Obama's approval amongst military members (1 Viewer)

saint_cajun78

Very Banned
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
4,721
Reaction score
2,765
Location
South Carolina
Offline
Only 36% of military members approve of the job he's done for the past 8 years. Very telling when you take a look at where our military has gone over the last 8 years. And having been in the military myself for the past 20 years I can totally agree with this percentage above.

edit with link to military times
http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/obama-legacy-military
 

nolaspe

nolaspe
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 4, 2003
Messages
11,593
Reaction score
24,704
Online
You do know that RT is a russian government-controlled 'news' source, right? You'd think as a 'patriot', that would be the last source you'd use, and there's no link to the supposed Military Times 'report' in this rt article from Jan. '15.
 

FuzzyDunlop

waste of paint
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
2,096
Reaction score
3,926
Offline
Shockingly, the numbers from the RT article are flat out wrong.

This is a direct link to the survey they are referencing:

The Obama era is over. Here's how the military rates his legacy

About 36 percent said they approve of his job as commander in chief.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...troops-has-unfavorable-view-obamas-years.html

Military officers had a higher opinion of Obama, compared to enlisted personnel, 44-to-35 percent.
Even Fox News was more accurate that RT. Imagine that.
 

Galbreath34

Very Banned
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
May 8, 2008
Messages
32,273
Reaction score
30,813
Offline
I think it did dip that low back in 2014. If you want a true poll for when he comes out, why not look to America instead of Russia?

The Obama era is over. Here's how the military rates his legacy

More than half of troops surveyed in the latest Military Times/Institute for Veterans and Military Families poll said they have an unfavorable opinion of Obama and his two-terms leading the military. About 36 percent said they approve of his job as commander in chief.

Their complaints include the president’s decision to decrease military personnel (71 percent think it should be higher), his moves to withdraw combat troops from Iraq (59 percent say it made America less safe) and his lack of focus on the biggest dangers facing America (64 percent say China represents a significant threat to the U.S.)

But more than two-thirds support Obama's mantra that securing America means building strong alliances with foreign powers. And more than 60 percent think his use of drones and special forces teams for precision strikes — instead of large-scale military operations — has helped U.S. national security.
Setting "more troop/more jobs" aside... The number two source of opposition is not staying bogged down in Iraq. Are you saying you're with that group? The number one source? Not going to war with China.

So yeah, I'm ok with people that want us to stay in Iraq and bomb China being miffed.
 

Galbreath34

Very Banned
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
May 8, 2008
Messages
32,273
Reaction score
30,813
Offline
Funny, you went with the graph, but we were looking at the same piece.
 

FuzzyDunlop

waste of paint
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
2,096
Reaction score
3,926
Offline
Funny, you went with the graph, but we were looking at the same piece.
The damn graph blew the margins, so I took it down, but yeah it is linked in the article.

Pretty interesting results all around, either way.
 
OP
saint_cajun78

saint_cajun78

Very Banned
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
4,721
Reaction score
2,765
Location
South Carolina
Offline
I stand corrected. ..36% is still very telling. When more than half the military want you gone then that paints a pretty clear picture of what kind of CINC you have been.
 

Galbreath34

Very Banned
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
May 8, 2008
Messages
32,273
Reaction score
30,813
Offline
Look at the reasons given for disapproval and approval. Do you agree with the agenda the disapprovers say caused them to say they did not approve?

Do you think we should go back into Iraq again? Do you think we should not focus on Iran and should focus on preparing to fight China? Or that we should be more focused on large scale high troop level invasions?

 

nolaspe

nolaspe
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 4, 2003
Messages
11,593
Reaction score
24,704
Online
I stand corrected. ..36% is still very telling. When more than half the military want you gone then that paints a pretty clear picture of what kind of CINC you have been.
Obama signed off on the mission to eliminate Bin Laden and has been hitting the Daesh pretty hard the past few yrs (which is a direct result of the mess W left in Iraq). Drone strikes have gone up and direct troop involvement in harm's way have gone down. Yeah, sounds like a CINC who hates our troops. Oh, and you can thank the your GOP 'heroes' for slashing mental health services for our veterans.
 
OP
saint_cajun78

saint_cajun78

Very Banned
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
4,721
Reaction score
2,765
Location
South Carolina
Offline
Look at the reasons given for disapproval and approval. Do you agree with the agenda the disapprovers say caused them to say they did not approve?

Do you think we should go back into Iraq again? Do you think we should not focus on Iran and should focus on preparing to fight China? Or that we should be more focused on large scale high troop level invasions?

Yes I do agree. The main reason being the massive drawdown in force size across the 5 branches. We are the smallest we have been in our Air Force's history! And that is a problem. We are doing more with less, but most outside the military view it as a reduction in Afghanistan and the Levant. No we have been reduced at our stateside bases and overseas bases. And let's not get started on pay and compensation!
 
OP
saint_cajun78

saint_cajun78

Very Banned
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
4,721
Reaction score
2,765
Location
South Carolina
Offline
Obama signed off on the mission to eliminate Bin Laden and has been hitting the Daesh pretty hard the past few yrs (which is a direct result of the mess W left in Iraq). Drone strikes have gone up and direct troop involvement in harm's way have gone down. Yeah, sounds like a CINC who hates our troops. Oh, and you can thank the your GOP 'heroes' for slashing mental health services for our veterans.
Please don't lecture me on what our military has done and is currently doing. I'm sitting in the middle east right now as I type this while you're home safe and sound. Your welcome.
And we have had our hands tied for years with this current administration when it comes to carrying out the most effective military strategies we are capable of carrying out. Plinking out roads and bridges are hardly the limitations of our arsenal. Meanwhile women and children are being killed while we only fly Air tasking ordered missions. Like it or not in order to win against these idiots you need to fight fire with fire..more boots on the ground to knock these radical extremists into the world beyond. Don't believe everything you hear and see on CNN...
 

Galbreath34

Very Banned
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
May 8, 2008
Messages
32,273
Reaction score
30,813
Offline
Fair enough and consistent to agree with the 51% that disapprove (or even the 29 that do so strongly). So I do think you're being sincere and honest.

Sorry, but more than a decade of adding boots on the ground and multiple surges (including one stamped by Obama that had more troops on the ground than the first surge) failing doesn't give me any more confidence in the military self-assessment of troop levels and effectiveness than the history of Vietnam or Korea showed. If you can't seal the deal in a decade getting backdoor deployment extensions to maintain high troop levels, you lose the ability to keep asking for more and more. We can respect your service without being willing to write an endless blank check for either failure or a mission so ill defined it can never be won.

Just as I respect a doctor for trying to save a life or a detective for pursuing an investigation, I respect our troops. In those cases I wouldn't be willing to support a doctor still working on a patient past rigor mortis trying to bring him back nor would I support paying an investigator to work a case 40 hours a week for 10 years with no end in sight. I'd admire the passion, but not condone the further effort. Disagreeing with someone blind to the forest for being stuck in the middle of it is not refusing support.
 
OP
saint_cajun78

saint_cajun78

Very Banned
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
4,721
Reaction score
2,765
Location
South Carolina
Offline
Galbreath 660931 said:
Fair enough and consistent to agree with the 51% that disapprove (or even the 29 that do so strongly). So I do think you're being sincere and honest.

Sorry, but more than a decade of adding boots on the ground and multiple surges (including one stamped by Obama that had more troops on the ground than the fsurge) failing doesn't give me any more confidence in the military self-assessment of troop levels and effectiveness than the history of Vietnam or Korea showed. If you can't seal the deal in a decade getting backdoor deployment extensions to maintain high troop levels, you lose the ability to keep asking for more and more. We can respect your service without being willing to write an endless blank check for either failure or a mission so ill defined it can never be won.

Just as I respect a doctor for trying to save a life or a detective for pursuing an investigation, I respect our troops. In those cases I wouldn't be willing to support a doctor still working on a patient past rigor mortis trying to bring him back nor would I support paying an investigator to work a case 40 hours a week for 10 years with no end in sight. I'd admire the passion, but not condone the further effort. Disagreeing with someone blind to the forest for being stuck in the middle of it is not refusing support.
Wow! I cannot believe you actually compared the wars in Vietnam and Korea to the current situation we are in. this is not a conventional war in the sense that we fought against those two other nations we are fighting a new type of enemy that does not follow the rules of engagement. Your complete and utter disregard to this fact shows me that you do not know the true facts of how we have come to this point. truth of the matter is that Obama prematurely took us out of Iraq before the job was completed thus thrusting us backwards and now we are trying to help the Iraqi military take back mosul. if we would have stayed and finished the job we would not be backtracking with less troops I might add. what a backhanded reply, you're going to sit there and try to put the blame on the military not getting the job done you my friend are not a patriot. if our troops wouldn't have been pulled out early as Obama tried so hard to do to make good on his promise, even though the job was not done and he knew this but instead he sucked up his pride and went through with it knowing he was screwing with the progress made. and as a result ISIS grew stronger in both Their military capabilities and the land that they controlled.
 

