Is McCain a war Hero?

[sketchtrack]

He is constantly referred to as a war hero, but is he? Hero, maybe, but war hero?, you could argue that all solders are heros, but not all solders are war heros, doesn't that take away some of the valor of people who jumped on grenades and saved people, or people who took some kind of extra brave action, and saved people.

[Ivan Seeking]

I think he is considered to be a hero by the men who were POWs along with him.

IMO, he deserves to be honored for his service, but that was over 40 years ago. It has no bearing on the election. And it certainly doesn't give him any unique qualifications to be President.

[Gokul43201]

He is constantly referred to as a war hero, but is he? Hero, maybe, but war hero?, you could argue that all solders are heros, but not all solders are war heros, doesn't that take away some of the valor of people who jumped on grenades and saved people, or people who took some kind of extra brave action, and saved people.You don't think rejecting early release from a VC POW camp is "some kind of extra brave action"?

[B. Elliott]

Whoever they happen to be, if they have a military resume with the following on it, I would consider them a war hero...

Achievements as a pilot and prisoner
McCain attended the U.S. Naval Academy from 1954 to 1958, and was commissioned as an ensign in June of that year. He retired in April 1981 with the rank of captain. In that time he received 17 awards and decorations. Besides the Silver Star Medal, McCain also received the Legion of Merit with a combat "V" and one gold star, a Distinguished Flying Cross and a Bronze Star Medal with a combat "V" and two gold stars.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24518450/

To directly answer the question, yes.

[WarPhalange]

What do you make of this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7459946.stm

[B. Elliott]

IMO, I believe that to be allowed to run for president, one must have served a period of time in on of the armed forces to be eligible for presidency.

Pure political ascension should not be the only qualifying aspect. Nor should just 'being a war hero'. A true leader must be well versed and weathered on all fronts.

[B. Elliott]

What do you make of this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7459946.stm

The writer of the article took the words out of my mouth.

But Mr Duyet's propaganda-perfect version of events is impossible to verify - and should be treated with caution in a country where the Communist authorities still keep a tight control over the media.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7459946.stm

[WarPhalange]

Yeah, but don't you think the guy that supposedly tortured him saying "Nah, we were pals" carries some weight?

[B. Elliott]

Yeah, but don't you think the guy that supposedly tortured him saying "Nah, we were pals" carries some weight?

Until McCain says something about it, it is one sided. I've never heard McCain speak publicly about this guy before. I'm just thinking that anyone who's known any of the other people who are running for president in the past, could pull off some tricky bad publicity.

I mean, people are accusing Obama of being a Muslim.

[Borek]

But I can confirm to you that we never tortured him. We never tortured any prisoners.

This statement can be easily checked just by asking other prisoners.

[Ivan Seeking]

IMO, I believe that to be allowed to run for president, one must have served a period of time in on of the armed forces to be eligible for presidency.

Funny, I consider that to be a negative. Somehow being trained to kill people, and then actually killing people, doesn't seem like a life improving experience. Nor do I see any evidence of it. But since one has to be dispassionate to deal with the reality of dropping bombs, if there is any "value" in his experience in VN, shouldn't we expect that if anything, he has been desensitized to death, and kllling, as it was a part of his job? Do you consider that to be good?

It is not about being a good person or a bad person. We are talking about a mindset; in effect, a brainwashing.

[Ivan Seeking]

I know you just joined the service, and now you know why I didn't comment in your thread. Sorry about that.

[BobG]

He is constantly referred to as a war hero, but is he? Hero, maybe, but war hero?, you could argue that all solders are heros, but not all solders are war heros, doesn't that take away some of the valor of people who jumped on grenades and saved people, or people who took some kind of extra brave action, and saved people.

Yes, he is. McCain's conduct as a POW does provide some insight into how far he will go in pursuit of things he believes in. That's one important trait, but not the only one. It might not even be the most relevant criteria for being President (a really strong commitment to bad ideas isn't a positive).

Fulfilling the obligations the country imposes on you is pretty relevant. In other words, dodging the draft reveals a little bit about a person's character. It could indicate how strong a President's commitment would go if a decision would hurt his chances of reelection.

Neither being a war hero or finding a way out of the draft is a failsafe measure of a President will perform in office decades later. Clinton found a legal way to avoid the worst consequences of a draft and had a reputation for letting poll numbers over influence his decisions. Bush found a legal way to avoid the worst consequences of the draft (and a way out of performing all of his duties), yet has a reputation for being totally committed to his decisions no matter what road his decisions take the country down.

Being a war hero is just one part of a candidate's history to be evaluated along with the other facets of his history.

[chemisttree]

If he isn't a war hero than the term has absolutely no meaning.

[WarPhalange]

Funny, I consider that to be a negative. Somehow being trained to kill people, and then actually killing people, doesn't seem like a life improving experience. Nor do I see any evidence of it. But since one has to be dispassionate to deal with the reality of dropping bombs, if there is any "value" in his experience in VN, shouldn't we expect that if anything, he has been desensitized to death, and kllling, as it was a part of his job? Do you consider that to be good?

It is not about being a good person or a bad person. We are talking about a mindset; in effect, a brainwashing.

You bring up a good point. While having military service should give you a better perspective on it, hopefully meaning you won't start wars unless it's crucial (I hate chickenhawks), the military trains you to kill. It just depends on whether or not you can change your mindset on command.

It's kind of like a boxer knows how to knock someone out, but you don't hear boxers beating the crap out of random people. They know when to do it and when not to. I think for the most part soldiers are the same. You get psychos sometimes, but I think that would go away too if we gave them proper mental care when they need it instead of sending them back home or to the front lines again.

[B. Elliott]

I know you just joined the service, and now you know why I didn't comment in your thread. Sorry about that.

No problem at all Ivan. Really. There's a lot of very intelligent people on this forum that I enjoy conversing with, and I don't hold grudges or look too deeply into reasons why someone said something, or didn't. Somewhat the same with an individuals political stance, it's their opinion, and rightfully. If they wish to share it, or not, what does it really matter? All for good conversation.:smile:

Funny, I consider that to be a negative. Somehow being trained to kill people, and then actually killing people, doesn't seem like a life improving experience. Nor do I see any evidence of it. But since one has to be dispassionate to deal with the reality of dropping bombs, if there is any "value" in his experience in VN, shouldn't we expect that if anything, he has been desensitized to death, and kllling, as it was a part of his job? Do you consider that to be good?

It is not about being a good person or a bad person. We are talking about a mindset; in effect, a brainwashing.

Well, to be honest, most people that I personally know that have served in WW2, Vietnam, the Korean War, Desert Storm, ect., didn't turn out to be desensitized cold blooded killers. The people that I personally know that dealt with that cold, hard, realistic slap-in-the-face, it actually made them more sensitized. They understand that the people they are fighting are other people... were brothers, were sisters, were fathers, were grandchildren. It's a reality that not a lot of people can cope with... having to fight for what they believe in let alone fighting for their lives.

The desensitization that you're speaking of is what happens to the small percent that cant deal with the realities of ones life actually being on the line... fighting for your life... for what you believe in and not just sitting back somewhere, cozy as can be, as if whatever war or conflict is only happening in fantasy land. That individual had to have the initiative and motivation to dedicate their time to a cause, and more so than just the dedication aspect, they dedicated their lives.

Too many people today can't grasp what it was was like to live 500, 600, 800 or 1,000 years ago. They've become too accustomed to everything always being there. Everything always being available whenever, wherever they want... Their freedom being simply handed to them. Well, that hasn't always been the case. At one time people had to put their lives on the line to for their freedom. The had to put their lives on the line to search for food for their families. The had to put their lives on the line to keep invaders out and their territory... otherwise they would loose their freedoms.

IMO, not understanding or fully comprehending the above, now that's true desensitization.

[Integral]

IMO, I believe that to be allowed to run for president, one must have served a period of time in on of the armed forces to be eligible for presidency.

Pure political ascension should not be the only qualifying aspect. Nor should just 'being a war hero'. A true leader must be well versed and weathered on all fronts.

Fortunately, you did not write the constitution. The whole point of our great nation is that ANY natural born citizen is eligable to be president. Let's keep it that way.


Me.
ETR3
US Navy 1969-1973
Time in service 4yr Sea duty, 3 yrs 3 months.

[sketchtrack]

I don't know who to believe about his war records, but even my uncle who is a Vietnam Vet and a strong supporter of McCain admits that most of his medals were undeserved and he wouldn't have gotten them if his father wasn't a four star general.

There is a group called veterans against John McCain, who don't like him very much. They don't like him because of his role in fighting to keep us from going back for POWs after he was released. They say he didn't want them to get released because it would expose him. They say he was nicknamed song bird for talking so quickly to avoid torture, and that he was given extra special treatment while there. I'm not going to just go ahead and believe them, but he did fight relentlessly to keep us from going back for POWs which seems strange when he was one himself.

