BF2S Forums McCain qualified or not?

CameronPoe wrote:

I find it rather odd that a seeming prerequisite of being the president of a country is that you have been connected to the military. Military leadership is quite at odds with the kind of leadership needed by a melting pot nation where vast numbers of individual different opinions exist. Military leaders are authoritarian 'It's my way or the highway: obey' types by virtue of their profession. Quite unsuitable for a democratic pluralistic nation. That's not saying that some military leaders could overcome these shortcomings, just saying that to expect each political leader to have had military connections is really weird.

http://www.newint.org/issue382/pics/than-shwe.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/670000/im … raf150.jpg

http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/asie/imag … ussein.jpg

http://www.thebestlinks.com/images/d/d4/Amin_dada.jpg

http://www2.rnw.nl/assets/images/muammar-gaddafi.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … -_1995.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … co0001.PNG

http://www.lions.odu.edu/~kgaubatz/IntL … riega1.png

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/26/10389 … 1141079233

Neat pictures.  Which ones are democracies?

I'd do a post questioning Obama's military backgroud, but he doesn't have one.

CameronPoe wrote:

Basically what Teflon is showing us is that both Clark and McCain are a couple of fucking morons unfit for office.

And I'm still wondering "whats the garbage?  Is he not abundantly qualified to critique John McCain or isn't he?  Is his appraisal of John McCain not accurate?"

God Save the Queen wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

I'd do a post questioning Obama's military backgroud, but he doesn't have one.

Kmarion wrote:

Oh snap.

whats yours anyway?

Commander, BF2.  Karkand 06-07

IRONCHEF wrote:

or just gonna make tangents?

bosnia

oug wrote:

chittydog wrote:

We need a strong military president now.

Why?

Tbh, I don't understand how a person with a military background could even be considered as qualified to be President.

this is an interesting statement.

The president doesnt need to be an Economist yet he sets economic policy
The president doesnt need to be a Sociologist yet he sets social policy

Too bad Clark doesn't have access to Wiki...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_mccai … _marriages

article wrote:

McCain requested a combat assignment,[23] and in December 1966 was assigned to the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal flying A-4 Skyhawks.[24][25] McCain's combat duty began when he was 30 years old. In summer 1967, Forrestal was assigned to a bombing campaign during the Vietnam War.[12][26] McCain and his fellow pilots were frustrated by micromanagement from Washington,[27] and he would later write that "In all candor, we thought our civilian commanders were complete idiots who didn’t have the least notion of what it took to win the war."[26]

By then a lieutenant commander, McCain was almost killed on July 29, 1967 when he was at the epicenter of the Forrestal fire. He escaped from his burning jet and was trying to help another pilot escape when a bomb exploded;[28] McCain was struck in the legs and chest by fragments.[29] The ensuing fire killed 134 sailors and took 24 hours to control.[30][31] With the Forrestal out of commission, McCain volunteered for assignment with the USS Oriskany.[32]

John McCain's capture and imprisonment began on October 26, 1967. He was flying his twenty-third bombing mission over North Vietnam, when his A-4E Skyhawk was shot down by a missile over Hanoi.[33][34] McCain fractured both arms and a leg, and then nearly drowned, when he parachuted into Trúc Bạch Lake in Hanoi.[33] After he regained consciousness, a crowd attacked him, crushed his shoulder with a rifle butt, and bayoneted him;[33] he was then transported to Hanoi's main Hoa Lo Prison, nicknamed the "Hanoi Hilton".[34]

Almost a year of combat posting before he was shot down.

Let's compare to Clark's experience:

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark#Vietnam

article wrote:

Clark was assigned a position in the 1st Infantry Division and flew to Vietnam on May 21, 1969 during the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. He worked as a staff officer, collecting data and helping in operations planning, and was awarded the Bronze Star for his work with the staff. Clark was then given command of A Company, 1st Battalion, 16th Infantry of the 1st Infantry Division in January 1970. In February, only one month into his command, he was shot four times by a Viet Cong soldier with an AK-47. The wounded Clark shouted orders to his men, who counterattacked and defeated the Viet Cong force. Clark had injuries to his right shoulder, right hand, right hip, and right leg, and was sent to Valley Forge Army Hospital in Phoenixville, Pennsylvania to recuperate. He was awarded the Silver Star for his actions during the encounter.[20]

One month of combat experience.

