Obama supporter General Wesley Clark said last weekend: “I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.” Is it?
Obama supporter General Wesley Clark said last weekend: “I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.” Is it?
Better than being a deserter or a "I was busy getting my Harvard law degree" person.
Well, if the Commander In Chief's main policy is endless war, then it has a certain logic...
Military service could help some candidates in the job, I assume. It depends on their experience and responsibility.
In relation to the OP, is this: many candidates use military service to promote themselves and appeal the the public. Especially if a candidate is wounded in war. It was a great marketing strategy to appeal to certain demographics of the public. There is some questioning of this political marketing strategy now.
Some examples:
JFK in Pt-109. JFK used this story many times to help him as a candidate. His brother Joe, was jealous of the attention, and some believed he volunteered for a dangerous flying mission over Germany because of the attention his younger brother Jack got. Joe was shot down in this mission, and died.
George H. Bush: he was shot down in the Pacific during world war II and he (and moreso his supporters) played the "hero" card to no end. Even at the GOP convention in 1992.
Then there is the National Guard service during 'Nam. This is played up as "serving your country. Gore used this in a debate with Quayle.
Bob Dole, and his injury in Italy in WWII, which was permanent.
Kerry, awarded himself 2 Purple Hearts on the same day. He was "walking wounded."
McCain comes from a family of "warriors," according to....McCain. Shot down over Hanoi and spending 5 years a POW. I am not sure if it's working that much for McCain.
Using wartime injuries, or POW status for marketing in campaigns in shallow and disrespectful, IMO.
Electorally speaking, military service should do no harm [or so I thought until draft dodger Dubya was elected in an election cycle, when an actually decorated for bravery naval officer named Kerry effectively had this used against him :confused: ].
But is it sufficient qualification- NO.
Is it a prerequisite- NO.
Not really good credentials for becoming president...............
John McCain, War Criminal
It still seems absolutely outrageous how some 33 years ago -- on October 26, 1967 to be exact -- North Vietnamese agents traveled 12,000 miles from their own country; snuck into the United States; kidnapped the innocent American John McCain; smuggled him back to North Vietnam; and imprisoned him for five years.
Of course, in reality, McCain was the one who traveled 12,000 miles from his own country, invaded North Vietnamese air space on October 26, 1967, and was dropping bombs on that nation for the 23rd time when his plane was shot down. That's how he became a North Vietnamese prisoner.
No North Vietnamese had ever committed any act of violence on U.S. soil, or, until Americans invaded their country, against any American. Yet the United States rained death and destruction from bullets, bombs and chemical agents on that small impoverished nation for 10 years. McCain was an active participant in destroying that country, indeed, he volunteered to go there.
When he was shot down, McCain's bombing mission was to destroy a power plant in the center of Hanoi. What a perfect illustration of the essentially terrorist, war criminal-like nature of McCain's actions.
Torture is absolutely wrong, and to the extent McCain was tortured, his captors should be absolutely condemned.
And to the extent McCain bravely withstood his torture, he exhibited qualities of physical bravery.
But that only makes him a brave war criminal, not a war hero.
http://www.therationalradical.com/outrages...john-mccain.htm
unless done my mercans.Quote:
Originally Posted by buriramboy
quite true -- he walks around with a pencil in his hand to this very day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Milkman
Great credential to have, and one of many for McCain. I'm sure Osama wished he had a stint in the military. Least he is qualified, unlike Osama who has no credentials worthy of being a president of a club no less a nation.
The dangerous mission was to pilot an explosives filled bomber towards the V3 ( cross channel cannon) site - he and the other crew member would set the course and bail out over the UK and the plane was to be guided to its target by radio control from another aircraft.Quote:
Originally Posted by Milkman
Something went wrong and the plane exploded prematurely over the UK i.e. he was not shot down .
The mission was codenamed Operation Aphrodite-very interesting project - worth looking up !!
Except in the very rare instance where a military man has demonstrated solid leadership credentials such as those of Eisenhower, military experience is irrelevant in qualifying a person for the position. Anyone who has been in the military well knows, being a "war hero" does not make one more or less qualified to make the right decision when it comes to committing the US to war. IMO, anyone who has been in combat and seen the devastation would be the least likely to opt for war.Quote:
Originally Posted by jandajoy
I'd go for the guy right now who displays honesty, integrity and enviromental awareness. I dont care where he's been for the last 20 years or whatever.
