Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While saying that one served in the military might be an honorable statement, FACE IT, there are a whole bunch of things that one does in the military which does not make for a good election campaign.
Essentially at that point we'd probably be looking at the Bligh of a Shark who got the job done often at the expense of his troops marriages (the loser) vs. the nice guy (or the Cad who looks good on paper) who managed to get away from his post before the disaster caught up with him (the winner).
Who would vote for me, a USN Security Officer (ie, Provost Marshal) who used mental deception tactics against the general public to achieve goals?
In the military, one does not fight fair, they fight to win. To a civilian with the vote, I doubt that they will always see that kind of person as the one to put their trust in, the one who will look out for their interests.
I really can't help it if you feel you did irredeemable evil.
I really can't help it if you feel you did irredeemable evil.
Well, let me put it this way. When one is in the military, often they develop ways of thinking that is not only different from civilians but is also so wrong from the civilians point of view.
For example, perhaps you remember several years ago of the outrage when a patrolman reacted badly in Central Texas at a traffic stop because the couple was speeding because their dog was choking on a bone.
Okay, from my background of military police and counterintelligence, I would side with the patrolman because I would not immediately take such a situation as it appeared. That is, that it would be possible for someone to place a dog in that circumstance as a diversionary tactic. If they are on the bad side, what would a dog matter to them?
Two different ways of seeing things.
Finally, how can the civilian population truly have representation if only those with a military background can run? It is fundamentally not the United States at that point.
The only way that could work is......if EVERYONE (man, woman, crippled, gay, TG, etc) had to serve as well.
Okay, from my background of military police and counterintelligence, I would side with the patrolman because I would not immediately take such a situation as it appeared. That is, that it would be possible for someone to place a dog in that circumstance as a diversionary tactic. If they are on the bad side, what would a dog matter to them?
In your example, your "different way of seeing things" was based on your being a cop--notice that you would have sided with a civilian cop--not based on your being military.
If I had advocted permitting only career retired military to be government officials, you might have a slim point, but three or four years in the military does not brainwash a person into a difference species of human being. It does, however, show him that the customs of his own village are not laws of nature.
I would expect to see a slight rise in those numbers in 10-15 years as the slight War on Terror bulge progresses.
I'm certainly prejudiced in favor of the military, so I wouldn't mind seeing a constitutional amendment that would require federal office holders to have put in a few years active duty. It wouldn't do much for the military but I think it would do something for the government...a better understanding of what people at or near the point of the saber they're rattling is going to experience.
It will be slight. Less than two percent of the American population served in Iraq and Afghanistan. The War on Terror was no World War II. The former wasn't a national effort.
Location: IN>Germany>ND>OH>TX>CA>Currently NoVa and a Vacation Lake House in PA
3,259 posts, read 4,332,943 times
Reputation: 13476
I absolutely think prior military service of some sort should be a requirement for any American citizen to run for a public office. In fact, it wouldn't be a bad idea for the entire entitled population, but that's a topic for another debate.
It will be slight. Less than two percent of the American population served in Iraq and Afghanistan. The War on Terror was no World War II. The former wasn't a national effort.
True, and notice that I used the word "slight" twice myself, but with the current "honor the troops" ferver, I expect military service will be on the candidacty resume of every politician who can put it there, and the parties will look for it when casting for up-and-comers.
In your example, your "different way of seeing things" was based on your being a cop--notice that you would have sided with a civilian cop--not based on your being military.
If I had advocted permitting only career retired military to be government officials, you might have a slim point, but three or four years in the military does not brainwash a person into a difference species of human being. It does, however, show him that the customs of his own village are not laws of nature.
A: No, it was probably based on me being intel and counterintelligence, the latter which military police is part of. Simply said, a lot of cops probably aren't reading the secret sheets which tell all the mean and dirty tricks people in the world are doing.
B: Perhaps not, but 4 years of a military college and then a couple years in a service, ESPECIALLY under the will of a ship's Captain can certainly brainwash a person. Outsiders do not do well in that kind of environment. I know, I found myself on both sides of the game.
One thing no one has mentioned is that the military is only a small piece of what congress deals with. There are many other problems that plague this country that are not military related.
I honestly don't understand the argument that someone who served for a few years in a extremely structured bureaucracy will be better suited to be a policy maker than someone who didn't.
I absolutely think prior military service of some sort should be a requirement for any American citizen to run for a public office. In fact, it wouldn't be a bad idea for the entire entitled population, but that's a topic for another debate.
Chipping paint on a ship for three years is somehow relevant to being in office how?
I can see the guy running for Congress now "25 years ago, I served three years in the Navy, during this time, I was in deck div, I chipped paint and cranked, that makes me qualified over my opponent who did not do this".
Just in the civilian world, there have been plenty of veterans who turned out to be complete disasters in their job, even though their resume looked great and yes, the military experience was given weight. Many active duty personal are generally poor in things ranging from technical skills to leadership, but still right above the threshold to stay in. I am sure every veteran has their stories of horrible people they served with.
I just state the above because being in the military is not even close to being some gatekeeper/ensured qualification of being a successful senator, manager, worker, etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
