Jump to content

Losing the War on Terror, Mr. Bush?


Skeezix
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Jon, why should a president have a military background? That is BS. I'd rather have the best guy for the job, irregardless of background. Would you rather have a commander in chief with military background and unsound reasoning or a guy who wasn't in the military but is able to rely on his chiefs, take their ideas and make the important decisions with brain power and reasoning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there are many ways available. be it through economic incentives, financing of pro-democracy media, international political pressure, etc ... of course, in times of specific crisis, international military help could be advisable (kurds and shiites in 91).

 

but the most important part is to not support dictatorships. without outside support not only do dictators find it very difficult to grab power but whenever they do they eventually fall to reform movements, especially if the population is exposed to the way of life of the outside world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Commander in Chief should have served in the military or something similar, like the FBI or CIA. That is what I think! You can think whatever you want and vote for whomever you want, and equally I can give a shit. Get over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Commander in Chief should have served in the military or something similar, like the FBI or CIA. That is what I think! You can think whatever you want and vote for whomever you want, and equally I can give a shit. Get over it.

 

Jon, I am curious why you think this? Really. I've never understood this. Should presidents have a background in economics? Law? Foregin affairs? Why is millitary service so important? I am not saying it shouldn't be taken into account, but why a pre-requisite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not hostile, I find you irritating. Read your post at the top of the page, what rational person wouldn't for the former in that extreme instance?

 

Oversimplify it as much as you want to support your arguement, I don't care. No I'm not going to explain myself because it has nothing to do with what we are arguing about here. Everyone here is still failing to support their arguement about why Bush is responsible for the global increase in terrorism.

 

j_b, you are saying that is going to work in a terrorist supporting country? Please start by naming off the terrorist supporting countries, followed by the structure of government. Then explain to me how your examples could possibly work in those instances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon, why should a president have a military background? That is BS. I'd rather have the best guy for the job, irregardless of background. Would you rather have a commander in chief with military background and unsound reasoning or a guy who wasn't in the military but is able to rely on his chiefs, take their ideas and make the important decisions with brain power and reasoning?

 

Wow! Had to read this one twice. Seems you just made the case for Bush. Does this mean you'll be voting for GW this November?? thumbs_up.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not hostile, I find you irritating. Read your post at the top of the page, what rational person wouldn't for the former in that extreme instance?

 

Oversimplify it as much as you want to support your arguement, I don't care. No I'm not going to explain myself because it has nothing to do with what we are arguing about here. Everyone here is still failing to support their arguement about why Bush is responsible for the global increase in terrorism.

 

j_b, you are saying that is going to work in a terrorist supporting country? Please start by naming off the terrorist supporting countries, followed by the structure of government. Then explain to me how your examples could possibly work in those instances.

 

cry.gif

 

I re-read my example. I think it's a close mirror of what we have now. FDR wasn't military and he was a great military leader. I, personally, wouldn't call bush a good leader or a rational one, but only history can decide that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon, why should a president have a military background? That is BS. I'd rather have the best guy for the job, irregardless of background. Would you rather have a commander in chief with military background and unsound reasoning or a guy who wasn't in the military but is able to rely on his chiefs, take their ideas and make the important decisions with brain power and reasoning?

 

Wow! Had to read this one twice. Seems you just made the case for Bush. Does this mean you'll be voting for GW this November?? thumbs_up.gif

 

huh!? Bush supposedly has a military background, meeting John's criteria. Both of the guys do, in this election. Bush however also meets my criteria of an irrational and poor leader. I used my example of a man who wasn't in the military (FDR) and was a far superior leader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon, why should a president have a military background? That is BS. I'd rather have the best guy for the job, irregardless of background. Would you rather have a commander in chief with military background and unsound reasoning or a guy who wasn't in the military but is able to rely on his chiefs, take their ideas and make the important decisions with brain power and reasoning?

 

This post retard. You are calling bullshit, and at that point decided to engage me. I'll repeat, who in their right mind would not vote for the later in this extreme instance? That's what I find irritating. I said I think the President should have served, I'm not saying I won't vote for someone who hasn't, but it's definately something I look for. No I'm not going to explain myself because it has nothing to do with the at hand. Read my first post, I'm not a Bush supporter so MOVE ON SONNY!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Commander in Chief should have served in the military or something similar, like the FBI or CIA. That is what I think! You can think whatever you want and vote for whomever you want, and equally I can give a shit. Get over it.

