don't put words in my mouth.'
Please don't imply that I *may* have.
Unless I'm mistaken, you were pointing to the paltry .15% who have spoken out as fairly solid evidence that any opposition was scant, and that those seven ex-generals may be vastly outnumbered by those who approve of Rumsfeld's leadership... using their silence as some kind of divining rod.
I think that the 7 generals disapproving of Rumsfields execution of the war is significant.Some of these generals commanded men in Iraq so I think their criticism should be taken seriously.Moreover whether or not you agreed with this war I think we can all agree that there have been serious mistakes made in the planning and execution.
Another lesson in 'Fun with Statistics.'
I believe this event is unprecedented and highly significant.
Cath: and the 4 who came out in favor, a little more than half that opposed him, these don't count?
I love it, bush wins by a million vote margin, and it's trivial. Rumsfeld loses by a .06% margin and it's the most significant news of the decade.
Zig: at this point you have to be intentionally misreading everything I've written, because I've explained it quite clearly multiple times and you still refuse to get it.
Nope, herzog. I read and understood every word.
Nice bike you've got there. Does it pedal just as fast going forward?
No zig, you didn't.
Because I never once, in this entire ballot, or anywhere else, at any time in the entire scope of human history, said or even implied that a lack of opposition by these generals meant the supported Rumsfeld.
I said a lack of opposition meant just that: they aren't opposing him, at least not publicly. And since they have said nothing publicly on the issue their opinions should not be speculated on, and then used for either side.
The FACTS are: 7 against, 4 for, the majority not saying anything in public.
Look at those numbers, pretend it's a presidential eleciton and 7 voted for Bush, 4 against, and the rest of the population did not vote, would you call that overwhelming support for the president? Yes or no.
No.
But you said - or rather implied - much more by what you *didn't* say in your ballot title and intro, I think... By ommission and a heavy hint of ridicule.
Be honest.
You were trying to win friends and influence people over to your way of thinking again herz.
You could be a great recruitment officer.
From the BBC:
The recent wave of criticism of the US defence secretary by former top-ranking generals is all but unprecedented in the past generation.
At least seven retired generals have questioned his abilities in the past month, sparking a firestorm of debate and forcing the president to interrupt a holiday weekend to issue a statement of support.
"It is unusual for retired military officers to speak out in public and through the media against a current defence secretary - there is little doubt about that," says Harry Disch, the president of the Center for Media and Security.
While there may be open discussion about specific military issues such as readiness or modernisation, this debate is different, he says.
"What is unusual about the current criticism of Donald Rumsfeld is that it takes on a personal tone regarding judgement, management style, and, most importantly, competence."
Going public with his criticism of Mr Rumsfeld was "gut-wrenching, the hardest thing I have ever had to do in my life", one of the generals has said - but he retired from the service on principle in order to do so, he says.
"If I were still in uniform, I couldn't do this. I would be arrested," former General John Batiste told the BBC News website.
Like the other retired officers, he says the US did not plan properly for the occupation of Iraq.
"Strategically it has been a disaster, primarily because of a series of very bad decisions. The leader of the department of defence has to take responsibility," he says.
And sources say as many as two dozen other retired top-ranking officers may be on the verge of coming forward to join the public critics - some of whom have been retired for 15 years.
Also, take a look at ballot ##89605.
In it, the ballotmaker claims that ONE general's minority public opinion is correct against the landslide of opposing views.
*sniff* What's that smell? Is that the smell of hypocrisy?
|
|
