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.
I am not declaring a preference for any candidate here, merely questioning the political parties.
Have you noticed that in the last election, military service was a major debating point? Kerry vs Bush. True service or merely a veneer.
In this elections cycle, the only mention that I have seen concerning this is that someone tried to claim that McCains' service was a hinderance to his being able to govern as President.
Granted, Obama and Clinton have no military experience and McCain has a well known history, but isn't it hypocritical to say that four years ago it was of importance and now not even mention it?
I am not declaring a preference for any candidate here, merely questioning the political parties.
Have you noticed that in the last election, military service was a major debating point? Kerry vs Bush. True service or merely a veneer.
In this elections cycle, the only mention that I have seen concerning this is that someone tried to claim that McCains' service was a hinderance to his being able to govern as President.
Granted, Obama and Clinton have no military experience and McCain has a well known history, but isn't it hypocritical to say that four years ago it was of importance and now not even mention it?
Having worked with and lived with military in a civilian capacitiy for most of my adult life I think that if the military service was below Colonel or its equivalent, then it just gives a sense of "being one of us" because they are implementers, but once you reach Admiral or General ranks, then the experience might have an impact on the job because they are decision makers at that point. On the whole, I preferour system that a civilian remains in control of the military.
I thin it makes you realise that there are still many people like Hitler in this world;especailly if you serve i n war zone.It make you realize that some only recognise strength and can not be reasoned with.
I thin it makes you realise that there are still many people like Hitler in this world;especailly if you serve i n war zone.It make you realize that some only recognise strength and can not be reasoned with.
That is an interesting point. Based on the amount of training and the psychological conditioning that goes into making a great warrior (I am an instructional designer for the DOD), I often wonder if our guys are convinced that conflict is the only way or if it is a reality. If you are constantly told that the world as we know will collapse if you do not do your duty to the country, when do you start internalizing that for all things, not just a particular battle or conflict. As a civilian, I often see things in many shades of gray, but work with people who live in a starkly black and white world.
Two great American presidents serving in times of our most difficult wars had no appreciable military service. Lincoln remarked that the only blood he saw shed in his brief experience in the Blackhawk War was due to mosquitoes. FDR had no service experience. He was appointed Assistant Secretary of the Navy by Woodrow Wilson.
That was not the point of my post. The point was, why is it only important that a candidate had military experience when that candidate is yours and it doesn't matter is your candidate has no military experience.
That was not the point of my post. The point was, why is it only important that a candidate had military experience when that candidate is yours and it doesn't matter is your candidate has no military experience.
For some people that is the case. For me, I do not consider military service a requirement ever. If it was, it would be in the law.
That was not the point of my post. The point was, why is it only important that a candidate had military experience when that candidate is yours and it doesn't matter is your candidate has no military experience.
As a member of the Armed Forces and a Democrat, I will attempt to answer your question, Predos. I'm going to assume your question is geniune and not just a bait -- a big assumption for these boards, I know.
First, I don't think that military service is a requirement for being a president. As others have noted, we have had some great leaders, even wartime leaders, who haven't served. And, we've had some ex military men who weren't great presidents. That said, I do appreciate one's service to the country and I do tend to weight the words of those who have served a little heavier than those who have not when it comes to certain aspects of national policy.
Anyways, I personally thought that military service was a huge issue in 2004 because I think Bush is a total phoney. I think he represents a growing segment of the Republican party who claim to respect military service, but they don't actually understand or even really respect the sacrifice that military service entails. The prevailing ideology of the GOP is glorification of selfishness, and that contradicts what military service stands for. I have a problem with the fact that he was a supporter of the Vietnam war, but he used family ties to get a cushy state-side assignment.
I think Kerry's stance was more admirable. He was willing to risk his hide, so to speak, even though he didn't necessarily agree with the war. He answered the call and moved toward the cannons .. his country right or wrong. Consequently, I also did not have a problem with Bill Clinton's record on this matter. He disagreed with the war .. he didn't think anyone should go and he didn't. I don't think his stance was as honorable as Kerry's, but he did what he did and I can respect him for that. He was called a draft dodger for using his student deferrment, but I-had-other-priorties Cheney has gotten a pass from your side.
I do have a hard time swallowing Bush's stance that the war was great, just not for him. This smacks of the worst kind of elitism as far as I'm concerned. Let the poor kids, go. He was reportedly angry during his time at Yale because the war protesters kept ruining his frat boy parties.
As for the current election, McCain gets points in my score card for his service. I believe he is a different kind of Republican in that he does not seem enamoured of the selfishness-as-a-virtue viral meme that has infected his party, which, by the way, I believe threatens the Republic every bit as much as other, leftist ideologies did a century ago. As for Obama's service, it's not so much an issue because of his age. He wasn't eligible to serve until 1979, and there wasn't much going on at that time for people to take a stand on.
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.
