I'm sure they all call themselves democracies.usmarine2 wrote:
Neat pictures. Which ones are democracies?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
Why you would need someone more qualified on military matters when you're the world's most technologically advanced and well equipped army and when your economy is going to hell in a handbasket is beyond me....DSRTurtle wrote:
Obama and both Clintons aren't fit for office either. The three of them have even less of an understanding of the needs and purposes for a military as defined in the constitution.CameronPoe wrote:
Basically what Teflon is showing us is that both Clark and McCain are a couple of fucking morons unfit for office.
The last democratic president I have any respect for on military matters is JFK.
Are you suggesting that in order to become President they should have previous military history? I'd rather have an economist instead of militia in office.
Maybe by taking the shots at their opponents themselves rather than having their surrogates do it then disavowing their surrogate's comments?IRONCHEF wrote:
Well orchestrated? How else should candidates conduct themselves?
Oh, I saw their different command experiences. McCain's single command was a flight training squadron that he turned completely around. Clark was a staff weenie. So, to compare the two up until O-6 (when McCain left military service)...McCain wins the comparative analysis.IRONCHEF wrote:
Should McCain not be exposed for the fraud he is? Also, your citations above, while selective and skip the actual COMMANDING part of his career (you should work at Fox!), still show McCain with no command experience..which is what Clark accurately presented in showing that McCain isn't qualified to be CIC because of his military expertise and command potential, etc. The dude's a washed up, self betraying opportunist like his butt buddy Lieberman (who I wouldn't be surprised to see on his ticket). Clark was completely honest, accurate. If you're calling BS, please indicate where he's lying or whatever and further..can ANYONE show how Clark is wrong?
Clark didn't accurately depict anything. He denigrated McCain's combat experience in his remark, not his command experience. That's why I compared the two individuals' combat history.
Can ANYONE show how Clark is wrong? Pretty sure I did when I showed the difference in their combat histories...the thing that Clark said McCain didn't have enough of.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Oddly you have an ex-quartermaster of the IRA in office where you are!kylef wrote:
Are you suggesting that in order to become President they should have previous military history? I'd rather have an economist instead of militia in office.
Yes, company commander in Vietnam is impressive...if it lasts longer than four weeks.kylef wrote:
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.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Is there some reason you are ignoring every US President except Bill Clinton in your analysis? Thus far, he's the only one in the history of the US who hasn't had any military experience whatsoever.Dilbert_X wrote:
Military types are invariably hopeless at politics and diplomacy, both of which are more useful, usually more productive and more importantly much cheaper in lives and money.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I think I see your point. Why is this one skill so important when voters don't care about any other skills? I'd prefer that the prez have all the skills needed to properly run a nation. I also wish that other people felt that way too rather than voting for who they think can do the best keg stand. Someone here has a quote in their sig from Jon Stewart saying he wants the president to be embarrassingly superior to him. I agree with that 100%. It would be great to have the intelligence of Clinton, the charisma of Reagan, the military skills of Ike and the integrity of Washington or Lincoln all in one package. Throw in a bit Teddy Roosevelt too, it would be kinda fun to see the prez literally kick someone's ass.oug wrote:
lol slinger, not bad, got any more?chittydog wrote:
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.
chitty, I was being sarcastic about the wars.
Now all in all about your post, I don't understand what you're getting at. First off, why are you making comparisons with the worst? (like GWB?)
So I will ask you again: Why is a military background so important when other sets of skills corresponding to more vital issues - all in all being more suitable for a democratically elected leader - are dismissed by the voters?
I for one don't understand why I should trust a man trained to lead soldiers into battle to govern a nation. Sure, some of them might be able to pull it off, but I don't see how that specific set of skills and mindset - if you will - is deemed suitable to lead a nation. Secretary of Defence? Sure. But President?
tbh though, if Georgie did it, anyone can. And better too.
A military background is the one I singled out only because it's the one being mentioned in the OP.
Wrong. You're forgetting John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. The history of the US goes back further than the 20th century.FEOS wrote:
Is there some reason you are ignoring every US President except Bill Clinton in your analysis? Thus far, he's the only one in the history of the US who hasn't had any military experience whatsoever.Dilbert_X wrote:
Military types are invariably hopeless at politics and diplomacy, both of which are more useful, usually more productive and more importantly much cheaper in lives and money.
most American presidents have either been lawyers or soldiers.
Washington was never trained to a be a general officer. he was a land surveyor when he wasnt in uniform.
Washington was never trained to a be a general officer. he was a land surveyor when he wasnt in uniform.
Last edited by God Save the Queen (2008-07-01 08:02:01)
well that gone dog done it, washington is a fake ass ho' and i aint no rezpect for him no more. Land? Land? he was a land monkey?! what on earth next? American prezidents had slaves?!!
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Tbh, leave war to the Generals and such. I believe Iraq is a good example of what happens if you don't follow the advice of your Generals. A president/prime minister/whatever doesn't need to have Military experience. That's what your Military leaders are there for. The whole Commander-in-Cheif shit is just a title, it's not really meant to be taken literally anymore. Well, imo at least.
Last edited by Mek-Stizzle (2008-07-01 08:25:54)
I dont think Iraq would have been invaded if we had a president whose military service went beyond avoiding the draft by joining the air national guard, or cheney's 5 draft deferrments he had.
I know if I was president I would have been like "Yo fuck that, invade Iraq, what for? They dont want any"
I know if I was president I would have been like "Yo fuck that, invade Iraq, what for? They dont want any"
Last edited by God Save the Queen (2008-07-01 08:36:53)
QFTGod Save the Queen wrote:
I dont think Iraq would have been invaded if we had a president whose military service went beyond avoiding the draft by joining the air national guard, or cheney's 5 draft deferrments he had.
I know if I was presiednt I would have been like "Yo fuck that, invade Iraq, what for? They dont want any"
"On Oct. 6, 1965, the Selective Service lifted its ban against drafting married men who had no children. Nine months and two days later, Mr. Cheney's first daughter, Elizabeth, was born."
http://www.rense.com/general52/chenn.htm
http://www.rense.com/general52/chenn.htm
Is she the one that likes a bit of carpet munching?God Save the Queen wrote:
"On Oct. 6, 1965, the Selective Service lifted its ban against drafting married men who had no children. Nine months and two days later, Mr. Cheney's first daughter, Elizabeth, was born."
http://www.rense.com/general52/chenn.htm
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
editm3thod wrote:
Is she the one that likes a bit of carpet munching?God Save the Queen wrote:
"On Oct. 6, 1965, the Selective Service lifted its ban against drafting married men who had no children. Nine months and two days later, Mr. Cheney's first daughter, Elizabeth, was born."
http://www.rense.com/general52/chenn.htm
holy fuck he must have pounded mrs cheny the moment that ban was lifted
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
She married a woman so I'd say she likes more than just a bit.m3thod wrote:
Is she the one that likes a bit of carpet munching?God Save the Queen wrote:
"On Oct. 6, 1965, the Selective Service lifted its ban against drafting married men who had no children. Nine months and two days later, Mr. Cheney's first daughter, Elizabeth, was born."
http://www.rense.com/general52/chenn.htm
Last edited by chittydog (2008-07-01 09:20:13)
Oh so Clark wasn't the friggen Nato Supreme Commander who made very serious life/death decisions while dropping bombs? What's wrong with a surrogate making such comments? Are you saying no pundits or supporters of either candidate can say things regarding the opponents? So basically fox news should shut down as it's their job to smear and belittle opposition candidates (dems).FEOS wrote:
Maybe by taking the shots at their opponents themselves rather than having their surrogates do it then disavowing their surrogate's comments?IRONCHEF wrote:
Well orchestrated? How else should candidates conduct themselves?Oh, I saw their different command experiences. McCain's single command was a flight training squadron that he turned completely around. Clark was a staff weenie. So, to compare the two up until O-6 (when McCain left military service)...McCain wins the comparative analysis.IRONCHEF wrote:
Should McCain not be exposed for the fraud he is? Also, your citations above, while selective and skip the actual COMMANDING part of his career (you should work at Fox!), still show McCain with no command experience..which is what Clark accurately presented in showing that McCain isn't qualified to be CIC because of his military expertise and command potential, etc. The dude's a washed up, self betraying opportunist like his butt buddy Lieberman (who I wouldn't be surprised to see on his ticket). Clark was completely honest, accurate. If you're calling BS, please indicate where he's lying or whatever and further..can ANYONE show how Clark is wrong?
