John McCain criticizing Obama on Military Service

[Shane]

Originally Posted by AndyC0803

Obama has served his country as a senator. Unless you are talking exclusively about military service then Obama has clearly served his country as has anyone who has held public office.

Now if we are talking strictly about military service then we may as well just give up and let this country become a police state.

By your logic, the Commander in Chief of the United States Military should not have any experience in the United States Military. That is like saying that the owner / GM / CEO of the company you work for should not have any hands on experience at the job that you do.

It doesn't make us a military state, it just makes business sense.

Giving him (or her) a "pass" on serving in the military would be like hiring Jay as a brain surgeon. No thanks, I'll just die.

[Shane]

Originally Posted by Rusty27

And can you really count our current president as serving? He dodged Vietnam.

No, I don't, and yes he did. At least his father (whom I don't like either) actually served in an active way.

Enlisting doesn't mean you will automatically be a good leader, but it should be a prerequisite.

[Rusty27]

Originally Posted by Shane

By your logic, the Commander in Chief of the United States Military should not have any experience in the United States Military. That is like saying that the owner / GM / CEO of the company you work for should not have any hands on experience at the job that you do.

It doesn't make us a military state, it just makes business sense.

Giving him (or her) a "pass" on serving in the military would be like hiring Jay as a brain surgeon. No thanks, I'll just die.

I really don't get your post. Unless you were on the Joint Chiefs off Staff,
I really don't see how it helps you run the country. McCain's military career did not involve the type of decisions a President makes. Not even close. Bush and other Presidents rely on the CIA,Pentagon specialists,Joint Chiefs of Staff etc.
Even then it's still a disaster. Your comparisons between jay and a brain
surgeon to a US Senator and a President is beyond comprehension.
If you are a leader, you are a leader.

[Shane]

Originally Posted by ssigman

and as for our presidents that were in power after the civil war...well they were a waste but thats because our country was relatively new and trying to rebuild our country after a brutal war while expansion of new technologies in all fields were popping up quicker than expected...i don't so much blame there inadaquacies as a person but more of it being in over there heads no matter who was president

Not that this has a whole lot to do with the topic, but I see your point here. In some cases, the Presidents were not as much to blame as were the governors of certain states. Governor Lew Wallace (New Mexico) was more concerned with writing his novel "Ben Hur" than he was with governing his state. As it was approaching marshal law status, the civilians themselves wrote to President Hayes for help. For the most part they got none, and people just kept on killing eachother.

The same can be said for the state of Texas during the 1870's and 1880's, although the name of the Governor escapes me right now.

I think the southwest was a little bit more fucked up than the rest of the country following the civil war. It wasn't until the war was virtually over that these states became divided on the issues which led to the war in the first place. They almost didn't have a say in the matter.

Oh, and Grant is another example of someone who served in the military, but faltered as a President. He was brilliant in Lincoln's army, but he was horrible as a President. Some people just aren't cut out for the job.

Honestly, I have serious issues with anyone who is willing to raise and spend $100 million to get a job that pays $200,000 a year.

[Shane]

Originally Posted by Rusty27

I really don't get your post.

I will see if I can try to learn you something.

Originally Posted by Rusty27

Unless you were on the Joint Chiefs off Staff,
I really don't see how it helps you run the country. McCain's military career did not involve the type of decisions a President makes. Not even close.

No ones does, but I believe serving "actively" (not peace corps, or possibly even Coast Guard) at least gives you experience in how the military works, and puts you on the receiving end of the decisions made by the President. I believe that active military service is the best way to prepare for an office such as the Presidency, but at the same time does not guarantee success, it only improves the chances of success.

Originally Posted by Rusty27

Bush and other Presidents rely on the CIA,Pentagon specialists,Joint Chiefs of Staff etc.
Even then it's still a disaster.

While this is true, it isn't the whole truth. The "top dogs" for each branch of the military answers to the Commander in Chief. Right now we have proof that the wrong "decider" is in said chair. If we had someone with a decent military experience in office, our generals would probably not be sitting in the sandbox waiting for a uniformed enemy to come over the horizon in tanks and warplanes for us to attack. Instead, we have an enemy without uniforms, blending in with native citizens, appearing on the surface to be unorganized, blowing up our men and women while our leaders scratch their heads and say "I didn't see THAT coming".

Originally Posted by Rusty27

Your comparisons between jay and a brain
surgeon to a US Senator and a President is beyond comprehension.

Jay has as much experience with brain surgery as Obama has with the US Military. They are familiar with the existence of it, but cannot claim any experience in dealing with it.

Originally Posted by Rusty27

If you are a leader, you are a leader.

Leadership is more often learned, than acquired naturally. Abraham Lincoln is the perfect example of this, while W is the perfect example of someone who believes it will eventually surface without any outside stimulation.

Keep in mind, I have not supported or endorsed any candidate in my posts. I am not saying that Mr. McCain is the answer to any of our problems, nor am I saying that Mr. Obama is going to be worse.

