Jump to content

Usa Thread


TroyinEwa/Perv
 Share

Recommended Posts

While I'm no expert in US politics, is in now a prerequisite to have some kind of military service prior to becoming president?

No but maybe there should be as the president in "commander" of the armed forces and if he has never been in the military, what will he command? how will he know how to command? Will he know the dangers and *** really *** feel the pain of those going into battle?

Of course not!

 

If your in the military, do you want such a person to be your commander...I sure don't!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WWII began a tradition of the Prez being a veteran. You were expected have given a few years of your life to you country before you took on the nation's highest office. It started with Truman and every Prez was a veteran of some sort until Slick Willie, who wasn't about to "waste" 2 to 4 years of his life in low paid military service to his country. But in reality there are very few veterans in government these days. They are a small minority in Congress.

 

Nevertheless, it irritates a lot of folks that the people who send young (and not so young) Americans off to risk their lives in distant countries that pose no threat to the US have never been in military service themselves. If you have been in combat it gives you a different perspective on things. Getting shot at, blown up and bleeding for real is not nearly as much fun as watching it happen on the big screen. It makes you much more reluctant to get into such a situation again.

 

Worth mentioning is that a fellow named George Washington became the first Prez, and he knew a thing or two about war. Washington famously warned Americans in his "farewell address" about "entangling alliances" that could lead the country into wars.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have a standing army, navy, air force and marine corps and coast guard all year, every year. The asshole should have been able to get into West Point or one of the other ervice academies IF he was as bright as his komrads claim. Same with Klinton. Oxford Scholar? Okay, presumably smart enough to get into a service academy and play sax in the band, no? Give me a break !

 

 

I thought you were against socialist education?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am all for a person serving their country but why do they expect the government

to provide them with uniforms, equipment, food, etc,?

 

If you look at the Arizona Rangers - they look exactly like a full pledge police officer - badge,

uniform, gun but each ranger bought at their own expenses their own gear and provide their time for free.

 

Sorta like how things used to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have a standing army, navy, air force and marine corps and coast guard all year, every year. The asshole should have been able to get into West Point or one of the other ervice academies IF he was as bright as his komrads claim. Same with Klinton. Oxford Scholar? Okay, presumably smart enough to get into a service academy and play sax in the band, no? Give me a break !

 

lol HH, can't blame a guy for going to Harvard. Had he always planned to be President, it would have been wise for him to go to one of the service academies or do some time after college or as a reservist. For his purposes, he did the right thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have a standing army, navy, air force and marine corps and coast guard all year, every year. The asshole should have been able to get into West Point or one of the other ervice academies IF he was as bright as his komrads claim. Same with Klinton. Oxford Scholar? Okay, presumably smart enough to get into a service academy and play sax in the band, no? Give me a break !

 

There’s a difference: one is voluntary and the other is compulsory .

 

When you are drafted, the message is simple: “We need you to fight for your country now.â€

 

If you don’t answer that call by means of continued college or exaggerated medical condition deferments, then you are

 

1. a coward willing to let the others die on your behalf

2. have principles religious or otherwise that won’t allow you to fight

 

What I object to in the commentators and politicians mentioned above such as O’Reilly and Gingrich is their hypocrisy. If you are a demonstrated coward or an avowed pacifist, then don’t beat the drum to send the sons and daughters of others to war, or as in the case of Mitt Romney, an enthusiastic supporter of wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran, while his five healthy sons uphold the family tradition and stay at home, making more money for daddy and saving souls for the angel Moroni.

 

A chickenhawk is not fit to be commander in chief.

 

:beer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...