Clark didn't accurately depict anything. He denigrated McCain's combat experience in his remark, not his command experience. That's why I compared the two individuals' combat history.
Can ANYONE show how Clark is wrong? Pretty sure I did when I showed the difference in their combat histories...the thing that Clark said McCain didn't have enough of.
Seriously, you don't understand how valuable it is for Clark, someone with the commanding experience, to illustrate McCain's lack of experience in command? It's called not being hypocritical (which it would be somewhat if Obama made the accusation)....unlike those fools criticizing Obama for not wearing a lapel pin and they weren't wearing one either! Swiftboaters...
Last edited by IRONCHEF (2008-07-01 10:33:55)
Imo Iraq was not the result of bad judgment. It was not a mistake due to lack of experience or knowledge. It was a result of a well thought-out plan from which it has not deviated one inch.God Save the Queen wrote:
I dont think Iraq would have been invaded if we had a president whose military service went beyond avoiding the draft by joining the air national guard, or cheney's 5 draft deferrments he had.
I know if I was president I would have been like "Yo fuck that, invade Iraq, what for? They dont want any"
ƒ³
out, I wish I had saved that karma for this post instead. It deserves it.oug wrote:
Imo Iraq was not the result of bad judgment. It was not a mistake due to lack of experience or knowledge. It was a result of a well thought-out plan from which it has not deviated one inch.God Save the Queen wrote:
I dont think Iraq would have been invaded if we had a president whose military service went beyond avoiding the draft by joining the air national guard, or cheney's 5 draft deferrments he had.
I know if I was president I would have been like "Yo fuck that, invade Iraq, what for? They dont want any"
chef, I owe you +1 for that swiftboaters remark. Remind me in 70 minutes.
I believe that too. If we had a person with a stronger military background, perhaps that line of thinking would never even have been pursued. The people calling for war with Iraq in 2003, for the most part, never had any real military experience.oug wrote:
Imo Iraq was not the result of bad judgment. It was not a mistake due to lack of experience or knowledge. It was a result of a well thought-out plan from which it has not deviated one inch.God Save the Queen wrote:
I dont think Iraq would have been invaded if we had a president whose military service went beyond avoiding the draft by joining the air national guard, or cheney's 5 draft deferrments he had.
I know if I was president I would have been like "Yo fuck that, invade Iraq, what for? They dont want any"
http://armed-services.senate.gov/members.htm
Side note: Has there ever been a more qualified president than Bush Sr? Check it.
Side note: Has there ever been a more qualified president than Bush Sr? Check it.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Because when you serve in the armed forces you want someone who has a fairly good idea of what the hell your risking your life for. Not some moron who lobs a few missles just to say they tried to do something instead of doing it the right way to ensure success.CameronPoe wrote:
Why you would need someone more qualified on military matters when you're the world's most technologically advanced and well equipped army and when your economy is going to hell in a handbasket is beyond me....DSRTurtle wrote:
Obama and both Clintons aren't fit for office either. The three of them have even less of an understanding of the needs and purposes for a military as defined in the constitution.CameronPoe wrote:
Basically what Teflon is showing us is that both Clark and McCain are a couple of fucking morons unfit for office.
The last democratic president I have any respect for on military matters is JFK.
In either case I'm not voting for McCain or Obama because I don't care for their stands on most of the issues that matter to me.
My bad. I should have specifically excluded those who couldn't have served in the US military because they were too old to join when it was formed.chittydog wrote:
Wrong. You're forgetting John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. The history of the US goes back further than the 20th century.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular