More than 800 soldiers refuse to report for duty

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2004-10-24 08:05pm

SirNitram wrote:
CmdrWilkens wrote:With the IRR the only thing we have to compare against is '90. Essentially there are two levels of Resrves in the US, there are the organzied reserves (Army Reserve, USMC Reserve, National Guard, etc) which I am a member of. THe organized reserves have units and drill every month...the absentee rate forthem is about as much maybe a little more than for active duty. The IRR or Individual Ready Reserve) is composed of people who are no longer with active duty units and are no longer with reserve untis. They are, quite literally, sitting at home doing their own thing. They belong to no paticular unti and are subject to recall only in desperate need (they are the third lineof defense if you will).
I'm largely aware of what the IRR is(You basically sign a peice of paper saying you'll be there four years, and be on call another four years, yesno?), but was unaware it's never been called up before. I can see how that might be viewed very negatively. Do we have numbers for the number of folks not showing since they first started calling them in this boondoggle?

No idea about overall stats though you are right in your idea about the IRR (though reservists usually sign up for 6/2 instead of 4/4). That said the article said that reporting rates were about the equivalent seen back in 1990 (the last time there was a major IRR call-up).

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2004-10-25 04:41am

Basically, while such large numbers of the active reserve shouldn't have been called up for Iraq the IRR really shouldn't have been called up. Especially with stop loss bit that's in place.

I suppose I could understand them recalling people who have been out 6 months or less but in most circumstances it's ridiculous for them to be recalling people who may have been out for years because they don't have enough trained people to properly occupy two countries.

Imagine being out (and getting on with your life) for 3½ years and being recalled for this debacle.

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-10-25 10:32am

Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:No you dimwitted parrot, it means he was making a crack at George Bush's military record. How fucking stupid can you get?

Well I suppose if you think this is a statement void of all political meandering, then sure, I suppose your right. But I hardly see how you can't connect the dots here.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-25 10:47am

Talon Karrde wrote:
Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:No you dimwitted parrot, it means he was making a crack at George Bush's military record. How fucking stupid can you get?
Well I suppose if you think this is a statement void of all political meandering, then sure, I suppose your right. But I hardly see how you can't connect the dots here.

You're a fucking moron. You claimed that the opening post made a very specific political statement about military morale (even though these people left the miltiary and are being called back) and are doing this as some kind of protest against Bush.

Now you've backpedaled to say that the joke at the beginning is "political", without admitting that you can't draw a connection between it and the words you tried to put in my mouth. It would be nice if you were man enough to admit it when you're wrong, but I see that's simply expecting too much of you.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2004-10-25 01:17pm

Talon Karrde wrote:
Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:No you dimwitted parrot, it means he was making a crack at George Bush's military record. How fucking stupid can you get?
Well I suppose if you think this is a statement void of all political meandering, then sure, I suppose your right. But I hardly see how you can't connect the dots here.

Of course its fucking political, he's talking about Bush. Too bad it is still a fucking joke about Bush, not about military morale, and you're still a dumbass parrot.

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-10-25 01:44pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote:
Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:No you dimwitted parrot, it means he was making a crack at George Bush's military record. How fucking stupid can you get?
Well I suppose if you think this is a statement void of all political meandering, then sure, I suppose your right. But I hardly see how you can't connect the dots here.
You're a fucking moron. You claimed that the opening post made a very specific political statement about military morale (even though these people left the miltiary and are being called back) and are doing this as some kind of protest against Bush.

Now you've backpedaled to say that the joke at the beginning is "political", without admitting that you can't draw a connection between it and the words you tried to put in my mouth. It would be nice if you were man enough to admit it when you're wrong, but I see that's simply expecting too much of you.

Right... my bad. I apologize. There have been many liberals (not you) who have implied and stated that morale is down, when from everything I've seen this is far from the truth. Sorry I grouped you into this same sect.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-10-25 01:51pm

Talon Karrde wrote: There have been many liberals (not you) who have implied and stated that morale is down, when from everything I've seen this is far from the truth.

What have you seen?

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-10-25 01:57pm

BoredShirtless wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote: There have been many liberals (not you) who have implied and stated that morale is down, when from everything I've seen this is far from the truth.
What have you seen?

I'm not neccessarily referring to people on this board. I'm referring to my general discussions with friends or classmates.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-10-25 01:59pm

Talon Karrde wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote: There have been many liberals (not you) who have implied and stated that morale is down, when from everything I've seen this is far from the truth.
What have you seen?
I'm not neccessarily referring to people on this board. I'm referring to my general discussions with friends or classmates.

No Talon. You said you've seen things which make you believe moral is no where near down. So what have you seen?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-10-25 02:00pm

Talon Karrde wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote: There have been many liberals (not you) who have implied and stated that morale is down, when from everything I've seen this is far from the truth.
What have you seen?
I'm not neccessarily referring to people on this board. I'm referring to my general discussions with friends or classmates.