[sketchtrack]

It's just that, if every veteran is a war hero, then a war hero isn't anything more than a veteran.

[B. Elliott]

Fortunately, you did not write the constitution. The whole point of our great nation is that ANY natural born citizen is eligable to be president. Let's keep it that way.


Me.
ETR3
US Navy 1969-1973
Time in service 4yr Sea duty, 3 yrs 3 months.

Well, my true thought behind it is that EVERYONE should have to spend time in one branch of service or the other, so by that reasoning, everyone has an equal opportunity to run for president.

[sketchtrack]

Well, my true thought behind it is that EVERYONE should have to spend time in one branch of service or the other, so by that reasoning, everyone has an equal opportunity to run for president.

I would agree, but for wars like the vietnam war and the Iraq war which I believe to be mostly in favor of private sectors profiting off of it rather than actually defending the country, and crashing our economy at the same time, it isn't the same as world war 2. Also, the current administration barely bothered to get the ones responsible for the attack of 911, and instead rushed into Iraq. If the military had it's priorities strait, then I would be glad to serve, but defending private profit isn't something I'll fight for.

[B. Elliott]

Not to stray too off topic, but I believe spending time in the military would also be a nice solution to the illegal immigration problem. If the illegals want to become US citizens, they should be allowed to, no problem, but with one stipulation. They must spend time in the military defending the country which they wish to be a part of. After spending X amount of years in the service, they will then be granted citizenship and become a full fledged American.

[quadraphonics]

You don't think rejecting early release from a VC POW camp is "some kind of extra brave action"?

Presumably you meant to say "NVA POW camp." The Viet Cong were not in the business of POW camps.

[quadraphonics]

Not to stray too off topic, but I believe spending time in the military would also be a nice solution to the illegal immigration problem. If the illegals want to become US citizens, they should be allowed to, no problem, but with one stipulation. They must spend time in the military defending the country which they wish to be a part of. After spending X amount of years in the service, they will then be granted citizenship and become a full fledged American.

Actually, there is already a fast-track-to-citizenship program for foreign nationals who enlist in the US military. There's something like 5000-10000 foreign nationals currently serving under this program.

[Gokul43201]

Presumably you meant to say "NVA POW camp." The Viet Cong were not in the business of POW camps.I didn't then, but now that you've informed me, I do. My apologies.

[B. Elliott]

Actually, there is already a fast-track-to-citizenship program for foreign nationals who enlist in the US military. There's something like 5000-10000 foreign nationals currently serving under this program.

I'm aware of this. I just wish more illegals were.

[Gokul43201]

They must spend time in the military defending the country which they wish to be a part of. If only there were a convincing argument today that someone's time in the military is more likely than not going towards "defending the country." Moreover, this presumes that any work in a civilian career does not help to defend the country. I wonder how well defended a country would be with a weak socio-economic infrastructure, underdeveloped technical capability and a disenchanted populace.

[B. Elliott]

If only there were a convincing argument today that someone's time in the military is more likely than not going towards "defending the country." Moreover, this presumes that any work in a civilian career does not help to defend the country. I wonder how well defended a country would be with a weak socio-economic infrastructure, underdeveloped technical capability and a disenchanted populace.

There's already plenty of civilian careers out there that 'defend the country'. It just depends of how tightly and literally you take that statement. By 'defending the country' to me, it also entails serving the country. Public service programs across multiple fronts would do a lot of good. There are many other uses for the military other than simply 'using big guns'.

I wonder how well defended a country would be with a weak socio-economic infrastructure, underdeveloped technical capability and a disenchanted populace.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you please elaborate?

[sketchtrack]

I want to change my stance slightly, in that without a military we would be entirely helpless, having a strong military is what keeps us in a position of power and gives us our defense, and the weight shouldn't be carried on the backs of the few, but abuses of power, our security, and using it for bad means is another thing. It is kind of a catch 22. People who sign up for the military are signing up to protect the country, and it isn't their fault that they get used as pawns for private sectors. I only want to defend the intelligent decision it might be in a time like now to become an engineer or a chemist rather than join the military, chances are you might help your country more through those means.

[B. Elliott]

I want to change my stance slightly, in that without a military we would be entirely helpless, having a strong military is what keeps us in a position of power and gives us our defense, and the weight shouldn't be carried on the backs of the few, but abuses of power, our security, and using it for bad means is another thing. It is kind of a catch 22. People who sign up for the military are signing up to protect the country, and it isn't their fault that they get used as pawns for private sectors. I only want to defend the intelligent decision it might be in a time like now to become an engineer or a chemist rather than join the military, chances are you might help your country more through those means.

But for a great many people, joining the military is a way of gaining the education to become an engineer, or chemist. You don't have to stay in the military your entire life.

[WheelsRCool]

The military doesn't brainwash people and turn them into mindless killers. They want smart people who have a brain and can think and are professionals. What you have to have is the ability to follow orders.

I believe Fallujah was a real first for militaries in that it was the first major battle in which an invading force won the battle while actively taking steps to not harm civilians who were caught in the cross-fire. Before this, this had never really been tried and no one was quite sure if it could be done. Fallujah showed the professionalism of the U.S. military and that a military can invade a country, fight an enemy in it, and at the same time take precautions not to harm innocents. Such professionalism requires soldiers with brainpower, not mindless trigger-pullers.

No one is more anti-war than the truly combat-tested soldiers. Those types are only willing to engage in a war if they absolutely believe it is necessary. And from what I have seen, usually such soldiers are very against killing unless absolutely necessary.

Look at Senator Jim Webb: Graduate of the United States Naval Academy, served as a Marine Corps Infantry Officer in the Vietnam War, won the Silver Star AND the Navy Cross and two purple hearts, served as Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan, won an Emmy for his reporting from Beirut in 1983, is an acclaimed author, having written both non-fiction and fiction books, etc...anyway, he is a Democrat, and was (and still is) a staunch critic of the Iraq War. He also has a son who I believe just finished up a tour in Iraq.

This guy has seen a tremendous amount of combat and warfare, and is very much strong on national defense it seems, but he is not for war for the sake of war. If he thinks it un-necessary, he is not in favor it.

[WheelsRCool]

But for a great many people, joining the military is a way of gaining the education to become an engineer, or chemist. You don't have to stay in the military your entire life.

You can do it both ways to, for example the Navy NUPOC program (Nuclear Propulsion Officer Candidate program), to train officers to operate the nuclear reactors on those carriers and submarines. They also need nuclear-engineer officers to approve of the designs for new reactors and so forth.

[B. Elliott]

You can do it both ways to, for example the Navy NUPOC program (Nuclear Propulsion Officer Candidate program), to train officers to operate the nuclear reactors on those carriers and submarines. They also need nuclear-engineer officers to approve of the designs for new reactors and so forth.

I know. I just recently joined the Navy.:biggrin:

[sketchtrack]

Right now they need people who can play video games and program computers, so I bet physics Forum members would be welcomed. I watch on the military channel people were using x box 360 controllers to control remote vehicles which could carry various weaponry like rockets machine guns, fully automatic shot guns. They have cameras on them, so that you are essentially playing a video game on the screen, but it is really happening. It reminds me of the movie "toys".

[B. Elliott]

The military doesn't brainwash people and turn them into mindless killers. They want smart people who have a brain and can think and are professionals. What you have to have is the ability to follow orders.

I believe Fallujah was a real first for militaries in that it was the first major battle in which an invading force won the battle while actively taking steps to not harm civilians who were caught in the cross-fire. Before this, this had never really been tried and no one was quite sure if it could be done. Fallujah showed the professionalism of the U.S. military and that a military can invade a country, fight an enemy in it, and at the same time take precautions not to harm innocents. Such professionalism requires soldiers with brainpower, not mindless trigger-pullers.

No one is more anti-war than the truly combat-tested soldiers. Those types are only willing to engage in a war if they absolutely believe it is necessary. And from what I have seen, usually such soldiers are very against killing unless absolutely necessary.

Look at Senator Jim Webb: Graduate of the United States Naval Academy, served as a Marine Corps Infantry Officer in the Vietnam War, won the Silver Star AND the Navy Cross and two purple hearts, served as Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan, won an Emmy for his reporting from Beirut in 1983, is an acclaimed author, having written both non-fiction and fiction books, etc...anyway, he is a Democrat, and was (and still is) a staunch critic of the Iraq War. He also has a son who I believe just finished up a tour in Iraq.

This guy has seen a tremendous amount of combat and warfare, and is very much strong on national defense it seems, but he is not for war for the sake of war. If he thinks it un-necessary, he is not in favor it.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Too many people are fed propaganda about war and eat it up like a starving dog. Just because war is bad, doesn't mean it is ALWAYS unjust. The military cranking out cold-blooded killers is mass-fed propaganda at it's finest.

[LowlyPion]

Come on. He certainly exhibited heroic characteristics. He flew in combat a number of times, he was shot down and imprisoned, and subjected to difficult conditions and still managed under those travails to care for others.

