Fit to Command - What's Your Opinion?

[Chuck64]

with some ethical training and rules to help everyone work togeather

Sorry. I don't think the military's "ethical training and rules" help people work together. Have you ever had to work for someone who applies their military training to the workplace?

I've worked for three ex-military guys. Two were officers. All of them were raging homophobes and couldn't handle constructive critisism. The only positive is that they could manage stressful situations really well.

One of the officers cheated on his wife - with an employee - who was younger than his daughters - in his office - during business hours - at least three times. He also thought it was appropriate to moon one of the women in our department like a college frat boy. That was the end of him.

The other officer traded company-owned equipment (we're talking about stealing nearly $11k worth of equipment) for a better schedule for the employee he was stalking. The cops had to get involved. After he got canned, a bottle of non-prescription viagra and three porn DVDs were shipped to his office.

 

[Dr Rock]

Compulsary service maybe. But I don't believe you should be forced to kill another human being. You should have the option to back out over something stupid like the Iraq war.

interest tangent: do you think that governments would be so eager to start wars for personal profit and power if they'd experienced combat for themselves?

 

[Chuck64]

interest tangent: do you think that governments would be so eager to start wars for personal profit and power if they'd experienced combat for themselves?

Anything's possible with the nut-jobs we've been picking on this side of the pond.

 

[rawbone8]

interest tangent: do you think that governments would be so eager to start wars for personal profit and power if they'd experienced combat for themselves?

Depends. I see no reason why the power elite would have any problem avoiding perilous situations while serving just as they have in the past. Are you suggesting that they would have no choice in ranks or assignments when you say combat experience?

 

[Fredneck1951]

Keillor is usually a sensible guy and I understand where he's coming from, but the answer is NO, military service should not be a prerequisite for any public office any more than being a specific religion should qualify or disqualify one. The framers were quite clear about this, they could have written it in and they didn't. The framers feared one thing above all others, a strong executive with a standing army it its disposal. Sounds like America in 2006 to me. "Beware the man on horseback!"

National Service, though, should be required of virtually every able-bodied (and even those with certain disabilities) man and woman in this country. Sometime between your 18th and 26th birthdays, you owe your country two years of service. Might be in the military. Might be in the ecology corps. Might be the Peace Corps. Might be as a doctor in the inner city, or a dentist in a rural area. But two years should be an absolute requirement.

The current military is a jobs program for poor rural whites and inner-city minorities with a small elite corps of middle-class officers. If unemployment drops too much, it will get really tough to fill the billets, believe me.

The biggest failure of the current administration, in my mind, is that no sacrifice is even asked of most of us. We're in a war? Party hearty! Global struggle? More tax cuts! If the President really wanted to be a President, and make tough decisions, he would be proposing a $2 tax per gallon of gasoline. Since he's not, it's just lip service and therefore meaningless.

Someone here said Republicans have no conscience and Democrats have no spine, and that's not a bad assessment of things.

 

[KinkGuy]

...National Service, though, should be required of virtually every able-bodied (and even those with certain disabilities) man and woman in this country...

Do the queers qualify for service as persons with "certain disabilities?"

 

[ClaireTalon]

interest tangent: do you think that governments would be so eager to start wars for personal profit and power if they'd experienced combat for themselves?

You're making a very interesting point there, Dr. My sentiments exactly. The overall consensus is that someone with combat experience is more likely to think twice about sending soldiers into unnecessary battles.

I wonder that nobody has yet come up with the possible problem of the military placing a very dependent officer into the President's office, hoping to bargain from his decisions. To avoid such an unpleasant mishap, as well as someone with token service, my suggestion would be having the candidate's military career examined by an ad-hoc committee of officers, who could then express a positive/negative recommendation for the candidate. They should decide along such criterions as combat experience, awards, evaluation reports, eventual reprimands etc. Necessarily these officers would have to be elected and nominated anew with every election, and be ruled out for all further elections after their participation.

 

[deleted62]

You're making a very interesting point there, Dr. My sentiments exactly. The overall consensus is that someone with combat experience is more likely to think twice about sending soldiers into unnecessary battles.

While the person with combat experience is more likely to do the above, personal experience has told me that thinking twice won't necessarily keep that person, should he or she become President, from doing it. I'm trying to think of how to put this, but the only thing I can think of as an analogy is the T-shirt for babies that reads, "Now that I'm safe, I'm Pro-Life." If the only thing a seasoned politician sees is profit/re-election, that's the route he/she is going to go down.

Politicians shouldn't decide when we go to war. I suggest national referendums. What is the percentage of congresspeople who have children/grandchildren in the military? How about the percentage of congresspeople who have descendants who would actually see combat if they were to go overseas? (I was in Iraq for well over a year, even went back, and barely saw actual combat -- tiny, easily resolved situations/skirmishes excluded.) Those who have nothing to actually lose by going to war, in my view, really shouldn't have the power to authorize it.

That being said, everyone who signed up for the military since 9/11 has or should have known that the possibility of being deployed to a very dangerous area was very, very high. I am proud of 99.9999% of all the military servicemembers, especially those of my Army. It takes a lot of courage and honor to step up to the plate and do one's mission to try and make the Iraqis' world a little bit safer.

I'm not sure what message, if any, you might have gotten from this, but when I am passionate about two different things, I tend to have intra-cerebral Ultimate Fighting Bouts, with each thing trying to control the synapses that lead to my fingers. Plus, it's just my opinion, and since I am not a politician, I am not in any way going to force it on you.

-Z

My two cents was brought to you by the letters U, S, and A, and by the numbers pi and e.

 

[Fredneck1951]

Do the queers qualify for service as persons with "certain disabilities?"

You know that's not what I was talking about, amigo.

Otherwise, abso-fuckin-lutely! No discrimination. Zero tolerance for discrimination of any type.

Anyone with the mental capacity to do service is included. Blind, deaf, in a wheelchair, so what if you can do productive work.

But I think that for any kind of civil arrangement, whether it be government service, marriage, adoption, whatever. You can exclude convicted felons, everyone else is included.

 

[B_horribleperson]

i guess many of you forgot ( or didnt know cuz your from another country) but the way the US government was set up to work was that the common man was to run it he would set aside 4 years of his life and be a congressmen or president then after his term was up he would go back to being a farmer or lawyer or whatever he did for a living. mandatory military service works great in Isreal where they have been at war since the first second the country was started.

so no i dont see a need for that in the US

 

[Rikter8]

Your taking the fun out of it.

Sometimes choices aren't that easy.
Thats why you shoot while you can, and ask questions later.

Dr. you made a very good point.
I don't believe they would. Anybody with common sense or compassion for human life would not have sent our boys to war in Iraq.
There are MANY politically correct ways that we could have retailiated against that country, with others Help. (Declined any and all imports of goods, No Exports to that country, Re-sourced Oil supplies elsewhere, and Passed that rule on for other countries for the best Financial impact on a small country)
Moreso, now that the Civil uproar has re-taken the Middle east, Our boys/girls should get the hell out while they can.

But, for the current administration, its just a scam to steal Billions of dollars, run the country into Debt, and then walk away from it all.

Why else would Bush be selling our Ports, other than to completely Cripple the United States, while he steals all the cash.

C

BTW - KinkGuy... "Fags" sure does come across as crude. Are you sure your "Family" ?

 

[ClaireTalon]

While the person with combat experience is more likely to do the above, personal experience has told me that thinking twice won't necessarily keep that person, should he or she become President, from doing it. I'm trying to think of how to put this, but the only thing I can think of as an analogy is the T-shirt for babies that reads, "Now that I'm safe, I'm Pro-Life." If the only thing a seasoned politician sees is profit/re-election, that's the route he/she is going to go down.

Politicians shouldn't decide when we go to war. I suggest national referendums. What is the percentage of congresspeople who have children/grandchildren in the military? How about the percentage of congresspeople who have descendants who would actually see combat if they were to go overseas? (I was in Iraq for well over a year, even went back, and barely saw actual combat -- tiny, easily resolved situations/skirmishes excluded.) Those who have nothing to actually lose by going to war, in my view, really shouldn't have the power to authorize it. <.>

The last thing I'd make a decision instance for engaging in a war would be a national referendum. You know how easily the largest parts of the US population can be manipulated, we have had this situation just recently. Or should I go back and mention the story of Iraqi soldiers killing infants in the Kuwait hospitals? Or do you want the still pretty mysterious torpedo raid in the Tonkinese bay that lead us into Vietnam war? I'd suggest you to read Larry Beinhart's "An American Hero" to find out some things about public manipulations.

 

[deleted62]

Very, very true, Claire. I am a little bit naive in that I still think that the American public can be educated not to be manipulated so easily. Trust me, that naivete is rapidly fading ever so cynically.

However, we use national referenda to elect the people who can then choose the U.S. to go to war or not, along with a lot of other issues that directly affect us. Those elections, as we all know, are subject to the same manipulation of the American public.

I guess I'm just anti-politician. I can't even think straight because of it, so I'm going to stop here before I write something that is worse than a biased opinion -- an angry biased opinion. Although I could get a job at Fox News if I did so.

-Z

My two cents hates people with a political agenda owning media outlets.

 

[Dr Rock]

I guess I'm just anti-politician.

no sane person could not be.

 

[college22punk9]

I don't think its absolutely necessary for a good president to have military experience. Yes he is commanding the military, but lets remember he has a lot of advisors who have dedicated their whole lives to the military, and they give advice when it is needed. Obviously our country hasn't been big at putting up worthy intelligent candidates for election, but rather career politicians, and our biggest question at the polls is "ok who is the lesser of 2 evils...". The president should be a very intelligent being who can make decisions about all subject matter, so that it is in the best interest of the country. Should we make our president require to have been on social security, welfare, or medicare? I mean, he is making important decisions on those subjects too, so maybe his lack of experience there would be just as bad as a lack of military experience?

Don't get me wrong, I think it is a plus, if someone does have military experience, however I don't think it is NECESSARY to be a great president.

 

[mindseye]

I don't think its absolutely necessary for a good president to have military experience. Yes he is commanding the military, but lets remember he has a lot of advisors who have dedicated their whole lives to the military, and they give advice when it is needed.

An excellent point -- regardless of military service, a good president should listen to his advisors before making decisions. As opposed to making decisions and then telling his advisors to find facts that justify it.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

As opposed to making decisions and then telling his advisors to find facts that justify it.

Or forcing out those advisors who don't agree.

 

[Rikter8]

An excellent point -- regardless of military service, a good president should listen to his advisors before making decisions. As opposed to making decisions and then telling his advisors to find facts that justify it.

Punishment by Impeachment.

My Vote is on the table.
Who else is with me?

 

[ClaireTalon]

I don't think its absolutely necessary for a good president to have military experience. Yes he is commanding the military, but lets remember he has a lot of advisors who have dedicated their whole lives to the military, and they give advice when it is needed. Obviously our country hasn't been big at putting up worthy intelligent candidates for election, but rather career politicians, and our biggest question at the polls is "ok who is the lesser of 2 evils...". The president should be a very intelligent being who can make decisions about all subject matter, so that it is in the best interest of the country. Should we make our president require to have been on social security, welfare, or medicare? I mean, he is making important decisions on those subjects too, so maybe his lack of experience there would be just as bad as a lack of military experience?

Don't get me wrong, I think it is a plus, if someone does have military experience, however I don't think it is NECESSARY to be a great president.

Maybe necessary is too strong a term, but military service would be too important for the office to leave it a facultative item. I certainly don't want a president who is almost exclusively dependent on his advisors who make the big decisions for him. The system means the advisors to be just that, advisors, who are guidelined by the president.

His personal experience with military service isn't only helpful in regards to his defense policy, but also can have positive influence on his role of internal leadership, i.e. his command over his board of advisors.

Z, it isn't a purely American problem I'm talking about. If you see through the last wars, the public has always been made believe that it is a necessary decision. The french were made believe that the thrones of Spain and Germany were about to be merged and readily went into war in 1871. In 1939, it's been the Germans who thought they were defending themselves against an attack from Poland. Newer history examples I've already given. The point I'm making is that public manipulation is a given fact at the beginning of every war, and the public acceptance for a war can always be raised to a level where you can win virtually any referendum.

 

[curious n str8]

I am just curious...those of you on the site that have been in the military do you think that your training has been a hinderace or a blessing ? has it helped you become a better person in terms of ethics, being a person of your word, probem solving etc ?:feedback: