Why might I ask would your answer give problems for the moderators? Unless of course it is offensive, in which case it is better left unsaid as it does not belong on a public forum, nor in the real world. We have enough offensive behaviour from our politicians, without that of their supporters.

I don't have counselling, nor have I ever needed it. I came home from my war and got on with life, working full time until I was old enough to legally retire. One thing I don't lack is moral and intestinal fortitude. But I did it, in spite of political inertia not in support of it. Perhaps you should donate a little of your personal time to helping some of our less fortunate Veterans, and I can assure you that you impressions of politicians will change markedly.

Governments the world over including (maybe that should be especially) the USA in the past 40 years, have traditionally ignored anything more than the most basic needs of their caste off soldiers from foreign wars, pleading that they had no money to solve the problems, yet at the drop of a hat, they can find 3 trillion dollars to fight a war based on false information which has cost the lives of more US servicemen than the number of persons killed on 9/11,... and contributed immeasurably to the increase in world parity oil prices.

Before you go blathering about "good" politicians, it might pay you to look about you, unless of course you are one of those who are rich enough to be insulated from the nasty side of life,... or maybe you are one of those interested in joining the ranks of our "esteemed" friends in high places?

Originally Posted by MontyB

Given that the public pay the bills why shouldn't they be listened to?

Basically when the military stops using public money it can start doing as it likes until then it will invariably be administered by those paying the bills.

And since the people pay for the government, we might as well hold a nation wide vote every time we're supposed to make a decision.

Being a regular taxpayer is like being a minor shareholder. It's your money but you don't get to say what gets done with it.

Plus there are no good politicians. There are simply less bad ones.
As for our governments in power... they are a bunch of greedy pricks but we're better off with those guys in charge than some of the guys who are in charge of less fortunate people and the best way to keep ourselves free of self-serving dictators is unfortunately teamwork involving the crooks who are in our government.
The common joke: What's the difference between a public worker and a chess player? A: the chess player moves every now and then.
It's better off that way than have public workers knocking on your door to see if you've got a nice jailbait daughter that the great leader might want to have a poke at.

As for the government ignoring veterans in need, this is very true. Actually I had a minor incident like this involving myself where my own Corps got busy vilifying me etc. when in fact I got injured as a result of putting in a lot more time and effort than anyone else PER THEIR ORDERS (because I was too damned useful for my own good). Ironically the only people truly interested in helping me out during that time were Navy. I don't blame the Marines for what happened and I feel pretty rotten for getting injured when I did but I'm sure if I had lost a leg as a result my opinion could be different. My case was nothing compared to what a lot of people go through but it did make me a bit more aware of it.

Originally Posted by AikiRooster

I think of Presidents like George Washington, President Reagan and the like and I just see much more positives coming from Presidents with a military background plus the troops they are the Commander in Chief of tend to respect these Presidents more, much more.

Um, what military background did Reagan have? Washington was a General who led the continental army. Eisenhower was a General who ran US forces in Europe in WWII. Reagan was in the Army Reserve, back when the Reserve was a place where the children of Congressmen went to avoid combat. Reagan was nearsighted, so he did not serve overseas. He made it to captain as a PR man. What great military feat did he achieve to put him with military-background presidents such as Washington?

A military service requirement for President? Its actually worked out well in places like Myanmar, North Korea, Cuba, China, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and just about every other 2 bit dictatorship that the 20th century has vomited up. Sounds like a swell idea...

Any country that measures itself purely and solely by military capacity isn't much of a country (see the list above), UNLESS its are planning to launch invasions on innocent countries. (Note to self: Ask John McCain this). After WWII Truman changed the name from the War Department to the Department of Defense, SPECIFICALLY because he didn't want the USA to be known as a Belligerent.

This country needs a President with a service record in economics, science, Foreign Diplomacy, Education, or art and culture and we need things far more than another military background.

I have said this before: The USA isn't ancient Sparta, military service isn't a requirement for full citizens rights.

Economics, Science, Diplomacy, Education.. those are the big four.
And leave the military alone. Just call if the diplomacy didn't turn out very well.

North Korea isn't a good example. Kim Jong-il has no real military background. Though apparently he's one hell of a shot with a pistol. It'll come in handy when it's resignation and suicide time. Don't know about the USSR having too many Generals turn to heads of state nor the Chinese after Mao.
But a lot of dictatorships have this in common: they feign a military background. Shiny uniforms and all kinds of medals they got for knowing what day of the week it was.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Economics, Science, Diplomacy, Education.. those are the big four.
And leave the military alone. Just call if the diplomacy didn't turn out very well.

I disagree, Economics, Science, Diplomacy, Education and Security (which includes the military) are the primary functions of government you cannot just leave the military outside public scrutiny because they don't feel the people they serve deserve an input.

The world is full of tin pot dictatorships where the role of the military is to serve the governments wishes and not the populations and shifting them out of the political gaze does exactly that.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Economics, Science, Diplomacy, Education.. those are the big four.
And leave the military alone. Just call if the diplomacy didn't turn out very well.

North Korea isn't a good example. Kim Jong-il has no real military background. Though apparently he's one hell of a shot with a pistol. It'll come in handy when it's resignation and suicide time. Don't know about the USSR having too many Generals turn to heads of state nor the Chinese after Mao.
But a lot of dictatorships have this in common: they feign a military background. Shiny uniforms and all kinds of medals they got for knowing what day of the week it was.

------------------------------------------------------------------

"War, is Diplomacy by other means" -Von Claustowitz. So In fact I did include Defense, its just a subtree under diplomacy. The reason Diplomacy is above it is just thats always more fruitful to trying talking to your enemies first, before calling in the Marines. Something our neocons in Washington could have learned. Under normal circumstances, the fact a country goes to war is a telltale sign that the politicans have failed at their job. The problem is since America hasnt fought a war on its own soil in 160 years we have gotten used to the maxim of "shooting first, ask questions later". One needs to witness the destruction of their own nation, and then see afterwards how rigorously they want to beat the war drums. It happened to France after 1918, he moment WWI ended they simply had no more desire to fight anymore, unlike the UK, USA, and Germany whom were untouched.

For the Rest, All USSR General Secretaries served except for Gorbachev. As for North Korea as the Army is the very foundation of Kim Jong Il power, a power that he has wielded and studied (military academy) I'd say that qualifies. I am not saying these guys are great personal soldiers, but that military life spring from within them.

I am not slamming the military, but the military and politics it really is a bad mix. I cannot think of a single country it worked well. The military should always be completely dependent to a CIVILIAN Head of State.



Lastly, alot of those dictators really are from the military. Musharaff for example, Hugo Chavez, Idi Amin, all came from the military.

Originally Posted by The Other Guy

Um, what military background did Reagan have? Washington was a General who led the continental army. Eisenhower was a General who ran US forces in Europe in WWII. Reagan was in the Army Reserve, back when the Reserve was a place where the children of Congressmen went to avoid combat. Reagan was nearsighted, so he did not serve overseas. He made it to captain as a PR man. What great military feat did he achieve to put him with military-background presidents such as Washington?

TOG - does John F. qualify?

Originally Posted by Del Boy

TOG - does John F. qualify?

I dont' consider him a president with a illustrous military background, if that's what you mean.

I'd only prefer a military president if the country is involved in a war with a country that can actually threaten us in some serious way. Otherwise I'm neutral.