No need to Swift boat the man.

War hero might carry other connotations like falling on grenades or Sgt. York type one man actions, but that shouldn't diminish how we might view his performance in the circumstances that he was presented with. I believe he still carries effects of his treatment, or failure to be treated from his imprisonment. War is not a pretty thing. And if he served honorably and behaved on principle and not personal expediency, then I think he should be given some credit, regardless of his politics.

I won't vote for him, but for other reasons. Neither will I demonize him for acting upon his own convictions in a war time situation.

[B. Elliott]

Right now they need people who can play video games and program computers, so I bet physics Forum members would be welcomed. I watch on the military channel people were using x box 360 controllers to control remote vehicles which could carry various weaponry like rockets machine guns, fully automatic shot guns. They have cameras on them, so that you are essentially playing a video game on the screen, but it is really happening. It reminds me of the movie "toys".

It is true. The primary goal being to minimize the loss of life... on both sides. If you look at the weapon technology which has progressed over just the past 40-50 years, we've come a long way. Minimizing collateral damage is the name of the game and the military will always be progressing in that direction.

[sketchtrack]

I couldn't have said it better myself. Too many people are fed propaganda about war and eat it up like a starving dog. Just because war is bad, doesn't mean it is ALWAYS unjust. The military cranking out cold-blooded killers is mass-fed propaganda at it's finest.

War isn't always unjust, but the one in Iraq probably is.

There is some truth to the cranking out cold blooded killers thing, at last in certain areas of the military. If you are to be assigned to be a nuclear engineer, then you probably skip that part, but if you are a Marine to see combat, then there is some of that going on for sure. At least that is what Marine vets tell me. When my uncle was in the service, they're saying was, "Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil because I'm the most evil mother f***** in here." He also talked about how they would vote on weather to kill their officer if he was the type of guy that would get em killed. Vietnam was a different type of war though. Never the less, it is tradition that Marines get trained to kill without emotion.

[B. Elliott]

War isn't always unjust, but the one in Iraq probably is.

There is some truth to the cranking out cold blooded killers thing, at last in certain areas of the military. If you are to be assigned to be a nuclear engineer, then you probably skip that part, but if you are a Marine to see combat, then there is some of that going on for sure. At least that is what Marine vets tell me. When my uncle was in the service, they're saying was, "Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil because I'm the most evil mother f***** in here." He also talked about how they would vote on weather to kill their officer if he was the type of guy that would get em killed. Vietnam was a different type of war though. Never the less, it is tradition that Marines get trained to kill without emotion.

But at the same time, after the war, i'm willing to bet that they value life more than someone who was not in that position. Just like everything else in life, you never know till you experience it.

[Gokul43201]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you please elaborate?The US is defended best by the fact that most of its people are madly in love with the freedoms and quality of life afforded to them by the Constitution and the citizenry (from law enforcement and emergency response personnel to teachers and doctors to construction workers and sushi chefs to bankers and lawyers). The military is charged as much with defending other countries' citizens (Koreans, Japanese, Europeans, Saudis, Afghans, Iraqis, etc.), carrying out responsibilities for the UN/NATO and now and then deposing one terrible government in some country in exchange for another terrible one than with actually defending the nation (mostly carried out by the Guard, Border Patrol, Intelligence, etc).

[sketchtrack]

But at the same time, after the war, i'm willing to bet that they value life more than someone who was not in that position. Just like everything else in life, you never know till you experience it.

I think being confronted like that in war can make a person become more responsible, less childish, makes people more serious minded about world issues. It also makes you make judgments in less of an emotional way. In war, you take no chances, and you eliminate threats before they actually threaten you. If you think being in combat will make you be more senative to killing to the enemy, then that is totally wrong.

[B. Elliott]

If you think being in combat will make you be more senative to killing to the enemy, then that is totally wrong.

I now see our differences in stance, and its understandable. At the time of war, they will kill the enemy at all costs. After the war, they ARE more sensitive to killing. If you believe that is wrong, it's obviously an assumption. I've talked to more WW2 and Vietnam vets than I can remember., and one common thread that weaves through all of them, is the value of life. Respect for those who they killed along with a greater value for their own lives

[sketchtrack]

Of coarse, John McCain never got to see anyone he killed, or even had to aim, he just pressed a button and people were killed. This would be similar to how it would be for him in the white house.

[B. Elliott]

The US is defended best by the fact that most of its people are madly in love with the freedoms and quality of life afforded to them by the Constitution and the citizenry (from law enforcement and emergency response personnel to teachers and doctors to construction workers and sushi chefs to bankers and lawyers). The military is charged as much with defending other countries' citizens (Koreans, Japanese, Europeans, Saudis, Afghans, Iraqis, etc.), carrying out responsibilities for the UN/NATO and now and then deposing one terrible government in some country in exchange for another terrible one than with actually defending the nation (mostly carried out by the Guard, Border Patrol, Intelligence, etc).

I think I see what you're saying, but I could be wrong. I believe that people should earn their freedom. I do not believe that anything should ever be handed to anyone on a silver platter. If you want to have your way of life, you're going to have to work for it. To me the free healthcare issiue is one of those freedoms. Free healthcare is something people should earn... and military service is one way of attaining it. Like I was indirectly implying, and as sketchtrack stated...

I think being confronted like that in war can make a person become more responsible, less childish, makes people more serious minded about world issues. It also makes you make judgments in less of an emotional way.

It's an excellent foundation which every single person should experience. IMO, the lack of discipline and 'childish expectations' is one of the primary problems with the United States economy; crime rates, poverty, lack of drive for education, ect.

The spoonfed mentality is growing.

[B. Elliott]

Of coarse, John McCain never got to see anyone he killed, or even had to aim, he just pressed a button and people were killed. This would be similar to how it would be for him in the white house.

Do you know for a fact this is how he feels, or is this just an assumption?

The commander of the Enola Gay also just 'dropped a bomb'.

'My God, what have we done?' - the commander of the 'Enola Gay'

[sketchtrack]

Do you know for a fact this is how he feels, or is this just an assumption?

The commander of the Enola Gay also just 'dropped a bomb'.

'My God, what have we done?' - the commander of the 'Enola Gay'

I never said anything about how he feels.

[WheelsRCool]

Some good military forums with very intelligent and quality people on them (of the caliber of this site) and lots of real soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, etc...are:

http://www.airwarriors.com
http://www.socnet.com
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com

[Gokul43201]

After the war, they ARE more sensitive to killing. If you believe that is wrong, it's obviously an assumption. I've talked to more WW2 and Vietnam vets than I can remember., and one common thread that weaves through all of them, is the value of life. Respect for those who they killed along with a greater value for their own livesI remember reading that incarcerated vets were just as likely as incarcerated non-vets to be doing time for homicide, but thrice as likely as non-vets to be doing time for sexual assault. Also, I think these ratios were much higher for combat vets than for non-combat vets, but my memory is shaky on that. I'll look for a reference.

Free healthcare is something people should earn... and military service is one way of attaining it.But you haven't explained why military service is a better way to earn it than say, laying bricks.

[B. Elliott]

I never said anything about how he feels.

Don't take the wording that technically. You know what I meant.

Assuming that that's how he would run the country, is also assuming that's how he experienced his time as a pilot 'dropping bombs'. You don't know John McCain that personally, so it's a pure uneducated assumption.

[vincentm]

I think he is considered to be a hero by the men who were POWs along with him.

IMO, he deserves to be honored for his service, but that was over 40 years ago. It has no bearing on the election. And it certainly doesn't give him any unique qualifications to be President.

:approve:

[LowlyPion]

Of coarse, John McCain never got to see anyone he killed, or even had to aim, he just pressed a button and people were killed. This would be similar to how it would be for him in the white house.

That may be a little harsh. Wikipedia which I am sure has been cultivated carefully for political purposes does show this though:

"By then a lieutenant commander, McCain was almost killed on July 29, 1967 when he was near the center of the Forrestal fire. He escaped from his burning jet and was trying to help another pilot escape when a bomb exploded;[28] McCain was struck in the legs and chest by fragments.[29] The ensuing fire killed 134 sailors and took 24 hours to control.[30][31] With the Forrestal out of commission, McCain volunteered for assignment with the USS Oriskany."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain

Can't we at least respect the man for his accomplishments? Can't our national choices be made on the basis of policy choices between two worthy candidates without the need to diminish those we would disagree with?

[B. Elliott]

But you haven't explained why military service is a better way to earn it than say, laying bricks.

I didn't see that question, sorry. Military teaches structure, professionalism, critical thinking and reasoning skills, leadership skills, ect, ect, ect. The military also PUSHES you you better yourself as an individual and provides avenues for better education.

Laying bricks, is just laying bricks. There's is also no reason for military personnel not to be called fourth do jobs such as that... building houses, constructing highways, better the community.

Serving in the military isn't just 'carrying a gun'.