I assume(I could be incorrect), he wants to know what you've seen that makes you confident in morale. Forgive me; hearing cries of 'All's Well' never soothes my concerns.

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-10-25 02:08pm

BoredShirtless wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote: What have you seen?
I'm not neccessarily referring to people on this board. I'm referring to my general discussions with friends or classmates.
No Talon. You said you've seen things which make you believe moral is no where near down. So what have you seen?

Ah, my bad. I recently saw, sometime last week, a poll on either CNN or FOXNews showing around 65 to 70% of the military will be supporting Bush this election. I suppose you can think that that has nothing to do with morale, but usually, if the military is disenfranchised with their leader that would lead to low morale. I'll try to find a linky...

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-10-25 02:12pm

Linky: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicsel ... oops_x.htm

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-10-25 02:17pm

That's sounding pretty fishy. A law was passed, IIRC, in 1948 that prohibited polling military members of their voting intent. For this reason, I find it very unlikely that this poll went down, or was reported on CNN.

The only morale-based poll I could dig up in a few moments was via that bastion of unbiased reporting, the Washington Post, citing a Pentagon-funded survey(Via Stars and Stripes) of troops. It reported 'Half those questioned' said their unit morale was low and their training insufficient. A third were said to complain about a lack of a clear mission and the war in Iraq had 'Little or no value'. Forty percent apparently are doing jobs that have 'Nothing to do with their training'.

Stars and Stripes initiated this when scores of letters were rolling in from troops. However, it should be noted this was not a, to use technical jargon, 'Simple Random Sample'. It was a convenience survey, with 17 questions. This types of polls are useful, but are not as ironclad to be accurate as more random means of polling.

In the end, it could all be a pile of comPOST.

Source: Washington Post

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-10-25 02:17pm

Talon, I hope you recognise that a poll of people in the military means shit if it isn't held in Iraq or Afghanistan. I mean, who gives an ass if moral is high in say some base over in Texas?

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-10-25 02:19pm

BoredShirtless wrote:Talon, I hope you recognise that a poll of people in the military means shit if it isn't held in Iraq or Afghanistan. I mean, who gives an ass if moral is high in say some base over in Texas?

Actually, in the context of winning votes, I'm wrong, who gives an ass where they are, it's the votes at the end of the day that matter.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-10-25 02:23pm

Talon Karrde wrote:Linky: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicsel ... oops_x.htm

To give this the same breakdown as I gave the Stars and Stripes poll...

This is another Convenience Survey. 31,000 surveys were sent out, 4,165 came back. This is 'Response Bias'. Then there's 'Selection Bias', as it only polled Army Times subscribers(I don't have any numbers, if this is effectively all the army, I will retract this statement, however, the group itself cautioned it was generally read by the older, career-oriented folk.). Amusingly, they admit it's completely non-scientific(IE, it's a load of horseshit), but are quick to snap that you 'Can't dismiss' it. I can: It's called knowing why these methods produce huge errors.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-10-25 02:27pm

BoredShirtless wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:Talon, I hope you recognise that a poll of people in the military means shit if it isn't held in Iraq or Afghanistan. I mean, who gives an ass if moral is high in say some base over in Texas?
Actually, in the context of winning votes, I'm wrong, who gives an ass where they are, it's the votes at the end of the day that matter.

You're forgetting the Electoral College.
It very much does matter where they are because if the unhappy guys in A-stan or Iraq are from the 'swing states', their votes can affect how those states go.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-10-25 02:37pm

Small error I made: The Stars and Stripes poll was not based on those who responded, but those availiable at the time of the teams passing through each of the 50 camps. This is slightly better, but still not truly reliable.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-10-25 04:00pm

Talon Karrde wrote:Ah, my bad. I recently saw, sometime last week, a poll on either CNN or FOXNews showing around 65 to 70% of the military will be supporting Bush this election. I suppose you can think that that has nothing to do with morale, but usually, if the military is disenfranchised with their leader that would lead to low morale. I'll try to find a linky...

You're a fucking idiot. There is no direct corolation between a vote in the Presidential election and morale, even if we take your data at face value and make the assumption that these are the exact same percentages that voted for Bush in 2000.

Let me give you an example: if a soldier in Iraq was a feverent Bush supporter in 2000, but during the Iraq war his morale has gone down, it does not follow that he will necessarily vote for Kerry. It might simply be like many other conservatives in America, he is dissatisfied with Bush, but not enough so to vote Democrat. This does not mean that military morale is unaffected. Do you get this now dipshit? The onus is on YOU to prove a direct connection between a Presidential election vote (which is very much a black/white situation) and the level of morale of soldiers.