I will say though that Hillary is not an option for me. If Bill Clinton lives in the white house again, it will become a whore house.

[AndyC0803]

If I am not mistaken, one of the goals of basic training in the military is to break the person down so they can be built back up as a soldier who is effective and able to function within the group dynamic of his/her unit. As such, the soldier is indoctrinated into the military way of life and the military way of thinking. I'm not saying they are made into robots or anything, but they are made to in military terms first and foremost.

I think that saying a president SHOULD be required to have some kind of military service is saying that a president should always be a certain way and if that was the case then no progress could really ever be made.

Now, one of the safeguards that prevent the armed forces from taking over the country in a military dictatorship is civilian oversight. We have that at the legislative level, why shouldn't we have that at the executive level?
Finally, no one person could possibly be an expert in ever single facet of being a world leader. For those aspects that he is not familiar with, it is important that they choose advisers, which they do in the form of the cabinet.

The care and use of the military is a very important issue for any president but is it more important than heath care? The economy? Public welfare? Social Security? You see what I’m saying here??

[Rusty27]

I'd say Obama's work in the Senate on commitees for Foreign Relations,Veterans Affairs,Health Education and Labor,Homeland Security and the legislation he been involved with writing gives him the experience I'm looking for.
And he is a leader and displays those leadership characteristics. I still say a leader is a leader. Sure the military can refine
and mold a leader but so can life's circumstances. You still have to be made of the right stuff.
Hillary is on a personal power trip willing to cheat,lie, and steal her way to the top.
I really would like to see McCain display some leadership qualities,but so far he's shown me nothing except being a grouchy old man.

[Shane]

Originally Posted by AndyC0803

If I am not mistaken, one of the goals of basic training in the military is to break the person down so they can be built back up as a soldier who is effective and able to function within the group dynamic of his/her unit. As such, the soldier is indoctrinated into the military way of life and the military way of thinking. I'm not saying they are made into robots or anything, but they are made to in military terms first and foremost.

I think that saying a president SHOULD be required to have some kind of military service is saying that a president should always be a certain way and if that was the case then no progress could really ever be made.

The military does do that to an extent, but they cannot take away the fact that we are all unique individuals. Like you said, they are not robots. Look at Meik. He served, and is not a robot. If he is, I hope they fired the programmer.

I don't think any President SHOULD be a certain way as you put it. I believe in diversity, and I believe we should have had a black or female President long ago. I believe that what is important is the moral and ethical standards of the President, and how they utilize them for the well being of the nation.

Originally Posted by AndyC0803

Now, one of the safeguards that prevent the armed forces from taking over the country in a military dictatorship is civilian oversight. We have that at the legislative level, why shouldn't we have that at the executive level?

While that looks good on paper, I would ask you to take a look at the trainwreck known as the US Congress. If that isn't enough, I point to such gems in the US Senate like Ted Kennedy.

Originally Posted by AndyC0803

Finally, no one person could possibly be an expert in ever single facet of being a world leader. For those aspects that he is not familiar with, it is important that they choose advisers, which they do in the form of the cabinet.

Oh, I totally agree. I wish there was such a person, but they have never, do not now, nor will they ever exist. Winston Churchill is a great example. He was a failure as a leader for his career, up until the US entered WWII. He and FDR on their own were not that great, but when paired together, and counseling with eachother, they went down in history as two of the greatest leaders of all time.

Originally Posted by AndyC0803

The care and use of the military is a very important issue for any president but is it more important than heath care? The economy? Public welfare? Social Security? You see what I’m saying here??

Right now I do believe that the military needs to be our new President's top priority. Our troops are stretched too thin, the Bush administration has no idea what they are doing, and congress is making every effort to accomplish nothing. I am just thankful that Gore never got in, because we would probably be fighting these wars on our soil right now if he had.

As for health care, it would not be as big of an issue as it currently is if Hillary had not stuck her ugly fucking nose in it 15 years ago.

The economy is not the fault of the government, nor can the government fix it. I think the "kicker" checks have proven that. They attempted to put a band-aid on cancer. The problem is that people have not only spent more money than they have, but they have spent more money than they can ever make. Credit card debt is out of control, people have second and third mortgages, multiple car payments, and they finance other shit they don't need (plasma tv's, etc). Over the next decade or two, a lot of people are going to lose their asses, and the people who will win are the ones who pay cash.

Also, don't forget that the baby boomers (the largest generation in history) are starting to die off, while the next generation is the smallest generation in history. Anyone trying to figure out the crappy housing market needs to remember this. I have a newsflash, it is not going to get better for a long time, no matter who is in office.

As a conservative, I don't feel the government should have anything to do with public welfare as you put it. I want them to do three things: Protect my borders, deliver my mail, and stay the fuck out of my life. These are things that they have not been competent at since the Reagan Administration.

Lastly, forget about social security. If you were born after 1964, you won't see it, and no attempt at reform will work. If in doubt, see my comments on the baby boomers above.