[B. Elliott]

I remember reading that incarcerated vets were just as likely as incarcerated non-vets to be doing time for homicide, but thrice as likely as non-vets to be doing time for sexual assault. Also, I think these ratios were much higher for combat vets than for non-combat vets, but my memory is shaky on that. I'll look for a reference.

The real question is;

What percentage of homicides, sexual assaults, robberies, ect, ect, are committed by non-vets vs. vets?

[Gokul43201]

I didn't see that question, sorry. Military teaches structure, professionalism, critical thinking and reasoning skills, leadership skills, ect, ect, ect. The military also PUSHES you you better yourself as an individual and provides avenues for better education.I meant "better" in the sense of defending the country, but I can't argue against this since I believe that you defend the country best by making yourself as productive and efficient as you can.

[sketchtrack]

That may be a little harsh. Wikipedia which I am sure has been cultivated carefully for political purposes does show this though:

"By then a lieutenant commander, McCain was almost killed on July 29, 1967 when he was near the center of the Forrestal fire. He escaped from his burning jet and was trying to help another pilot escape when a bomb exploded;[28] McCain was struck in the legs and chest by fragments.[29] The ensuing fire killed 134 sailors and took 24 hours to control.[30][31] With the Forrestal out of commission, McCain volunteered for assignment with the USS Oriskany."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain

Can't we at least respect the man for his accomplishments? Can't our national choices be made on the basis of policy choices between two worthy candidates without the need to diminish those we would disagree with?

My point with that remark was just that he may not have been impacted as to affect him like a solder who was in direct combat killing people with guns. The president is responsible for many deaths, but he didn't see it with his own eyes, so it is less likely he will feel the same as the ones who committed the act. He didn't get to see who died. It is just different to look in some ones eyes and then blast them than it is to push a butting dropping a laser guided bomb. I don't really mean to insult him for it.

[B. Elliott]

I meant "better" in the sense of defending the country, but I can't argue against this since I believe that you defend the country best by making yourself as productive and efficient as you can.

And that's exactly what the military helps to do! It guides people and shows them efficient ways of being productive in society... how to work in groups, how to accomplish large tasks, how to properly conduct yourself as an individual and withing a group.

[Gokul43201]

The real question is;

What percentage of homicides, sexual assaults, robberies, ect, ect, are committed by non-vets vs. vets?Again, I shall look for a reference, but I think the numbers said that there were lower rates among vets when you looked at raw numbers, but these lower rates were primarily due to age differences. Most vets were from the Vietnam era, and are over 60 years old now. Their incarceration rates were similar to non-vets in the same age group. But non-vets are mostly much younger. When adjusted for ages, the incarceration rates are similar. But that's for all vets. I don't really recall very much about the rates for combat vets vs. non-combat vets.

Even if you don't adjust for age, I doubt that the 3 to 1 ratio for sexual assault will be offset by the ratio of the percentage of vets to non-vets in prison for those crimes. My vague recollection of the take home message was that vets are more likely to rape, just as likely to murder and less likely to steal.

[sketchtrack]

Vets don't just go around committing homicide. Vets usually feel like the good guy, and if they kill someone, then they probably do it because the person was a bad guy. One vet I know had killed someone who tried to mug his wife. He didn't get into trouble, but he was quick to kill the bad guy without question.

When it comes to world issues, they may be more prone to use deadly force against the bad guys. I think John McCain isn't going to be cold except to our enemies which I think he makes clear. The only question is that use of deadly force sometimes isn't the best ay to diffuse the enemy, but it is certain that not having the guts to do it when necessary can be a bad thing as well.

[B. Elliott]

he only question is that use of deadly force sometimes isn't the best ay to diffuse the enemy, but it is certain that not having the guts to do it when necessary can be a bad thing as well.

Good point.

[chemisttree]

Again, I shall look for a reference, but I think the numbers said that there were lower rates among vets when you looked at raw numbers, but these lower rates were primarily due to age differences. Most vets were from the Vietnam era, and are over 60 years old now. Their incarceration rates were similar to non-vets in the same age group. But non-vets are mostly much younger. When adjusted for ages, the incarceration rates are similar. But that's for all vets. I don't really recall very much about the rates for combat vets vs. non-combat vets.

Even if you don't adjust for age, I doubt that the 3 to 1 ratio for sexual assault will be offset by the ratio of the percentage of vets to non-vets in prison for those crimes. My vague recollection of the take home message was that vets are more likely to rape, just as likely to murder and less likely to steal.

Maybe you were remembering your numbers from the New York Times. (http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2008/20080114134026.aspx)
Or maybe you were thinking about female veteran victims of sexual assault. (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3797346&page=1)
Or perhaps you were misquoting this study. (http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/printDS/183952)
The take home message is that vets are less likely to do any crime but when they do and go to prison for it, proportionally more of those vets are in for sexual assault than the other men of similar age. A meaningless comparison.

Veterans are half as likely to be incarcerated than the overall male population in the first place, researchers found, but 23 percent of the veterans in prison was a sex offender, compared with 9 percent of nonveteran inmates.

Stop trashing our Vets!

[Gokul43201]

The take home message is that vets are less likely to do any crime ...That's false, and your own quote below this proves you wrong.

Veterans are half as likely to be incarcerated than the overall male population in the first place, researchers found, but 23 percent of the veterans in prison was a sex offender, compared with 9 percent of nonveteran inmates.Half of 23% is still greater than 9%, so vets are more likely than non-vets to be sex-offenders, looking at raw numbers. The key point, however, is this: Veterans as a group are older than the general population, so Campbell said it is not surprising to see a higher percentage of veterans imprisoned for violent crimes, which carry longer prison sentences.

"I think that would go away if you controlled for age" in the study, Campbell said. Because crimes against women or children can carry longer than average sentences, it is possible that statistic also follows from the aging veterans population, he said. He said the statistic about sexual assault was "potentially interesting" but said it is impossible to know what that means without more information.
So it is possible that there are fewer sex offenders among vets if you control for age.

Thing is, if you control for age, the overall incarceration rate among vets becomes nearly the same as the incarceration rate among non-vets, as revealed by this DoJ study (which may be more recent that what I'd read): If veteran men had the same age distribution as nonveteran men, the incarceration rates would be similar. The age-controlled incarceration rate for veteran men (1,253 prisoners per 100,000) would be 10% lower than that of nonveteran men (1,390 per 100,000).

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/vsfp04.txt

So, I was correct in all essential aspects. I had the age-controlled numbers and the sex-offender numbers fairly close, but not exactly right.

[LowlyPion]

My point with that remark was just that he may not have been impacted as to affect him like a solder who was in direct combat killing people with guns.

I understood your point, but just thought to modify it by what other facts we find in his past. To say that he never met the enemy nor looked them in the eye is not exactly the case after being a war prisoner though.

Actually I'm in the ironic position of defending him on this where I won't be voting for him regardless. It's just that the US has had already in these Bush-Cheney-Rove years so much dissembling and fraud to manipulate and bend the country to the will of a small minded minority, that any continuation of any of these people is simply loathsome to me. But I am at the very least hopeful that we can put the kind of politics we have been subjected to behind us at the next inaugural address.

And just because McCain's party has behaved less than honorably in executing their offices the last 8 years doesn't mean that we have to paint him with the same brush if it's not warranted. [/End_Soap_Box]

[russ_watters]

Funny, I consider that to be a negative. Somehow being trained to kill people, and then actually killing people, doesn't seem like a life improving experience. Nor do I see any evidence of it. But since one has to be dispassionate to deal with the reality of dropping bombs, if there is any "value" in his experience in VN, shouldn't we expect that if anything, he has been desensitized to death, and kllling, as it was a part of his job? Do you consider that to be good?

It is not about being a good person or a bad person. We are talking about a mindset; in effect, a brainwashing.
What do you think of the other qualities that go along with the job? You do understand that "trained killer" is not the only thing that the military puts on your resume, right? The way you put it is disturbingly simplistic.

[russ_watters]

I don't know who to believe about his war records, but even my uncle who is a Vietnam Vet and a strong supporter of McCain admits that most of his medals were undeserved and he wouldn't have gotten them if his father wasn't a four star general. The highest medal that McCain got was the Navy Cross. He got it for continuing to carry out his bombing mission after his aircraft had receieved fatal damage. Attempting to fulfil your mission in disregard of your own life is an act clearly deserving of that medal.

[Gokul43201]

The highest medal that McCain got was the Navy Cross. He got it for continuing to carry out his bombing mission after his aircraft had receieved fatal damage. Attempting to fulfil your mission in disregard of your own life is an act clearly deserving of that medal.Russ, that sounds almost like the Navy Cross is not a big deal. Someone reading your post wouldn't get the idea that it is the second highest Navy Medal (http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/navyrib.shtml), and only 125 (http://www.homeofheroes.com/navycross/index.html) of the hundreds of thousands of navy personnel that fought in Vietnam received a Navy Cross.