 

Jon, I am curious why you think this? Really. I've never understood this. Should presidents have a background in economics? Law? Foregin affairs? Why is millitary service so important? I am not saying it shouldn't be taken into account, but why a pre-requisite?

 

Here is my answer, which may or may not be anything close to what Jon's answer is:

 

Military operations put Americans in harm's way. No other part of government (IRS, EPA, etc.) is like that. If a president has to make a decision that could cost or save soldiers' lives, I'd feel more comfortable if he had previously been under enemy fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But isn't it possible that his personal combat experience may cause him to hold back from committing troops at a time when it would be the correct and necessary response? In such an instance, wouldn't it be preferable to have a C-in-C for whom combat is more of an abstraction, so the decision can be made based solely on the requirements of the situation at hand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there are many ways available. be it through economic incentives, financing of pro-democracy media, international political pressure, etc ... of course, in times of specific crisis, international military help could be advisable (kurds and shiites in 91).

 

but the most important part is to not support dictatorships. without outside support not only do dictators find it very difficult to grab power but whenever they do they eventually fall to reform movements, especially if the population is exposed to the way of life of the outside world.

 

You certainly recall Iran, no? Popular uprisings do not necessarily lead to democratic regimes that abide by the rule of law and respect basic human rights. In fact, just the opposite has true in most cases. Our own revolution is very much an exception to this rule. In the Middle East, it is nearly a certainty that any regime that gets overthrown will be replaced with an Islamofacist regime like the Taliban, that will make the present dictators look like Mr. Rogers.

 

The Shah was hardly a saint, but if you compare the death toll under his reign to that of the Mullah's, he certainly starts to look like one. For the realists amongst us, the central problem in the Middle East is fostering democratic reform amongst regimes that, while unsavory in many respects, at least pay lip service to the principles that will be wholly abandoned by the people most likely to seize power in their absence, e.g. after a popular uprising spearheaded by millitant Islamists.

 

On a related note, I think that one of the central problems in the middle east is that the people there have not, for the most part, had to live with the consequences of their millitant rhetoric. "Islam is the Anser!" "Bring back the Great Caliphate!" "Purge the Holy Land of the Unbelievers!" etc, etc, etc. Great stuff. In some ways I hope that the Islamofacists take over for a while and the population gets a taste of the very things that they've been agitating for. After a generation of repression and retrogression on every front, they will have a very concrete understanding of their folly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW - Anyone remember the USS Cole? Kenya? The 1st round of the WTC bombings? I seem to recall a different man sitting in the White House at the time. I am waiting for someone to start spewing the same lines about Clinton squandering the global goodwill that we enjoyed under Reagan, learning why they hate us now that Clinton is in office, etc, etc, etc.

 

If he thought that Al-Queda was the number one threat facing America, he certainly did very little to counter it during his tenure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But isn't it possible that his personal combat experience may cause him to hold back from committing troops at a time when it would be the correct and necessary response? In such an instance, wouldn't it be preferable to have a C-in-C for whom combat is more of an abstraction, so the decision can be made based solely on the requirements of the situation at hand?

 

There might be such a situation. Honestly, many decisions might not be much more than a crapshoot because so many things could happen afterward that will dictate, in hindsight, whether the decision was right or not. But I bet that American troops would be more apt to trust their Commander in Chief's judgement if he served too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real war is just beginning. I suggest everyone begin to think in depth about what the ramifications of this might be for yourself, your family, and the nation in which you live. Iraq, and Afghanistan are merely battlefields in which the rising war is being waged. Suing for peace will not bring an end, nor will swatting mosquitos in the Sunni Triangle.

 

In the past we have sat idly by while Europe/Asia burned, and now it is very probable that it is Europe/Asia that will eventually turn the tide in our favor. Korean ROK soldiers in Vietnam had an amazing record of quelling insurgency and now you are seeing those same men deploying to Iraq. We need allies at this point.

 

Re-arm Japan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share




×
×
  • Create New...