Okay, I see this trend that its a + to flaunt you're military services to becomes president. I personally believe it causes you to have a warped perception of the rest of the world and does not allow you to be think straight on foreign policy. What do you guys think?
It doesn't help you at all. I know plenty of idiots who've served. Supposedly some people think that you understand the horrors of war better if you've served but that's just not true. I'd think a historian would be far more qualified than a service member.
I think it is because military experience helps to prepare one for the virtual inevitability of sending people to fight this nation's wars. It helps a leader to have an (actual) understanding of what the people under them might endure as a result of their orders.
But people like Ron Paul flaunt his military career. McCain Vs Obama through his entire campaign he attack Obama for not serving in the military. Although he did loose this gained him a lot of support.
That is a pretty good answer. I could see having a military career if your intentions were to go to war when you became president, but right now a war would break Americas back.
You mean like Obama, Clinton, Kerry, and Gore? And while we're at it, why should paying taxes make any difference when you're running for President? Does it matter if the Clintons cheated on their taxes in Arkansas or Kerry pays a lower tax rate than a fireman? Why should it matter that a candidate can stand up and lie quite eloquently? I listened this morning to an excerpt of the last great Democrat President, Truman, and he was not an elequent speaker. Now we have Obama, a superb reader of scripts. I can understand why those who haven't served, won't serve, and won't have anyone related to them serving wouldn't want it mentioned.
I understand what you mean. But since I've been an adult (35+ years and counting), EVERY President has had to employ/deploy the military to fight/destroy other people or other things. As a career military man, I tend to WANT someone who understands military power AND the effects of using the same upon human beings (whether civilian or soldier). I took a chance with Mr. Obama, but his background reasonably informed me that he was one who could/would listen intently and make good military decisions (as we've all seen, for the most part).
My grandfather was a United States marine. My brother is currently serving in the military. I also don't see you're point on taxes, if you don't pay you're taxes your not doing your American duty to put back into the country that protects you. Taxes and serving in the military are two completely different things.
That is the problem with this country is that we have been in military confrontation for decades. Elect someone who does not have a warped perception on the rest of the world. Elect someone who is pro America not pro Isreal or Iran. I almost want Obama to get reelected so this blood shed can finally come to a end.
Centuries, not decades. Even so, I'm a peace-loving person. But I cannot perfectly answer or calculate for all of human nature. There will likely always be wars.
But we invite wars by electing people who have hatred in there hearts because they seen their best friend get blown up by a Muslim, of course they are going to hate Muslims. I'm not saying in all cases but it does happen a lot. My brother is not the same guy he was 6 years ago, he seems to have a grudge against anyone who was not born in America now.
Hey, I'm in there WITH you. I am against war and fighting. Even so, I have the ability and skills to engage in both of those things. I'm human, so I know that some people are only a single thought from calling you an enemy. I love people and hate suffering; that is what war leads to (I know). You need to be ready/able to fight other people, or just become a victim. That is reality. I'm not merely passive (whenever possible), I go out and promote peace whenever and wherever I can. I'm a warrior, but I know mercy, compassion and grace are best. I would say that war is sometimes necessary... not necessarily 'good'. Yes, the scars of war affect us all who are in the military (some far more than others). I hope and pray that your brother recovers well in time; that's is my hope for every soldier and their loved ones.
Short answer to the OP. Because our first president George Washington was a general and did pretty well both as a general and as president. Being the first went a long way toward establishing precedents and tendencies among the American public. In the mind of many voters, part of the "presidential resume" is being "someone who served". Kind of the reason that George P. Bush joined the military and served overseas from what I've heard. He wants to run for president one day.
Why does serving in the Miltary help you becomes president? .....because the position is Commander-In-Chief. Most people would prefer that position is filled by somebody with some sort of military experience.......otherwise you could be left with a Community-Organizer-In-Chief.....a completely clueless CIC. . .
Well, actually, we're doing this less than in the past. In case you haven't noticed, one of the most important parts of the Presidency is his role as commander-in-chief.
Ever since WW2 the United States of America has been a pseudo-imperial superpower. For several decades we had a competitor in the USSR but in the past twenty years we have been the sole superpower and the paradox is that incentives to using military power have increased without the threat of the Cold War to check our ambitions. This means the odds are very good that a President elected today or 4 years from now will either have to manage an existing conflict(s) or start a new one(s), or both. In such circumstances, I am more comfortable with a President who has the background to make informed military decisions. Look at the hash George Dubya made of Iraq - some real military service (as opposed to the mockery of his National Guard time) might have made all the difference. As for Clinton and our response to the breakup of Yugoslavia - gah!
Agreed. "Kill or be killed" is a great mindset for a military person, but it is anathema to good governance. Fortunately, the public doesn't actually seem to care.
A few History reminders. MacArthur was great general but got NO WHERE running for President. Does any body remember McCain ? Looking back we needed that military experience last go around..The whole democratic plank was about reducing the troop surge and getting out of a failed war. This time we have a failing economic environment and we get debate after debate about moral issues and religion. Was it the moral issues and religion that caused a national debt to expand at 3X the last administration ? Was it the brilliant performance by our military ? I say No on both counts..it was pay for play partisan politics..giving the poor Money from the rich and the guy in charge doesn't understand economics. Most military people dont either..they are given and order..the tools and knowledge to carry out those orders and someone ELSE worry's about the COST. How can military generals or vets from 20-30 years ago have a grasp on what it takes to FUND that army or navy ? They never like the politics..the Butt kissing with politicians and now they suddenly are superior when it comes to deployment ? That argument is loaded with pit falls and landmines. Comparing a Washington leading a break away nation is quite different from an established nation struggling with a huge national debt. When the current president leads by following ..leads by polling data and not strict doctrine..we see the results. Other nations begin to wonder..those that dont like us begin to TEST us more...those that hate us will eventually feel it is safe to attack us. The American military has an SYSTEM in place..NO MATTER who's elected they are already there. Obama had ZERO military background..and succeeded in killing bad guys anyway. President Carter was not so lucky..and was only there for 1 term. Killing bad guys does not take a shiny city on a hill but a trained military set free to do their jobs.But that City on a hill must be able to pay for the lights that light it up at night for the world to see.
I agree the struggles of are country today do not call for a man with a military background with piling debt, because of war. Their have been kings and queen who lead successfully for both Russia and Britain without ever stepping foot on a battlefield. The president is Commander and Chief but he has people under him to come up with battle strategies for this country, who are trained in this specific area.
I think that serving well in the military is a fairly distinctive thing, worthy of note. It's not the most important thing in the world, but it's not like just anybody can do it. To do a good job in the military, you have to have at least a few gears running in their proper directions, right? I think that's the theory, at least. I've known military people that could hold office ... and some that really shouldn't. It's not the best indicator in the world. But it's worth taking note of.
I agree with your statement, but it does not: Bob Dole lost to a sissy Clinton, McVeigh lost to sissy Obama and Ron Paul will likely lose to another sissy again. what matters to people like me though, is the hypocrisy of war mongers who have not even served in the military themselves
You gain a greater awareness of what it is to be American, and the reality that many people want to kill you because of it.