PS: I didn't know McCain got the Navy Cross.

[BobG]

The highest medal that McCain got was the Navy Cross. He got it for continuing to carry out his bombing mission after his aircraft had receieved fatal damage. Attempting to fulfil your mission in disregard of your own life is an act clearly deserving of that medal.


Russ, that sounds almost like the Navy Cross is not a big deal. Someone reading your post wouldn't get the idea that it is the second highest Navy Medal (http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/navyrib.shtml), and only 125 (http://www.homeofheroes.com/navycross/index.html) of the hundreds of thousands of navy personnel that fought in Vietnam received a Navy Cross.

PS: I didn't know McCain got the Navy Cross.

Actually, McCain received the Distinguished Flying Cross for that mission which is different than the Navy Cross. The DFC was the third highest medal McCain received. His highest was the Silver Star, which is the third highest medal for gallantry.

I don't know who to believe about his war records, but even my uncle who is a Vietnam Vet and a strong supporter of McCain admits that most of his medals were undeserved and he wouldn't have gotten them if his father wasn't a four star general.

There is a group called veterans against John McCain, who don't like him very much. They don't like him because of his role in fighting to keep us from going back for POWs after he was released. They say he didn't want them to get released because it would expose him. They say he was nicknamed song bird for talking so quickly to avoid torture, and that he was given extra special treatment while there. I'm not going to just go ahead and believe them, but he did fight relentlessly to keep us from going back for POWs which seems strange when he was one himself.

"As a member of the 1991–1993 Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, chaired by Democrat and fellow Vietnam War veteran John Kerry, McCain investigated the fate of U.S. service personnel listed as missing in action during the Vietnam War. The committee's unanimous report stated there was "no compelling evidence that proves that any American remains alive in captivity in Southeast Asia." Helped by McCain's efforts, in 1995 the U.S. normalized diplomatic relations with Vietnam. McCain was vilified by some POW/MIA activists who believed large numbers of Americans were still held against their will in Southeast Asia; they objected to McCain not sharing their belief and his pushing for Vietnam normalization."

To believe McCain fought against the US going back for POWs, you have to believe there were still POWs in Vietnam in the 90's. You'd have to condemn every member of the committee along with McCain, plus any of the staff that helped research the issue. That's quite a few people keeping a pretty big secret. Being on that committee wasn't something that would help a person's political career. As Bob Kerrey (Senator from Nebraska and Medal of Honor recipient) said, "Nobody wanted to be on that damn committee. It was an absolute loser. Everyone knew that the POW stories were fabrications, but no one wanted to offend the vet community."

I see most of the trashing of McCain's military career as payback for Bush/Rove's trashing of John Kerry's career and the particularly despicable trashing of Max Cleland by Saxby Chambliss in a Georgia Senate race in 2002. Just one of the uglier legacies left behind by the Bush era. (In fact, wasn't fighting against going back for POWs one of the charges leveled against Kerry, who was also on that committee? There was so much BS flying about Kerry that it's hard to keep track.)

[Gokul43201]

Actually, McCain received the Distinguished Flying Cross for that mission which is different than the Navy Cross. The DFC was the third highest medal McCain received. His highest was the Silver Star, which is the third highest medal for gallantry.I was only aware of chatter about the citation for the Silver Star, and nothing about a Navy Cross. And from what I'd read, I got the impression that there are a lot of vets that seem to think his Silver Star was undeserved. I don't know why.

[TheStatutoryApe]

I was only aware of chatter about the citation for the Silver Star, and nothing about a Navy Cross. And from what I'd read, I got the impression that there are a lot of vets that seem to think his Silver Star was undeserved. I don't know why.

Neither airforce nor officers are/were usually thought highly of by grunts and grunts probably make up the majority of vets. Add to that a rich family and a general for a daddy and its not too hard to see why some might think he was just a prissy flyboy.

[chemisttree]

That's false, and your own quote below this proves you wrong.

It doesn't prove anything. It could simply mean that the Military effectively trains it's troops for a career once their service is concluded. The other 50% of veterans that aren't incarcerated might be gainfully employed and thus much less likely to commit non-sex offender crimes. You have absolutely no data to prove anything and I certainly didn't provide it.

Half of 23% is still greater than 9%, so vets are more likely than non-vets to be sex-offenders, looking at raw numbers. The key point, however, is this: So it is possible that there are fewer sex offenders among vets if you control for age.
Here you make the logical error that the rates for all offenses would scale linearly. Clearly a worst-case extrapolation and not backed up by any methodology.

Thing is, if you control for age, the overall incarceration rate among vets becomes nearly the same as the incarceration rate among non-vets, as revealed by this DoJ study (which may be more recent that what I'd read):
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/vsfp04.txt

You mean this statement in the report you referenced:
"If veteran men had the same age distribution as nonveteran men, the incarceration rates would be similar. The age-controlled incarceration rate for veteran men (1,253 prisoners per 100,000) would be 10% lower than that of nonveteran men (1,390 per 100,000)." http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/vsfp04.pdf

I guess that 10% lower is "similar" in some people's eyes...:rolleyes:

[humanino]

I guess that 10% lower is "similar" in some people's eyes...:rolleyes:Technically, you could claim that your 0.1M sample provides a 1% accuracy, providing enough statistics to prove a 10% meaningful difference. However, 10% are very hard to be convincing in social science because of the complexity of the problem. Can you check for the income dependency of your statement ? This requires to subdivide your 1k or so individual in further sub-samples with different incomes. I just take a silly example here, but the main point is simply, unless you get a large effect, say a factor 2 at least, it will be hard to convince oneself that there is no further bias one can think of.

Just a highly-biaised perspective from particle physics statistics :smile:

edit
still can not load your document...
edit again
ok I could load it, now I understand where I am wrong : statistics is large :surprised

[chemisttree]

I thought the incarceration rates were known to a fairly high degree of precision... I could be wrong though. Is 630 per 100,000 actually 630+/-31.5 per 100,000?

[Gokul43201]

Here you make the logical error that the rates for all offenses would scale linearly. Clearly a worst-case extrapolation and not backed up by any methodology. It is not a worst case extrapolation. It is not an extrapolation of any kind. It is a true calculation of a ratio. And there is no logical error involving scaling.



You mean this statement in the report you referenced:"If veteran men had the same age distribution as nonveteran men, the incarceration rates would be similar. The age-controlled incarceration rate for veteran men (1,253 prisoners per 100,000) would be 10% lower than that of nonveteran men (1,390 per 100,000)."
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/vsfp04.pdf

I guess that 10% lower is "similar" in some people's eyes...:rolleyes:Yes, and the people in DoJ that wrote the report would be those "some people"! :rolleyes:

[Jordan Joab]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hero

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero

Yes, McCain is a war hero.



Jordan Joab.

[humanino]

Has it occured to anyone that there are as well arguments against the idea that a veteran should be allowed to run for president ?

An important principle of democracy is the separation of power. A war veteran has psychologically been deeply involved into military business. To my understanding, that makes his objectivity likely to be biaised towards favoring military solutions and/or support.

Anyway, I always found it fascinating that the US journalist actually ask war veterans about the war. Like if, being there, it makes them more likely to know about whether war was justified or "human"... Foreigners philosophical positions on this issue are remote to this system, to the point that, questionning it amounts to insulting the memory of the veterans victim of the war. Therefore, I do not expect much in this direction from the american society.

[quadraphonics]

I won't subscribe to the idea of barring vets from office (that seems pretty wacky), but I think there is a point to be made about whether service, and even distinguished service, really adds up to a meaningful qualification for high office. On the one hand, it is reassuring to know that the Commander in Chief has a solid understanding of how the military functions, what war is like, how the troops perceive it, and so on. And people who serve in high-pressure leadership roles obviously get an opportunity to prove their skills in that department. But I think the "war hero" issue is kind of a red herring. You could be a very admirable war hero (jump on a grenade, say) and still be a poor choice for President. Courage and heroism are not the only qualities required, nor is the military the only (or even most important) aspect of the President's responsibilities. This whole "war hero" issue seems to be just another page from the Republican playbook for Presidential politics: wave the flag and paint your opponent as soft on defence. Given that they did this while running a draft-dodger against an actual war hero last time around, it seems very much routine, and the Democratic preemption against it (via Clark) also seems to be very much politics-as-usual.

[LowlyPion]

A war veteran has psychologically been deeply involved into military business. To my understanding, that makes his objectivity likely to be biaised towards favoring military solutions and/or support.

Perhaps that's a sword that cuts both ways?

Perhaps experiencing the horror of war instills quite the opposite inclination?

Not all members of the military are cut from the same bolt as Gen Jack D Ripper of Dr. Strangelove fame.

[turbo-1]

Despite graduating in the bottom of his class at the naval academy, McCain got one of the most coveted assignments available - naval aviator. His connections (father and grandfather were both admirals) got him preferential treatment that he was unable or unwilling to earn on his own.

He was shot down and he was tortured, as were lots of other servicemen. His misfortunes and mistreatment are great political fodder, but he is no more or less a "hero" than others who shared his fate, nor do his experiences uniquely qualify him to be president. It might be a good idea to get some balance by considering the viewpoint of a fellow POW who knew MCain well.
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,164859_1,00.html

[LowlyPion]

His connections (father and grandfather were both admirals) got him preferential treatment that he was unable or unwilling to earn on his own.

While the opinion piece certainly isn't effusive in praising him, neither does it Swift boat him. It was apparently a difficult time for many others that shared his situation. And they all served with distinction.

Aren't the more compelling arguments against him the policy issues? Who cares how he got his break in the service, if he was involved in 23 missions before being shot down? Is there a presumption that he failed in his duties attached to those assignments? And if he did not fail in his missions, would someone else who had no Admiral for a father, done better or served the country with more distinction? It's not like he hid out in the National Guard - which hasn't seemed to disqualify other people from the office.

As to your statement it's wholly unprovable about "unable or unwilling". Why introduce such charged rhetoric and why attempt to Swift boat him just because the current administration embraced such tactics in their maintaining control through the last election cycle?

Can't we look to the best in people and compare them on their finest? While his war experience may not uniquely qualify him to be President, so what? It certainly doesn't disqualify him either now does it?

[turbo-1]

As to your statement it's wholly unprovable about "unable or unwilling". Why introduce such charged rhetoric and why attempt to Swift boat him just because the current administration embraced such tactics in their maintaining control through the last election cycle?He was unable or unwilling to put in the hard work required to excel at the academy. He ended up in the bottom 5 of his graduating class, and ended up with a highly coveted assignment, nevertheless. It is not "Swift-boating" to point out that his academic performance was terrible and that he got preferential treatment because of his connections. I have a friend whose service in Viet Nam consisted largely of being inserted into North Viet Nam alone, acting as a forward observer for naval artillery. When the VC figured out his position, he would call in artillery on his own position before scrambling. He is quiet and modest to a fault - and a hero.

[WarPhalange]

It's funny you should mention Swift Boating.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/30/mccain-truth-squad-defender-was-swift-boat-vet-member/

[edward]

McCain definitely has tempermanent issues.

http://mccaininsults.wordpress.com/2008/02/06/belittling-delores-alfond-head-of-the-national-alliance-of-powmia/

Edit: This link describes McCains stability a bit better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1AWeZrdxfQ

[LowlyPion]

I think the whole Swift Boat thing was a total distraction. What the Republicans fail to realize is the country hopefully just may be tired of those kinds of antics. This era of Karl Rove shape-shifting manipulation has been an unfortunate development in a world of politics that needs real solutions to address the issues of over-population and resource shortages, over promoting ways to benefit the few at the expense of the many.

[lisab]

McCain definitely has tempermanent issues.

http://mccaininsults.wordpress.com/2008/02/06/belittling-delores-alfond-head-of-the-national-alliance-of-powmia/

Edit: This link describes McCains stability a bit better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1AWeZrdxfQ

Unfortunately, neither of these videos are available anymore.

[edward]

Unfortunately, neither of these videos are available anymore.

Thats odd they both play for me??

[humanino]

Thats odd they both play for me??

For me too. Quite informative I should say.

[russ_watters]

Actually, McCain received the Distinguished Flying Cross for that mission which is different than the Navy Cross. The DFC was the third highest medal McCain received. His highest was the Silver Star, which is the third highest medal for gallantry. When I first saw the DFC reference, I assumed it was an error - I thought that the DFC was air force and the Navy Cross was for Navy (pilot or otherwise). And I thought they were equivalent -- sorry, my mistake.

[Gokul43201]

Russ, I was not very clear in my previous post. It seemed to me from the tone of your previous post like you were saying he only got a Navy Cross. I guess I misinterpreted it.

[russ_watters]

Has it occured to anyone that there are as well arguments against the idea that a veteran should be allowed to run for president ?

An important principle of democracy is the separation of power. A war veteran has psychologically been deeply involved into military business. To my understanding, that makes his objectivity likely to be biaised towards favoring military solutions and/or support. No, there are no real arguments against the idea that veterans should be allowed to run for President.

There are lots of jobs that create biases in politicians. That in no way implies that such people should be barred from holding office, let alone singling-out only one particular job to be excluded!

Frankly, if we should bar anyone from office, it should be lawyers! That's the ultimate conflict of interest!

[Gokul43201]

Quite informative I should say.I would not assign any credibility to an unsupported third person account of incidents. There is very little quality control on such things, and they could just as likely be completely trumped up slander as reports of real incidents.

The second video is thus useless to me.

[russ_watters]

Despite graduating in the bottom of his class at the naval academy, McCain got one of the most coveted assignments available - naval aviator. His connections (father and grandfather were both admirals) got him preferential treatment that he was unable or unwilling to earn on his own. Now you're just making stuff up, turbo-1. Due to need, it is quite common for everyone who wants to be a pilot and has the necessary qualifications (physical and flight aptitude exams) to get selected.

I got kicked-out of the Naval Academy for academic reasons. The year I was to graduate, everyone who was qualified for flight school and wanted it got it (and I was qualified).
He was shot down and he was tortured, as were lots of other servicemen. His misfortunes and mistreatment are great political fodder, but he is no more or less a "hero" than others who shared his fate, nor do his experiences uniquely qualify him to be president. No one has suggested that others who experienced the same thing are any less heroes than he. But McCain's experiences do uniquely qualify him in this case: the person he is running against does not have those qualifications. It might be a good idea to get some balance by considering the viewpoint of a fellow POW who knew MCain well.
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15...4859_1,00.html Ok.... But my point here is that John allows the media to make him out to be THE hero POW... I've never gotten that impression either from McCain's words or the media's treatment of the issue. I'm quite baffled by that objection. And all of the others are just variations on the same theme.

So really, this guy is basically just jealous of the attention he gets for his service.

His objection to McCain due to the partying he did at the Academy, I can handle. But hey - Obama was no saint in college either (almost no one is). He smoked pot. So did Clinton. Bush probably did coke and most of them probably did a substantial amount of drinking. It is not "Swift-boating" to point out that .... he got preferential treatment because of his connections.It is if the allegation is false.

[russ_watters]

Russ, I was not very clear in my previous post. It seemed to me from the tone of your previous post like you were saying he only got a Navy Cross. I guess I misinterpreted it.
No, it was my mistake and I deleted the previous post here a few minutes after posting it when I saw Bob's.

In any case, the citation I read and said was for the Navy cross was for the DFC - same critereon applies, though: McCain pursued the mission under imminent risk of death due to a badly damaged plane. Heck, the word "hero" appears in the citation!

[Gokul43201]

His objection to McCain due to the partying he did at the Academy, I can handle. But hey - Obama was no saint in college either (almost no one is). He smoked pot.I think there's a difference between graduating in the bottom 1% of your Naval Academy class and graduating Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law. I didn't find much of value in that testimonial either, but I think the point there was meant to be indicative of McCain's priorities in College.

[WarPhalange]

His objection to McCain due to the partying he did at the Academy, I can handle. But hey - Obama was no saint in college either (almost no one is). He smoked pot. So did Clinton. Bush probably did coke and most of them probably did a substantial amount of drinking.It is if the allegation is false.

Partying is fine, I don't even count pot, coke, hookers, whatever, as long as you can keep your grades up. It's not like they were in a gang or giving it away to kids. It was for their own enjoyment.

The problem is that it got in the way of McCain's schooling.

[turbo-1]

Now you're just making stuff up, turbo-1. Due to need, it is quite common for everyone who wants to be a pilot and has the necessary qualifications (physical and flight aptitude exams) to get selected.I'm trying to find the quote, Russ. It was from a classmate of McCain's and it was a while back.

If you doubt that he received preferential treatment due to his family, ask yourself how many jets a naval aviator in training should be allowed to crash before he is washed out of the program. One? Two? McCain crashed three. One in Corpus Cristi Bay, another in Spain when he was flying too low and took out some power lines, and yet another when he was flying himself to Philly in a trainer to watch the Army-Navy game and experienced a flameout.

[vanesch]

IMO, I believe that to be allowed to run for president, one must have served a period of time in on of the armed forces to be eligible for presidency.


I believe that to be allowed to run for president, one must have served a period of time as a scientist. It would help avoid a lot of illogical and stupid decisions. :smile:

[humanino]

I would not assign any credibility to an unsupported third person account of incidents. There is very little quality control on such things, and they could just as likely be completely trumped up slander as reports of real incidents.

