President......Veterans only?

AikiRooster

Tube Monkey USMC
I think the President of the United States ought to be required to be a Veteran, especially since they are the Commander in Chief of the military.
Thoughts, Comments, Opinions?
 
naah. The great thing about the US Presidency is that the only requirements are that you must be 35 and a US-Born Citizen. You don't have to be a military guy.

Plus, who wants a Leonid Brezhnev-looking president...
 
There's more to presidency than just the military.
Although a military stint would really help, it doesn't always (read Jimmy Carter). Probably a firm grip on economics and political statemanship (or gamemanship) will prove to be more important.
 
True enough about Carter, however, when I think of Jimmy Carter in the military, I think Jimmy Carter and bell-bottoms, then it makes sense.

13th Redneck, thought you might like the South Korean colors there, I added that for you. Click Save image as and put wherever you keep your photos if wanna.


Koreanflag.gif


koreanflag.gif

 
Last edited:
I think military experience is beneficial to him, but I don't think it should be required. The reason I think its good is because our veterans too often get the short end of the stick as far as healthcare (especially mental it seems from my ex) goes. Someone who's actually "been there" understands better than someone who hasn't. Equipment and funding to our military seems to be in short supply sometimes as well. But what do I know? I've never been there. I just listen to my ex and his buddies and their grievances, and those are the top three: healthcare to vets, non-existent or shoddy equipment, and no money. *shrug*

I'm interested in what our vets and active duty folks have to say. :)
 
I'm not a US citizen, but I feel that the title Commander in Chief, should be purely that, a nominal one. Other than being a "rubber stamp" he should have little or no say in military matters, just signing off the decisions of Congress.
 
Actually, prior servicemen have historically made poor presidents.

That being said, I'm still hoping for a McCain presidency.
 
The part that does tick me off is politicians responding to public pressure on how things should be run inside the military. Then we have a guy who has no f*cking clue who is listening to people who have no f*cking clue.
 
And usually they are rallying around some douche bag who couldn't adjust to the lifestyle and blames the military for it.
 
Or, in some cases they pick a person who has rank but is mostly a failure in service, got his rank through politics alone. Former Joint Chiefs of Staff General in the time between 1992 and 2000 comes to mind, the same guy who failed miserably in the attempted hostage rescue in Iran after the Iran hostage crisis of 79.
 
The part that does tick me off is politicians responding to public pressure on how things should be run inside the military. Then we have a guy who has no f*cking clue who is listening to people who have no f*cking clue.

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.

As far as the president having to be a military man I can see no justifiable reason for this, surely the role of president is head of state and while he needs an understanding of the departments of government he has a cabinet to actually run them so it makes more sense that the Secretary of Defense have a better military understanding than the president that he advises.
 
Last edited:
True enough, I don't mind the civilians being listened to, but whatever is heard ought to not be required to obey.
The Secretary of Defense is an important position and it ought to be a knowledgeable individual holding that position, but if the President doesn't know better, he may assign someone not worthy of the position. The Joint Chiefs of Staff is also important and the same issue is present here. 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.
 
Or, in some cases they pick a person who has rank but is mostly a failure in service, got his rank through politics alone. Former Joint Chiefs of Staff General in the time between 1992 and 2000 comes to mind, the same guy who failed miserably in the attempted hostage rescue in Iran after the Iran hostage crisis of 79.

But that's how politics works, is it not? Skill or ability has little to do with it, politics is an end in itself, it has nothing to do with effectively running the country,... politics is about POWER.

What the world really needs is more government, and less politics.
 
Not with the good folks I'm talking about, sure you have some clowns in every group, but a good politician, which are the only ones I vote for, do indeed care about running the country because they love the country, not for Power purposes as those folks would not get my vote.

Also, I am not talking about the world right now, I am talking about the USA currently. The world is a whole different matter.
 
I think we have a live one!!... Are you pulling my leg?

Have you ever asked yourself, "if these people really love the country, why don't they fix some of the problems". Look at a few things like the state of the VA and the hospitals that your troops are being treated in. Why are most of the poor persons displaced from New Orleans during Katrina still living in temporary accommodation?

I'll tell you why, because there's nothing in it for the politicians.

Your wide eyed adulation of politicians disturbs me deeply.
 
That's not what I said at all.
As to your questions, I am not aware of the proper answers and I would also assume for the most part that your answers are not accurate either. Maybe for some politicians but not all. Their will always be the 10% that truly are there in their mix but that is not the norm I don't believe. As for my thoughts on what I think the answer is I think I will refrain from giving that as I don't want to be a problem for the moderator's.

Oh forgot about that part, as for the so called wide eyed adulation stuff deeply disturbing you, they have counseling to fix that for you. However, if it helps, what you think is wide eyed adulation on my part is not factual at all. Hope this helps.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top