Oh, add fiscal responsibility to that list, hint: stop printing so many dollars.
IME military service alone is useless in preparation for any management role. The style of management taught in the military is autocratic. I spent 8 years in the Army, nine years in the Defence (Navy) not one manager I met could organise a chook raffle.
Nearly all were useless negotiators, none had fiscal responsibility, very few could manage their resources (logistics) well.
IMO they are all a bunch of egotistical fuckwits - but that is a pre-requisite isn't it?
And after that he turned war protester and even while still on reserve status , did go to the Viet Nam of the north and to the peace talks in Paris and did commit traitorous acts again the government of the united states, for which he has never been brought up on charges because he has many millions of dollars.Quote:
Originally Posted by Milkman
Boy Sabang, you are some piece of work, just because you think something does not make it so, GW Bush was not a draft dodger and was an enlisted member of the Reserves of the USA.Quote:
Originally Posted by sabang
And John Kerry is a traitor again the USA, and damn sure not a Brave war hero.
^^ I think that says more about your Army and Defence (Navy) than US presidential candidates.
The question in the OP is as silly as they come. It suggests that military service (of any length, honorable -- or not, in any capacity) might (on its own) be sufficient qualification to be prez. I can only hope the OP was juiced up when it was written.
Yes, BG, but there was a Peace Prize awarded for the Paris peace talks, even though many disagreed with it, and at least of the participants refused to accept it. Sounds like a political award to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackgang
Did Kerry do things treasonous? I honestly think that if he did, it would have come up in the election of 2004.
GWB, dodge? IMO, anyone in the National Guard during 'Nam used connection, influence, and luck, to yes, dodge the draft.
One of them went and fought for his country. The other used daddies connections and went AWOL from reservist duty.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackgang
Were National Guardsmen exempt from the draft? I don't know.
It would seem daft to draft a Guardsman already in uniform, serving ...
Are National Guard units frequently sent to fight? I think we all know the answer to this.
I sense some here are desperate to get a last flury of jabs in. Have you considered what you'll do with your lives come January?
^Tex, it was simply a logical exstention of the Generals' statement.
Given that there are a number of Americans on this forum and a number of ex-military the question is a valid one. I'm ex-military myself and agree with previous posters that it in no way qualifies one for a role such as president, or any leadership position by default.
The fact remains, however that in the US it does seem to be a recurring theme. It's as if it somehow validates the aspirants patriotism. The problem is that so called "war heros" are, as often as not, simply unfortunates that happened to be in wrong place at the wrong time. Why does getting caught or shot make you a hero?
Absolutely no offence meant to anyone. Seriously.
This is nonsense. It is obviously within the context of the statement made by the General.Quote:
Originally Posted by Texpat
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Texpat
When regular Army troop levels are insufficient and the government doesn't have the political balls to impose a draft, they sure are!Quote:
Originally Posted by Texpat
Yeah, I gathered that it was based on what Clark said, but something like this is clearer:
Is military service an attribute to a US pres candidate?
The term sufficient qualification gives me the hump.
Nothing wrong with military service, I did it, but I don't think one needs to have worn a uniform to be a true American. I would not vote for a person for president solely on whether the person served in the military or not. We have had good (and bad) presidents who were ex-military and good presidents who never went through the experience.
Based on the campaign rhetoric it sure seems to be a issue of great importance. I think it is an attribute which plays well with voters but as with you certainly not an overly important one. I think the whole war record thing is a throwback to post WW2 politics. In the future, as fewer and fewer candidates will have served in the military it will become irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Texpat
^^ I think that says more about your Army and Defence (Navy) than US presidential candidates. - from Texpat.
Perhaps you are right, but the present Bush has proved all and gentry that he is a moron, that he was AWOL for most of his military serving time, that he resorts to underhanded methods to win an election.
His father had Saddam as a house guest, and previous presidents gave Saddam military and financial support, to turn their knives on him when it became convenient.
This lacks sound reasoning, and is typical military oneupmanship thinking, kick the kid while he's down.
Comments like "you're with us or agin us" do not inspire great leadership qualities to me.
Shinawiz's police/military service was spent mainly at higher education facilities and he turned out to be a thief, and fraudster (yet to be convicted of course)
Simply put - military service would be better avoided to mould a good president or manager. ;)
All it taught me was to avoid the methods unless a means to an end, such as if caught in disaster type rescue work where on must take command - but not many military commanders I've met had the ball to do this either, the set up committees instead, or delegated to someone else - so they had a scapegoat.
There its of my chest, been waiting to say that for 30 years.:nerner:
One last jibe, how are the ill-treated veterans with poor or limited medical treatment going to react to a "returned hero"
The Oz government tried to kick us in the head a few years back, they were going to ignore a commissions advise to increase pensions and medical service; but the report was leaked and they had to back down.
Never liked that bastard Howard since.
No military presidents:
J. Adams
J.Q. Adams
VanBuren
Cleveland - hired a substitute in the Civil War
Taft
Wilson
Harding
Coolidge
Hoover
FDR
Clinton
Doesn't amount to much, really. The vetting process is so thorough (too thorough) now that people know every aspect of the candidates life by November. Filleted and splayed open for all to examine. The speeches are online, transcripts for the C'n'P warriors and Youtube for the techno geeks. These are what milkman would call high-info voters. :rolleyes:
I don't know about the older ones, but didn't Clinton get head jobs in his office? wasn't Hoover a bit of a commie basher, and afraid of dirt?
Just goes to show there's always a bad egg in a basket:)
A cripple with no military experience! How in the world did the allies win WW2 with such an incompetent member?:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Texpat
As a non-american can I ask a question.
Doesn't the fact that your politicians wallow in the war hero thing, and you all have a thing about guns, and you all get very excited about killing and shooting stuff, and full on blood letting seems to be the national pastime, all kind of links together to suggest that a fanatically patriotic, anti Islamic ( read. any non fundamentally Christian belief) Arnie/Stallone type character, will in all likely hood take power in the not too distant future.
This whole thing is total crap. Nobody judges someone's ability to be President by their military service. Rather, they judge the totality of their life experience and leadership ability.
I'm sure both of the candidates are well enough situated for this, although the best candidate would be a corporate leader who had led international teams building companies, rather than just spending tax dollars. But, unfortunately, no private sector person would be idiot enough to try it on, except for Ross Perot, who was a bit of a nut.
Your point being that there is no hope for the Western World as we know it. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by chinthee
No, his point that your stereotype, along with most other American stereotypes on this forum, is wrong.
1. Your politicians wallow in the war hero thing
There are no war heroes in the race. There is a 20+ year sailor who was a POW for a few years. Neither candidate refers to him as a hero. The media sometimes try to play it up.
2. You all have a thing about guns.
Most Americans on TD don't have a thing about guns. If you want one and you're not a nutter, you can buy one. Laws regarding its use still apply.
3. You all get very excited about killing and shooting stuff
Beer cans maybe. Who gets excited about killing (I presume you mean) people? No American I've ever met.
4. Full on blood letting seems to be the national pastime.
Do you watch too many Hollywood movies?
5. All kind of links together to suggest that a fanatically patriotic, anti Islamic ( read. any non fundamentally Christian belief) Arnie/Stallone type character, will in all likely hood take power in the not too distant future
Yawn ... Get real.
So, what's the bloody answer?Quote:
Originally Posted by chinthee
Yes, of course Texpat you got it right. All these candidates are merely human, and not that successful as compared to the real top winners, or they would be in the private sector knocking down the big bucks and not caring much about which idiot throws his hat in the ring next.Quote:
Originally Posted by Texpat
But, they are the best we've got in this system that rewards the true performers with extraordinary gains for their success, and leaves a large place for the middling performers, e.g., in politics. These people have a gift for rhetoric,
speech-making, and an addiction to Public adoration. They also seem to be gluttons for punishment exposing their personal lives like this...oh, well.
So, we see the same types year after year, decade after decade. These political types, who've done well, but nowhere near the expectations for people of their education and intellect. But, we accept that this is the best we can get in public servants, and I suppose that's true.
So, we'll elect another of these in November, probably the first black. I hope the power doesn't go to his head.
Surely it must have done already.Quote:
Originally Posted by chinthee