Beyond O-6, it's pointless to compare their careers, as McCain went into politics instead of taking a star.

I know people who worked for Clark when he was SACEUR. The nicest description I heard was "egomaniacal jerk". And people complain about McCain's temper...those same people should interview people who worked for Clark.

BL: Clark's comment was bullshit, but well-orchestrated bullshit.

chittydog wrote:

oug wrote:

chittydog wrote:

We need a strong military president now.

Why?

Tbh, I don't understand how a person with a military background could even be considered as qualified to be President.

Uh, we're fighting two wars right now and the president is Commander-in-Chief of the military. I think it's more than appropriate that he have some military background. And by military background, I mean strong military leadership skills (like Gen. Clark has) not going AWOL from the National Guard to avoid a tour in Viet Nam military skills.

So are you planning on having some more wars then, or what?

Tbh CP rounds it up pretty well... The history of military leaders does seem rather dark...

And apart from that, by your logic I could go on about how you need a president with an economics background to solve all the problems there, or a sociology bg etc etc etc.
edit: sorry, didn't see BN's post before posting this

Last edited by oug (2008-06-30 18:25:47)

oug wrote:

chittydog wrote:

oug wrote:

Why?

Tbh, I don't understand how a person with a military background could even be considered as qualified to be President.

Uh, we're fighting two wars right now and the president is Commander-in-Chief of the military. I think it's more than appropriate that he have some military background. And by military background, I mean strong military leadership skills (like Gen. Clark has) not going AWOL from the National Guard to avoid a tour in Viet Nam military skills.

So are you planning on having some more wars then, or what?

Tbh CP rounds it up pretty well... The history of military leaders does seem rather dark...

And apart from that, by your logic I could go on about how you need a president with an economics background to solve all the problems there, or a sociology bg etc etc etc.
edit: sorry, didn't see BN's post before posting this

Why are you concerned with having more wars? Let's finish up the two we're fighting now first. Wah, someone's also complaining that Clark didn't get enough time on the ground with weapon in hand. We're not looking for a soldier to lead us, we need someone with leadership skills. And by that I mean something more substantial than than a few years owning a baseball team.

I also don't understand why everyone's so content with having a president who's not qualified for the job. I've heard that a military background isn't important. Do the people saying that think that Bush has done a great job with Iraq and Afghanistan? Are you happy with the way Clinton handled Somalia or his missile strikes?

I've heard that an economic background isn't important. What economic problems have been solved in the past several administrations? We're seeing a widening wealth gap, a federal debt and deficit that are out of control and we owe ridiculous amounts of money to the only country on the planet who could possibly take us down, China.

We can almost skip the discussion of a president being qualified to set social standards. Remember your Sociology professor from college? Do you think that in a million years that that person would have a shot at the White House. I didn't think so. So what's come from our sociologically untrained leaders? A panic attack that somehow gay marriage is going to destroy the whole concept of marriage. In the meantime, watching Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson get married and divorced is acceptable. So are Wife Swap, drive-through chapels in Vegas, Who Wants to Marry My Dad, the Bachelor, the Bachelorette, etc.

I, for one, would fucking love to have someone who's moderately qualified for at least one small portion of the job to sit in the Oval Office for eight years.

No one has the experience to do all of what is required to be the President of the United States...which is why we have a Congress, Supreme Court, cabinet, advisors, etc (i.e. checks, balances, and support).

I find it odd that Clark criticizes McCain for inexperience to try to support Obama...the guy with zero military experience.

RAIMIUS wrote:

No one has the experience to do all of what is required to be the President of the United States...which is why we have a Congress, Supreme Court, cabinet, advisors, etc (i.e. checks, balances, and support).

I find it odd that Clark criticizes McCain for inexperience to try to support Obama...the guy with zero military experience.

I agree.  What does truly make one experienced enough to be CIC?  I don't think there's a real recipe for a perfect CIC..well, Ike was an excellent one from my study.  But the problem here is that McCain is actually boasting and using and abusing his Vietnam experience as the reason he's fit and perfect for the job...Obama isn't saying that.  Clark called him out..being heavily qualified to say the things he did (dropping bombs part), and McCain said it was rude...without disputing it. 

Also, Clark is a military adviser to Obama, hence the call out on McCain.

He's more qualified than Obama.

Ultimately, you don't want a good military leader except in times of war (funny that).  Even then, it isn't the only qualification.  It's their military support staff that should be good at that stuff (Wes Clark being a case in point).  The US isn't at war atm (or, more accurately, has bigger issues than a couple of little scuffles overseas), and as such McCain military brilliance should be a minor issue.

FEOS wrote:

Too bad Clark doesn't have access to Wiki...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_mccai … _marriages

article wrote:

McCain requested a combat assignment,[23] and in December 1966 was assigned to the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal flying A-4 Skyhawks.[24][25] McCain's combat duty began when he was 30 years old. In summer 1967, Forrestal was assigned to a bombing campaign during the Vietnam War.[12][26] McCain and his fellow pilots were frustrated by micromanagement from Washington,[27] and he would later write that "In all candor, we thought our civilian commanders were complete idiots who didn’t have the least notion of what it took to win the war."[26]

By then a lieutenant commander, McCain was almost killed on July 29, 1967 when he was at the epicenter of the Forrestal fire. He escaped from his burning jet and was trying to help another pilot escape when a bomb exploded;[28] McCain was struck in the legs and chest by fragments.[29] The ensuing fire killed 134 sailors and took 24 hours to control.[30][31] With the Forrestal out of commission, McCain volunteered for assignment with the USS Oriskany.[32]

John McCain's capture and imprisonment began on October 26, 1967. He was flying his twenty-third bombing mission over North Vietnam, when his A-4E Skyhawk was shot down by a missile over Hanoi.[33][34] McCain fractured both arms and a leg, and then nearly drowned, when he parachuted into Trúc Bạch Lake in Hanoi.[33] After he regained consciousness, a crowd attacked him, crushed his shoulder with a rifle butt, and bayoneted him;[33] he was then transported to Hanoi's main Hoa Lo Prison, nicknamed the "Hanoi Hilton".[34]

Almost a year of combat posting before he was shot down.

Let's compare to Clark's experience:

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark#Vietnam

article wrote:

Clark was assigned a position in the 1st Infantry Division and flew to Vietnam on May 21, 1969 during the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. He worked as a staff officer, collecting data and helping in operations planning, and was awarded the Bronze Star for his work with the staff. Clark was then given command of A Company, 1st Battalion, 16th Infantry of the 1st Infantry Division in January 1970. In February, only one month into his command, he was shot four times by a Viet Cong soldier with an AK-47. The wounded Clark shouted orders to his men, who counterattacked and defeated the Viet Cong force. Clark had injuries to his right shoulder, right hand, right hip, and right leg, and was sent to Valley Forge Army Hospital in Phoenixville, Pennsylvania to recuperate. He was awarded the Silver Star for his actions during the encounter.[20]

One month of combat experience.

Beyond O-6, it's pointless to compare their careers, as McCain went into politics instead of taking a star.

I know people who worked for Clark when he was SACEUR. The nicest description I heard was "egomaniacal jerk". And people complain about McCain's temper...those same people should interview people who worked for Clark.

BL: Clark's comment was bullshit, but well-orchestrated bullshit.

To be perfectly fair, Vietcong tactics were similar that of Guerrilla Warfare. It was basically blind luck and noise discipline that determined whether a soldier stayed alive or not. McCain was one of the many men who survived for much longer - although it is still impressive he got out of the firefight. As for Clark, I guess you can just call him unlucky - Clark was a commander of A, fairly impressive nonetheless.