The second video is thus useless to me.
Sure. I just have so little american polical culture, I did not even see the first video before.
The second video, indeed, I watched only for 15 s or so :smile:.
No, there are no real arguments against the idea that veterans should be allowed to run for President.Well, I just mentionned separation of powers, one of the fundamentals of democracy.
Frankly, if we should bar anyone from office, it should be lawyers! That's the ultimate conflict of interest!:rofl: Agreed, based on exactly the same principle. Then there is no more candidate :rolleyes:

[TheStatutoryApe]

I believe that to be allowed to run for president, one must have served a period of time as a scientist. It would help avoid a lot of illogical and stupid decisions. :smile:

I certainly think that there should be somewhat specific education requirements. In todays day and age I don't think it would be at all unfounded.

[Borek]

I certainly think that there should be somewhat specific education requirements.

Look around you, how many morons with diplomas you meet every day.

[turbo-1]

Look around you, how many morons with diplomas you meet every day.True. Diplomas do not confer intelligence, reason, judgment, etc, nor are they any indicator that the holder is honest, ethical, or compassionate. There are plenty of crooks and fools with framed paper.

[Gokul43201]

I certainly think that there should be somewhat specific education requirements. In todays day and age I don't think it would be at all unfounded.I disagree somewhat with that. You can learn a lot by yourself or outside of the academia.

But on a related note, what do you think about computer literacy? Do you think that a pre-requisite in this day and age should be that a President know how to operate a computer and be somewhat conversant with the use of modern technology?

[LowlyPion]

Aside from citizenship and age why would there be any further requirement?

If the majority of the citizens want the Executive branch of the government run by anyone meeting those basic requirements (oh yeah and they have to be alive) then let them vote that person in.

If the person proves unfit to serve there is another mechanism to remedy that.

Personally I would be happy just to have a President that served the interests of the entire country without succumbing to merely serving the interest of perpetuating their own stay in the office. But then again such a person might not meet the requirement of being a living human born in the USA.

As a point of minor interest - while McCain was born to American Citizen parents, he was apparently born on a Panama naval installation.
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html

[russ_watters]

If you doubt that he received preferential treatment due to his family, ask yourself how many jets a naval aviator in training should be allowed to crash before he is washed out of the program. One? Two? McCain crashed three. One in Corpus Cristi Bay, another in Spain when he was flying too low and took out some power lines, and yet another when he was flying himself to Philly in a trainer to watch the Army-Navy game and experienced a flameout. That depends, of course, on the exact causes of the crashes.

[russ_watters]

Well, I just mentionned separation of powers, one of the fundamentals of democracy. Yes, it is: but what you described is not separation of powers. Separation of powers is a multi-branch government and has nothing to do with the military or the qualifications of the leaders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers Agreed, based on exactly the same principle. Then there is no more candidate Thus, we are agreed that it is a completely pointless argument.

[russ_watters]

I think there's a difference between graduating in the bottom 1% of your Naval Academy class and graduating Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law. I didn't find much of value in that testimonial either, but I think the point there was meant to be indicative of McCain's priorities in College. Granted, with the caveat that I don't know what Obama did as an undergrad.

In either case, I have several friends who got absolutely abysmal grades as undergrads and then were stellar in grad school and in life in general. People mature at different ages/rates.

[Gokul43201]

Granted, with the caveat that I don't know what Obama did as an undergrad. He goofed off a lot in his first two years at Occidental College, and was an average student there. He then transferred to Columbia and became dead serious about academics.

Source: "Obama: From Promise to Power", David Mendell

[B. Elliott]

I believe that to be allowed to run for president, one must have served a period of time as a scientist. It would help avoid a lot of illogical and stupid decisions. :smile:

That does sound like a good requirement. I'm for it! But also consider that the military provides avenues for becoming a scientist.

Two birds with one stone! :biggrin:

[vanesch]

That does sound like a good requirement. I'm for it! But also consider that the military provides avenues for becoming a scientist.

Two birds with one stone! :biggrin:

Point is that if you have to have been a soldier, a scientist, a business man, a CEO, a sportsman and a movie actor, chances are you're a job hopper :smile:

[B. Elliott]

Point is that if you have to have been a soldier, a scientist, a business man, a CEO, a sportsman and a movie actor, chances are you're a job hopper :smile:

Eh, anything that deals with entertainment definitely shouldn't be a requirement, though the position shouldn't be held against one who has been an entertainer or a sportsman.

Overall the military teaches objective reasoning skills along with a plethora of other critical thinking skills... as I mentioned earlier in the thread. Those same skills are also applied in many, many other job areas.

[russ_watters]

Overall the military teaches objective reasoning skills along with a plethora of other critical thinking skills... as I mentioned earlier in the thread. Those same skills are also applied in many, many other job areas.
As displayed in this thread, most people who haven't been in the military have this image of mindless killing machines, but you're right that servicemen, officers in particular, are taught critical thinking skills, ethics, and morality*+, which are essential for the ability to make good decisions and be good leaders and are not taught anywhere else. The first half of my undergrad education, at the Naval academy, included weekly leadership/ethics seminars, leadership and ethics classes, weekly speeches by prominent leaders (Colin Powell, Janet Reno, Jim Lovell, etc.), and upperclassman-based instruction (that one's hard to describe). The second half of my undergrad education at Drexel University included one engineering ethics class (which is a relatively new thing) . There is no other place to learn good leadership skills than in the military. That's why, to me, military service is the single biggest qualification I look for in leaders. There are very few people who haven't been in the miltiary who are capable of being real leaders.

*Liberals and young people tend to be moral relativists, as a default belief (along with the 'anything is possible' belief is the 'right and wrong depends on the individual'). One amazing experience I had at the Naval Academy was actual discussions about morality. Most people have these ideas in their heads about morality that they never actually explore - they think something, it sounds good, so they belive it. But when you start to actually discuss it, argue it, and think it through, people realize that the standard assumption of moral relativism is actually defunct. It is wrong, obsolete, and it doesn't work in practice. I'd guess that when we started these seminars, more than 75?% of midshipmen were relativists. By the end, after being forced to think about it, more than 75% were moral absolutists/realists. This is the kind of thinking I want from my leaders. The charismatic, but empty leadership displayed by Obama will be a big problem if the country ever needs real leadership@.

+Caveat: the type and level of this training is not consistent, even in the military. In particular, a re-emphasizing of the need for officers to be moral free-thinkers occurred after the My Lai incident, which happened after McCain was captured. So it is possible that midshipmen today receive more leadership training than McCain did when he was at the Academy.

@Clinton will likely go down in history as an above average President. What will prevent him from being considered a great or even exceptional President is his utter lack of real leadership skills. Clinton relied heavily on public opinion polls to make his decisions and surrounded himself with mindless sycophants who couldn't actually help him make decisions. He lacked morality/ethics and didn't think/lead for himself. He was lucky enough to be President during a time where the US needed perhaps the least leadership in its history (with the exception of doing nothing about the rising terrorism problem). Bush, on the other hand, will go down in history as a bad President who nevertheless had good leadership skills, which enabled him to start an unnecessary war and get re-elected. He got people to line up behind what was otherwise an unpopular vision.

[Gokul43201]

And what happens when your critical thinking leads you to the conclusion that you are a participant in an unjust cause?

PS: He got people to line up behind what was otherwise an unpopular vision.That's not hard to do when you don't have a problem spinning yarns. It also helps when people are dumb as nails. But most importantly, kicking the bad guy's ass has never been an unpopular thing in this country.

[B. Elliott]

As displayed in this thread, most people who haven't been in the military have this image of mindless killing machines, but you're right that servicemen, officers in particular, are taught critical thinking skills, ethics, and morality*+, which are essential for the ability to make good decisions and be good leaders and are not taught anywhere else. The first half of my undergrad education, at the Naval academy, included weekly leadership/ethics seminars, leadership and ethics classes, weekly speeches by prominent leaders (Colin Powell, Janet Reno, Jim Lovell, etc.), and upperclassman-based instruction (that one's hard to describe). The second half of my undergrad education at Drexel University included one engineering ethics class (which is a relatively new thing) . There is no other place to learn good leadership skills than in the military. That's why, to me, military service is the single biggest qualification I look for in leaders. There are very few people who haven't been in the miltiary who are capable of being real leaders.

*Liberals and young people tend to be moral relativists, as a default belief (along with the 'anything is possible' belief is the 'right and wrong depends on the individual'). One amazing experience I had at the Naval Academy was actual discussions about morality. Most people have these ideas in their heads about morality that they never actually explore - they think something, it sounds good, so they belive it. But when you start to actually discuss it, argue it, and think it through, people realize that the standard assumption of moral relativism is actually defunct. It is wrong, obsolete, and it doesn't work in practice. I'd guess that when we started these seminars, more than 75?% of midshipmen were relativists. By the end, after being forced to think about it, more than 75% were moral absolutists/realists. This is the kind of thinking I want from my leaders. The charismatic, but empty leadership displayed by Obama will be a big problem if the country ever needs real leadership@.

+Caveat: the type and level of this training is not consistent, even in the military. In particular, a re-emphasizing of the need for officers to be moral free-thinkers occurred after the My Lai incident, which happened after McCain was captured. So it is possible that midshipmen today receive more leadership training than McCain did when he was at the Academy.