FuzzyDunlop

waste of paint
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
2,096
Reaction score
3,926
Offline
truth of the matter is that Obama prematurely took us out of Iraq before the job was completed thus thrusting us backwards and now we are trying to help the Iraqi military take back mosul. if we would have stayed and finished the job we would not be backtracking with less troops I might add. what a backhanded reply, you're going to sit there and try to put the blame on the military not getting the job done you my friend are not a patriot. if our troops wouldn't have been pulled out early as Obama tried so hard to do to make good on his promise, even though the job was not done and he knew this but instead he sucked up his pride and went through with it knowing he was screwing with the progress made. and as a result ISIS grew stronger in both Their military capabilities and the land that they controlled.
For someone that is attempting to lecture others on knowing the real facts, you sure seem to be misled about who was responsible for what in leaving Iraq.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...-u-s-troops-from-iraq/?utm_term=.22805915a717

In 2008, after extensive negotiations, President Bush and Iraqi leaders finalized a comprehensive Status of Forces Agreement, which set a path for curtailing the long U.S. military presence and gradually handing the Iraqi government more responsibility for its own security. As part of the agreement, the Bush administration agreed to remove all combat troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. After Obama took over in 2009, many U.S. officials, like many in Baghdad, wanted to strike a new arrangement that would leave a residual force to help Iraq face ongoing security challenges. Both sides abandoned efforts to strike a deal in October 2011, when it became clear that the Iraqi political leaders would not accept the Obama administration’s conditions regarding legal protections for remaining U.S. soldiers. At the time, many political observers believed that outcome suited the White House, where many leaders were eager to leave the messy conflict started by Obama’s predecessor in the past.
Several months later, on Dec. 15, 2011, Obama’s then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta visited Baghdad to officially lower the flag on the U.S. mission there.
Let me guess, fake news right?

Maybe you have a link from Russia Today with a different take on things. Feel free to post it.
 

dtc

VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Messages
29,433
Reaction score
28,546
Location
Redneck Riviera
Offline
[ might Qmith rE=Galb.rea what do this660931]Fair enough and consistent to agree with the 51% that disapprove (or even the 29 that do so strongly). So I do think you're being sincere and honest.

Sorry, but more than a decade of adding boots on the ground and multiple surges (including one stamped by Obama that had more troops on the ground than the fsurge) failing doesn't give me any more confidence in the military self-assessment of troop levels and effectiveness than the history of Vietnam or Korea showed. If you can't seal the deal in a decade getting backdoor deployment extensions to maintain high troop levels, you lose the ability to keep asking for more and more. We can respect your service without being willing to write an endless blank check for either failure or a mission so ill defined it can never be won.

Just as I respect a doctor for trying to save a life or a detective for pursuing an investigation, I respect our troops. In those cases I wouldn't be willing to support a doctor still working on a patient past rigor mortis trying to bring him back nor would I support paying an investigator to work a case 40 hours a week for 10 years with no end in sight. I'd admire the passion, but not condone the further effort. Disagreeing with someone blind to the forest for being stuck in the middle of it is not refusing support.
Wow! I cannot believe you actually compared the wars in Vietnam and Korea to the current situation we are in. this is not a conventional war in the sense that we fought against those two other nations we are fighting a new type of enemy that does not follow the rules of engagement. Your complete and utter disregard to this fact shows me that you do not know the true facts of how we have come to this point. truth of the matter is that Obama prematurely took us out of Iraq before the job was completed thus thrusting us backwards and now we are trying to help the Iraqi military take back mosul. if we would have stayed and finished the job we would not be backtracking with less troops I might add. what a backhanded reply, you're going to sit there and try to put the blame on the military not getting the job done you my friend are not a patriot. if our troops wouldn't have been pulled out early as Obama tried so hard to do to make good on his promise, even though the job was not done and he knew this but instead he sucked up his pride and went through with it knowing he was screwing with the progress made. and as a result ISIS grew stronger in both Their military capabilities and the land that they controlled.[/QUOTE]

Truth of the matter, you are showing us the reasons we have a civilian CIC in charge of the military.
 

mt15

Subscribing Member
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
13,344
Reaction score
18,198
Offline
As someone who was alive when Vietnam was going on I find your assertion that this war is unlike Vietnam in that the enemy doesn't follow the rules of engagement to be fascinating.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

 

New Orleans Saints Twitter Feed

 

Headlines

Top Bottom