BF2S Forums McCain qualified or not?

IRONCHEF wrote:

Oh so Clark wasn't the friggen Nato Supreme Commander who made very serious life/death decisions while dropping bombs?

1. Yes, Clark was SACEUR.

2. No, he wasn't making "very serious life/death decisions while dropping bombs". He approved a plan and occasionally approved a target. The field/line commanders make the "very serious life/death decisions while dropping bombs". Not much bomb dropping happening from Belgium. In fact, the air boss (Lt Gen Short) probably made more of those types of decisions than Clark...but you don't want to know his feelings about the man, either.

IRONCHEF wrote:

What's wrong with a surrogate making such comments?

Nothing, so long as the candidate doesn't act like he knew nothing about those comments.

IRONCHEF wrote:

Are you saying no pundits or supporters of either candidate can say things regarding the opponents?

No.

IRONCHEF wrote:

So basically fox news should shut down as it's their job to smear and belittle opposition candidates (dems).

And MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, and NBC should do the same?

IRONCHEF wrote:

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?

Oh, I fully understand how valuable legitimate, accurate criticism of candidates' records is. However, Clark wasn't criticizing McCain's command experience, he was criticizing McCain's combat experience, which far outweighs Clark's own.

Clark's opinion of himself is inflated and unwarranted (see GEN Shelton's comments ref Clark's departure from EUCOM)...if we had a President who was half as capable as Clark thinks he is, we'd be on top of the world.

FEOS wrote:

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

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.

It's important because it reinforces civilian control of the military. And it's quite literal.

I agree, it is very important to have civilian control of the military.  HOWEVER, the civilian portion of the government should not take the descisions into areas that are the proper realm of Generals.  Policy-level descisions should most definately be conducted by the civilians, as well as the descision of whether or not to go to war.  I will even go so far as to say the level of force should be determined by the civilian command structure. 

But the area of strategy, operations in theatre, and methods of attack should be left to the military commanders; they know the systems capabilities and limitations, they know their units and how they should and could be best used.  They have spent years (in fact, they have been studying war and its effects longer than a lot of the people who post here have been alive) learning their trade; they should be trusted to do their job when the Commander in Chief tells them to do it.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

Anyway, he is a military advisor for Obama and recently laid the smack down on McCain and let everyone know he really doesn't have qualifications to be Commander-in-Chief because he was a fighter pilot, shot-down, imprisoned, and lead a non-wartime squadron.

And Obama does?

Damn.  You're the 3rd non-reader to ask that question..maybe 4th.  So I'll just mock you and say "YES!  OBAMA DOES HAVE THE QUALIFICATIONS FROM HIS EXTENSIVE JIHAD BATTLES OF DAYS PAST, TO BE CIC OF THE USofA!"

his middle name is hussein

usmarine2 wrote:

yes he is qualified, he is old and white.  duh

electable you mean, which is the only thing that matters

God Save the Queen wrote:

white is qualified enough

oh and rich.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

usmarine2 wrote:

yes he is qualified, he is old and white.  duh

electable you mean, which is the only thing that matters

tis what I meant son.

IRONCHEF wrote:

So since Clark did drop the bombs (term used to denote McCain's lack of experience doing so) on Kosovo, ie., "made command decisions" then why is he not qualified to rip on McCain for being a pretender?  If I recall correctly, more bombs were dropped on that area than any other war we've been in.  That's alot of bombing and decision making..surely a supreme allied commander in charge of such campaign goals makes decisions more than just now and then with no thought as you make it out to be.

Clark didn't "drop the bombs". And (again) Clark's criticism of McCain wasn't about "command experience" it was about his combat experience. And McCain beats the stuffing out of Clark in combat experience.

As to who made the majority of the day-to-day decisions on the bomb dropping on Serbia/Kosovo: that was Lt Gen Short, the Joint Forces Air Component Commander (JFACC). Clark's decision-making was limited to high collateral damage targets only, then it was just approve/disapprove, not a judgment on strategy or anything else.

I'm not "making it out to be" anything. Only relaying how it actually worked. That conflict has been studied to death due to the fact it was the first (and so far only) conflict that was waged with air power only.