POLL: Should Combat Service Be Required

[wiffleball 4,646]

In light of the SPECTACULARIFIC way that George, Diick and Rummy have waged various wars - and, in light of the crappy care that some of our veterans are getting, do you think it should be a requirement that in order to be Commander in Chief, (VEEP), and/or Secy of Defense, you need to have served either in combat or at least in the armed forces?

 

(And no, I don't mean in the silver-spoon, Daddy get me outta 'nam, I'll skip my part-time NatGuard duty to help in politics kinda way. I mean, real life, full-time military duty.)

 

Now, requiring them to serve in combat is tricky. #1) The wimmens would biitch 'cause they're not supposed to be in combat and #2) You'd be screwed if say - peace broke out. But, given America's history, I don't think we need to worry much about not being able to find combat duty at any given time.

 

Seems to me that if you want to be CIC, you should have firsthand knowledge of military (esp combat) service. Damn sure for the SecDef too. (Note: Rummy served 3 years during peace time)

 

So, what say you?

[Strike 3,980]

By the time people are in those positions of power they're a bit old to be in combat. The only way this would be realistic would be if it were required to even run for these offices and no, I would not be in favor of that. Those in power have the best military minds at their disposal so it's not like they're lacking in the expertise necessary to manage such a war. They just choose not to listen.

 

And I didn't vote in your poll due to the clear bias and negative connotation in the wording you put in the choice I would have chosen.

[Dr. Rosenpenis 0]

No, that's ridiculous and your poll choices are retarded.

[D_House 0]

Negatory, and you suck.

[wiffleball 4,646]

No, that's ridiculous and your poll choices are retarded.

 

 

I know, it's just RIDICULOUS to expect job experience before a leadership role. That almost never happens in the real world!

 

So, I'll mark you down for "Yes, I have a man-crush on a silver-spoon, combat dodging fairies."

[Dr. Rosenpenis 0]

I know, it's just RIDICULOUS to expect job experience before a leadership role. That almost never happens in the real world!

 

So, I'll mark you down for "Yes, I have a man-crush on a silver-spoon, combat dodging fairies."

 

You're right, we've never had a [popular / successful] wartime president before who didn't have military experience

 

Just b/c you don't like Bush doesn't mean we need to re-write the Constitution. It's an idiotic question.

[MDC 5,895]

No. I don't think it's hypocritical to support a war without actually fighting in it or having seen combat. I supported the war in Afghanistan and I've never served in combat. The thing I do find hypocritical though, is when Republicans congratulation themselves for having the "strength" and "resolve" to support the war in Iraq. It takes no courage to be a cheerleader on the sidelines.

[wiffleball 4,646]

You're right, we've never had a [popular / successful] wartime president before who didn't have military experience

 

- That's a crack at FDR isn't it? He's cripped, for god's sake. He COULDN'T serve. You're attacking cripples now? Nice. Damn, you just have no shame, do you?

 

 

Just b/c you don't like Bush doesn't mean we need to re-write the Constitution. It's an idiotic question.

 

- Why not? They want to re-write the constitution to let Shwarzenegger be President. You'd rather allow Nazis & Arabs to become President of the United States than simply require that the man leading good american men in the military to have simple job experience? My GOD man, where are your priorities?

 

[D_House 0]

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

J

 

[Dr. Rosenpenis 0]

Roosevelt didn't have polio until he was nearly 40.

[wiffleball 4,646]

No. I don't think it's hypocritical to support a war without actually fighting in it or having seen combat. I supported the war in Afghanistan and I've never served in combat. The thing I do find hypocritical though, is when Republicans congratulation themselves for having the "strength" and "resolve" to support the war in Iraq. It takes no courage to be a cheerleader on the sidelines.

 

I don't think it's a question of hypocrisy - and I don't think it's about supporting anything.

 

To me it's more a simple matter that if you've served, you know first hand what combat is like, you know the horrors, but you also know the simple things that soldiers and their command need. And maybe, just maybe that experience would make you a better CIC. And, you'd be a damn sight more sensitive to the needs of veterans. I'm pretty sure John McCain wouldn't have cut veteran's benefits like below:

 

More than 10,000 Washington state veterans could face a $1,000-a-year increase for their medical care under a Bush administration budget proposal, a veterans advocacy group says.

And state officials warn that the White House spending plan could force out roughly half of the 600 residents at Washington’s three veterans homes, possibly resulting in the closure of one of them.

 

The administration has proposed charging some veterans a $250 annual fee for access to medical services provided by the Veterans Administration and more than doubling the copayment for prescription drugs from $7 to $15.

In addition, the Bush administration budget would significantly reduce federal support for state-operated veterans homes and impose new limitations on who can be admitted.

[Dr. Rosenpenis 0]

I don't think it's a question of hypocrisy - and I don't think it's about supporting anything.

 

To me it's more a simple matter that if you've served, you know first hand what combat is like, you know the horrors, but you also know the simple things that soldiers and their command need. And maybe, just maybe that experience would make you a better CIC. And, you'd be a damn sight more sensitive to the needs of veterans.

 

So now they don't just have to serve but they need to actually be in combat? What percentage of our armed services do you think actually end up in combat? I don't know the answer but I'd bet it's a pretty small number.

 

If they're an eighteen year old cook in the army will they necessarily gain the experience to know what 'soldiers and their command need'? You're describing an officer and as far as I know there are two ways to achieve that outside of a military academy: 1) [R]OTC, which would probably be unacceptable to you b/c it could be viewed as a shortcut; 2) long distinguished service.

 

You've basically narrowed the field of potential POTUS candidates to graduates of our military academies and/or professional military guys (ETA: who've actually made it into combat).

[Strike 3,980]

 

 

You've basically narrowed the field of potential POTUS candidates to graduates of our military academies and/or professional military guys.

 

And of course, being President requires other skills that military guys probably won't have because being President is more than just fighting wars. Hmmm......

[wiffleball 4,646]

Roosevelt didn't have polio until he was nearly 40.

 

Oh, I'm sorry that FDR wasn't crippled soon enough for you.

 

 

 

 

You've basically narrowed the field of potential POTUS candidates to graduates of our military academies and/or professional military guys (ETA: who've actually made it into combat).

 

I have news for you, Mister, thousands of America's finest are fighting and dying in combat right now - and they didn't go to some fancy-pants military academy. they're not professional military-guys. They're Doctors and Wal-Mart Greeters and such. As I recall, one of them there poll choices was for the possibility of just plain serving w/o necessarily combat. - Though, I spose you'd argue that serving combat DOESN'T make you more familiar with combat?

 

You'd probaby know more about the poll choices if you'd a voted. But you didn't. And as the saying goes, if you don't vote, you can't biitch.

[Dr. Rosenpenis 0]

Oh, I'm sorry that FDR wasn't crippled soon enough for you.

 

Rather than trying to bait me into an even dopier argument, why don't you admit your poll is retarded and we can chalk it up to a momentary lapse in logic. Otherwise we'll be forced to believe you really are this dumb.

[MDC 5,895]

I don't think it's a question of hypocrisy - and I don't think it's about supporting anything.

 

To me it's more a simple matter that if you've served, you know first hand what combat is like, you know the horrors, but you also know the simple things that soldiers and their command need. And maybe, just maybe that experience would make you a better CIC. And, you'd be a damn sight more sensitive to the needs of veterans. I'm pretty sure John McCain wouldn't have cut veteran's benefits like below:

 

You know that I think Bush is absolutely the suck, but I disagree with you on this one. I think a President with a strong moral compass and leadership skills can hire good people to help him make good decisions about the military or anything else. All that takes is a willingness to swallow your pride enough to delegate, but also to hold the people around you accountable. The problem with this President isn't that he never saw combat. The problem is he values loyalty over competence and mistakes stubborness for "resolve."

