As to your second paragraph, I agree. But, its a question of weight. When a policy decision is being made about whether to keep troops in Iraq and that decision centers around whether the populace there is going to uphold a democratically-elected government or fold to terrorist factions, I will place much more weight on a military unit's assessment from the front line than I will from someone sitting in a seat in Congress.

 

 

The bolded represents a false choice. There is plenty of evidence to support the notion that foreign terrorists in Iraq no longer find fertile ground for their brutal ideologies. It was fallacious thinking like this that got us into this mess in the first place.

 

 

 

As to your first paragraph, I disagree. To a soldier, the most important issue I would daresay is the War, and when they vote for the Republican candidate, I believe they are voting their feelings about the War, and that the two are not severable. Not for all, but most.

 

 

That's debatable:

 

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h2grNE8vzxdAJwtrJQbWOqwLMofw

The bolded represents a false choice. There is plenty of evidence to support the notion that foreign terrorists in Iraq no longer find fertile ground for their brutal ideologies. It was fallacious thinking like this that got us into this mess in the first place.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's debatable:

 

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h2grNE8vzxdAJwtrJQbWOqwLMofw

 

Now THAT'S a good article. I will be interested to see what the vote results are.

This thread is getting extremely interesting.

 

We have one questioning whether the military personnel's opinions should have any impact;

 

.

 

I still haven't seen any reason as to why it should have an "impact." I think it should be considered like all other factors. Someone pointed out that they take the risk. I've already stated my sincere appreciation for that. However, I'm not sure how the risk they take impacts my views on economics, judicial issues, or other general issues.

 

So, Hearsay, if you want to give me a good reason for it to make an impact I'm all ears. Otherwise you're simply making charges without backing anything up when its challenged.

I still haven't seen any reason as to why it should have an "impact." I think it should be considered like all other factors. Someone pointed out that they take the risk. I've already stated my sincere appreciation for that. However, I'm not sure how the risk they take impacts my views on economics, judicial issues, or other general issues.

 

So, Hearsay, if you want to give me a good reason for it to make an impact I'm all ears. Otherwise you're simply making charges without backing anything up when its challenged.

I'll give it a shot. Military personnel are on the ground in Iraq. They have as good of a gauge as anyone as to whether or not we are making any progress in Iraq. Analysts, reporters, and commentators can spin anything. The guys that are there can measure progress.

 

It should at least affect one's view of the war. Of course, a military personnel might not be the best adviser for other issues (at least because they are in the military, it does not qualify them) but if one wants to know how the civilians over there are responding to U.S. military, who else would know better?

I'll give it a shot. Military personnel are on the ground in Iraq. They have as good of a gauge as anyone as to whether or not we are making any progress in Iraq. Analysts, reporters, and commentators can spin anything. The guys that are there can measure progress.

 

It should at least affect one's view of the war. Of course, a military personnel might not be the best adviser for other issues (at least because they are in the military, it does not qualify them) but if one wants to know how the civilians over there are responding to U.S. military, who else would know better?

 

You know, what I read in the media in articles, magazines, etc that support this video, aren't what I've been told by quite a few soldiers who've returned that I've spoken to. There are those who think like the soldier here. There are just as many (in my experience) that hold very different views.

I'll give it a shot. Military personnel are on the ground in Iraq. They have as good of a gauge as anyone as to whether or not we are making any progress in Iraq. Analysts, reporters, and commentators can spin anything. The guys that are there can measure progress.

 

It should at least affect one's view of the war. Of course, a military personnel might not be the best adviser for other issues (at least because they are in the military, it does not qualify them) but if one wants to know how the civilians over there are responding to U.S. military, who else would know better?

 

I agree that they are best to tell us how the Iraqi citizens are responding. No question.

 

OK.

 

Is that the #1 issue for voters? How the Iraqi citizens are responding? It may be on the list but I can't imagine too many voters have it very high, thus, it is not impactful.

 

No one (for the most part) has said they should be discounted or disregarded. However, no one has given a good reason as to why their view (wholy unable to be proved) should have an impact. That's all I'm saying.

Morale. You cannot win without morale. The soldiers know, better than anyone else, how policy (and policy rhetoric) affects morale.

Morale. You cannot win without morale. The soldiers know, better than anyone else, how policy (and policy rhetoric) affects morale.

 

Is this just a general point you're making or is this an answer to my previous post?

Morale. You cannot win without morale. The soldiers know, better than anyone else, how policy (and policy rhetoric) affects morale.

 

 

So...if I vote for McCain, I bolster morale? If I don't, I demoralize the troops?

I agree that they are best to tell us how the Iraqi citizens are responding. No question.

 

OK.

 

Is that the #1 issue for voters? How the Iraqi citizens are responding? It may be on the list but I can't imagine too many voters have it very high, thus, it is not impactful.

 

No one (for the most part) has said they should be discounted or disregarded. However, no one has given a good reason as to why their view (wholy unable to be proved) should have an impact. That's all I'm saying.

Say you are a voter who is on the fence about whether or not building a democracy in Iraq is ever possible, and that is what determines whether or not you think being in Iraq is a good idea. The attitude and responsiveness of Iraqi citizens is certainly a big part of that possibility- and the soldiers are the ones who could attest to it.

 

Similarly, as Hearsay touched upon, say one is convinced that we should be in Iraq, and is trying to think of the best way that we can accomplish whatever said voter thinks should be accomplished. It is relevant to know which candidate inspires the soldiers, and which candidate, and maybe the word is too strong, maybe not, discourages the soldiers. Troop morale is vital to winning a war, so there it is relevant.

 

FWIW, I am sure that many different soldiers have many different opinions. I am just giving two situations, and there are surely more, in which a soldier's opinion would be an effective way of measuring a situation

Say you are a voter who is on the fence about whether or not building a democracy in Iraq is ever possible, and that is what determines whether or not you think being in Iraq is a good idea. The attitude and responsiveness of Iraqi citizens is certainly a big part of that possibility- and the soldiers are the ones who could attest to it.

 

Similarly, as Hearsay touched upon, say one is convinced that we should be in Iraq, and is trying to think of the best way that we can accomplish whatever said voter thinks should be accomplished. It is relevant to know which candidate inspires the soldiers, and which candidate, and maybe the word is too strong, maybe not, discourages the soldiers. Troop morale is vital to winning a war, so there it is relevant.

 

FWIW, I am sure that many different soldiers have many different opinions. I am just giving two situations, and there are surely more, in which a soldier's opinion would be an effective way of measuring a situation

 

How do we know which candidate inspires the soldiers? How do we know they're fully upto date on what is fact and what is rumor? What if I'm not a single-issue voter? If the war is a single issue how much priority should we give to the feelings of the citizens? How about the feelings of the leadership?

 

You see my point?

How do we know which candidate inspires the soldiers? How do we know they're fully upto date on what is fact and what is rumor? What if I'm not a single-issue voter? If the war is a single issue how much priority should we give to the feelings of the citizens? How about the feelings of the leadership?

 

You see my point?

To be honest, I really don't see your point.

 

You asked why we should consider military personnel's opinions- I gave a few scenarios in which their opinion could impact a voter's decision on a topic.

 

I am not saying anything on being a single-issue voter, or basing a decision entirely on the word of a soldier. I just gave situations where military personnel opinion can have an impact.

I was not in the military, so to better understand what it is all about I talked to people who were in combat. Yes putting you and the safety of your buddies 'on the battlefield does come 1st'. At that moment you are the ones fighting for your lives, but in doing so you are preserving our way of life.

I cannot quote the 1 gentleman I once talked to, but here is the essence of what he said, when it comes to a fight with the enemy you are not fighting for flag and country or your loved ones, but you are trying to keep yourself and your buddies alive. This gentleman did not mention it, but one of his friends later told me he had won the Medal of Honor in Vietnam.

I would like to know why that did not come across to you in your training?

I would like to know where you got I didn't get that through my training. I said that is not how most people think and not how most soldiers think before basic training. You all act like calling these kids, which most of them are before going through basic training thrill seekers and adrenaline junkies is a bad thing I don't get it. Now if I had called them junkies I could, but the ones I know that have either joined the Army or Marines know they will probably see combat fit that description. My stepson gets no bigger thrill than jumping out of a plane and loves that kind of stuff is what I'm saying. You all act like I called them drug addicts which is as far from the truth as you could get. I admire and respect every single person that has and does serve in our military. I'm just not too crazy about the guy that sent then to Iraq.

To be honest, I really don't see your point.

 

You asked why we should consider military personnel's opinions- I gave a few scenarios in which their opinion could impact a voter's decision on a topic.

 

I am not saying anything on being a single-issue voter, or basing a decision entirely on the word of a soldier. I just gave situations where military personnel opinion can have an impact.

 

You gave reasons why it COULD and I agree. However, the point of this thread seems to be that their opinion SHOULD impact my vote.

Is this just a general point you're making or is this an answer to my previous post?

 

Its both. You asked for why their opinion should have more impact than others, and I believe our response has a significant impact on morale.