 

If the point you're trying to make is guys like Bush and Cheney wouldn't show such wreckless disregard for our soldiers and waging war if they'd seen combat I might agree with you. I just don't think their lack of combat experience is as big a problem as their lack of personal character.

 

HTH.

[Dr. Rosenpenis 0]

I have news for you, Mister, thousands of America's finest are fighting and dying in combat right now - and they didn't go to some fancy-pants military academy. they're not professional military-guys. They're Doctors and Wal-Mart Greeters and such. As I recall, one of them there poll choices was for the possibility of just plain serving w/o necessarily combat. - Though, I spose you'd argue that serving combat DOESN'T make you more familiar with combat?

 

You'd probaby know more about the poll choices if you'd a voted. But you didn't. And as the saying goes, if you don't vote, you can't biitch.

 

There are 300,000,000 people in the US. How many of them are qualified to be president? 10? 20? I appreciate our fighting soldiers but you've pretty much agreed with what I said - the pool of candidates based on your criteria is tiny.

 

I didn't vote b/c the choices are too limited. I believe you could not serve and also not be a draft dodging, silver-spoon, fairy.

[wiffleball 4,646]

There are 300,000,000 people in the US. How many of them are qualified to be president? 10? 20? I appreciate our fighting soldiers but you've pretty much agreed with what I said - the pool of candidates based on your criteria is tiny.

 

 

That's b/c right now, the next silver-spoon combat dodging fairy with political aspirations doesn't HAVE to serve in order to get the to the White House. If this were a rule, then all these shmucks thinking of living the good life in politics would have to serve. The cowards would stay out of politics and it'd naturally weed out (and in) better political candidates.

[Call me...Tim? 0]

Rather than trying to bait me into an even dopier argument, why don't you admit your poll is retarded and we can chalk it up to a momentary lapse in logic. Otherwise we'll be forced to believe you really are this dumb.

 

 

Give him a bit more time and then drop Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, Johnson and about 1/2 of our other presidents on him.

[Dr. Rosenpenis 0]

living the good life in politics

 

 

You seem dim enough to make a great politician yourself.

[wiffleball 4,646]

Give him a bit more time and then drop Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, Truman, Johnson and about 1/2 of our other presidents on him.

 

 

Uh, Mr. history buff? Lincoln servied in the military during the Black Hawk War. In fact not only did he enlist, he RE-enlisted after his unit was disbanded.

 

Nice try, though.

 

 

(and really, you're going to put Lyndon Johnson on that list? He's the poster child!! He's the George Washington of Incompetent Texas politicians incompetently waging a quagmire of a failure of a war while granting Halliburton Billions of dollars in contracts. He's GWB's Hero! )

[Snuff 10]

This would be like saying the Pres should have a super duper economic or business or accounting background...be a CEO or something, for domestic issues. Or a policeman so they could handle the border. Or a doctor so they could handle health care issues......

[wiffleball 4,646]

 

You seem dim enough to make a great politician yourself.

 

 

Well lessee, I think Bush - who sets the record by a long shot - is up to about 400 vacation days in 6 years. That's more than I've had in my entire career. How about you?

 

Interesting tidbit: With less than five years in office, Bush made 50 trips to Crawford.

 

Another interesting tidbit: Bush was "on vacation" the entire month of August 2001 - and - before you whip out the "he was working" crap - You might want to check out the 9/11 commission testimony where George Tenet said under oath - even though he'd been briefed on the 9/11 threat, he NOT ONCE spoke to GWB during the entire month leading up to 9/11, nor did George bother to even phone in for one of the briefings. - Nice.

 

What's that work out to? 10 trips to Crawford (doesn't count camp David) per year?? Almost four months vacation? Free everything and a six-figger salary. Not too shabby for a combat dodging fairy.