@Clinton will likely go down in history as an above average President. What will prevent him from being considered a great or even exceptional President is his utter lack of real leadership skills. Clinton relied heavily on public opinion polls to make his decisions and surrounded himself with mindless sycophants who couldn't actually help him make decisions. He lacked morality/ethics and didn't think/lead for himself. He was lucky enough to be President during a time where the US needed perhaps the least leadership in its history (with the exception of doing nothing about the rising terrorism problem). Bush, on the other hand, will go down in history as a bad President who nevertheless had good leadership skills, which enabled him to start an unnecessary war and get re-elected. He got people to line up behind what was otherwise an unpopular vision.

Very well said Russ. Very well. It's funny, but i've noticed that easily 99% of the people I know that have been in the military, advise others to join to at least gain the experience. It's seems as though it's always those with non-military experience who have something against it... who knock it. Those who were in the service always had a bad opinion on something, but overall, they advocate it.

As you said, most people also have the preconceived image in their head of a military personnel; They have an assault rifle, they're all thick-skulled brainless grunts, they have a shoot first ask questions later mentality, they're mindless killers, ect, ect.

This is the 21st century.

[grant9076]

It is clear that there are many misconceptions about the military being displayed here. I do not have time to quote each one individually so here are just a few of the blatant ones that I see.

Myth 1: Soldiers are brainwashed to be a bunch of killers.
Law enforcement (such as FBI etc.) are also trained to use deadly force when needed. Do you think that they are a bunch of killers too? Military personell generally do not like going to war. If they have to, then they try very hard to minimize collateral damage.

Myth 2: No aiming is required when dropping bombs.
This is completely false. Whether the pilot/WSO is dropping a GBU-24, an AGM-130, or just a regular "dumb bomb", if he/she wants to get it close to the target then it has to be carefully aimed and released while in the proper weapons launch parameters. Also, re-read the answer to the previous myth.

Myth 3: There is not much emotional stress involved in aerial combat missions.
All combat missions are stressful, especially when it takes you through multiple threat rings (effective radii of surface to air weaponry). The person who believes this has obviously never been in combat.

Myth 4: The National Guard is made up of a bunch of draft dodgers.
In Desert Storm and in Operation Allied Force (Kosovo), members of the Air National Guard served very well alongside the Air Force. Oh, by the way, they are very skillful pilots too.

Also, I get the impression that many here grossly underestimate the academic programs at the service academies. Having graduated from the Air Force Academy, I can say that getting accepted into the Academy was much harder for me than getting accepted into MIT. In fact, my room mate (1st year) also easily got accepted into MIT. However, he flunked out of the Air Force Academy.

Just to give an idea, here is a sample (not all inclusive) of the core curriculum (minimum requirements regardless of major): 4 semesters of Math, 2 semesters of aeronautical engineering, 2 semesters of astronautical engineering, 2 semesters of electrical engineering, 4 semesters of physics, 2 semesters of chemistry, 4 semesters of history, 4 semesters of behavioral science, 2 semesters of general engineering, 2 semesters of engineering mechanics, 2 semesters of philosophy, 2 semesters of biology, 2 semesters of a foreign language, 1 semester of aerospace physiology, 3 semesters of political science, 2 semesters of economics, 1 semester of English Literature, 1 semester of technical writing, 4 semesters of professional military studies (officership and warfighting).

We should remember that this list is not all inclusive, the full list is the absolute minimum (even if you are a history or a humanities major), and that you will have to add the courses for your academic major.

On another note, I have a feeling that many here do not realize that an officer will need to have a Master's degree if he/she intends to make it past the rank of Major (not to mention getting into Air War College). The point that I am getting at here is that I do not see how someone who is unable to think clearly could make it in the military.

[vanesch]

Eh, anything that deals with entertainment definitely shouldn't be a requirement, though the position shouldn't be held against one who has been an entertainer or a sportsman.

Overall the military teaches objective reasoning skills along with a plethora of other critical thinking skills... as I mentioned earlier in the thread. Those same skills are also applied in many, many other job areas.

My point was that giving special favor for a candidate which has this or that job experience is IMO not a good idea, because in every job you find qualities (and disadvantages too). So the perfect candidate should have had all those good experiences. If one requires him/her to have had a military experience, because of certain positive aspects related to have been in the military, then you can hold a very similar discourse for about every job category.

Entertainment is funny: you've had Reagan, and then we have Schwarzie of course (not as president, but almost so), etc... Being in the entertainment industry gives you perfect qualities for being a president: perfect communication skills, "an ear to the public", you know how to bring happiness, you've taken the skin of many different personalities (good knowledge of human psychology etc...), extremely good liar (eh?) ...

Sport is fun: self discipline, achievement, endurance, performance, a drive for results, good knowledge of the pharmaceutical sector (eh ?), ...

Being a gang leader is fun: can make others respect you, can take hard decisions, can be creative with the law, capable to manage difficult people, sense of risk, has no enemies (alive) ...

[B. Elliott]

My point was that giving special favor for a candidate which has this or that job experience is IMO not a good idea, because in every job you find qualities (and disadvantages too). So the perfect candidate should have had all those good experiences. If one requires him/her to have had a military experience, because of certain positive aspects related to have been in the military, then you can hold a very similar discourse for about every job category.

Entertainment is funny: you've had Reagan, and then we have Schwarzie of course (not as president, but almost so), etc... Being in the entertainment industry gives you perfect qualities for being a president: perfect communication skills, "an ear to the public", you know how to bring happiness, you've taken the skin of many different personalities (good knowledge of human psychology etc...), extremely good liar (eh?) ...

Sport is fun: self discipline, achievement, endurance, performance, a drive for results, good knowledge of the pharmaceutical sector (eh ?), ...

Being a gang leader is fun: can make others respect you, can take hard decisions, can be creative with the law, capable to manage difficult people, sense of risk, has no enemies (alive) ...

But being an entertainer or player of sports did not involve serving the US government its self.

That's my point.

[LowlyPion]

Bush, on the other hand, will go down in history as a bad President who nevertheless had good leadership skills, which enabled him to start an unnecessary war and get re-elected. He got people to line up behind what was otherwise an unpopular vision.

Sorry, but I don't see bald deceitfulness employed to forward a small minded agenda as a particularly useful or desirable leadership skill. Bush Jr. will surely only be seen as a weak imitation of his father, who himself was a less than memorable president.

[B. Elliott]

I'm still 120% positive that everyone should have to serve in one branch of the service or another. That's where my requirement for having service background comes from. If everyone had spent time in the Air Force, Navy, Marines, Army, Coast Guard, ect. everyone will be eligible to run for president.

[russ_watters]

And what happens when your critical thinking leads you to the conclusion that you are a participant in an unjust cause? That's one of the primary reasons why critical thinking skills and ethics are so important. For one thing, officers are duty-bound to refuse orders that are illegal.

Now perhaps you are referring specifically to the Vietnam or Iraq wars. You need to remember that one junior officer can't change an entire war. The breadth of the effect that you can have is dependent on your paygrade. But that's why those qualities are good to have in a President: at that level, you want someone with the critical thinking skills and ethics required to make good decisions about war. I trust a person like McCain with such decisions much more than I trust a person like Obama.

[russ_watters]

Very well said Russ. Very well. It's funny, but i've noticed that easily 99% of the people I know that have been in the military, advise others to join to at least gain the experience. It's seems as though it's always those with non-military experience who have something against it... who knock it. Those who were in the service always had a bad opinion on something, but overall, they advocate it. Since things didn't as planned for me in the military, I didn't have a very good experience, but I would still recommend it to anyone. It is a character builder like no other experience you can have.

Regarding the brainwashing thing, that just makes me laugh. Kids go to a school like Berkeley and become conformist noncomformists and think that they are free thinkers, when in reality they are just carbon copies of every other mindless sign-carrying hippie wannabee out there. They follow those causes because it is fun and it is cool, not because they have thought the issues through and see them clearly.

[russ_watters]

Sorry, but I don't see bald deceitfulness employed to forward a small minded agenda as a particularly useful or desirable leadership skill. Bush Jr. will surely only be seen as a weak imitation of his father, who himself was a less than memorable president. You didn't read that correctly. Every leader has a vision. Some visions are good, some visions are bad, and some visions are good even though no one likes them. Regardless of the specifics of the vision, good leadership is what gets people behind a leader's vision.

[LowlyPion]

I'm still 120% positive that everyone should have to serve in one branch of the service or another.

I would have to disagree with that. A more massive service would take on a life of its own. I think it would become a concentration of power that would offer temptations too great for even the best of men. Look at how these men in power today have justified their actions and would likely cling to power still if they could only figure a bigger lie or had any hopes of subverting the checks that will apparently drive them from office in 6 months.

Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate the personal discipline and accountability and opportunity to succeed in life through the exercise of ones skills that service provides. But I can't lose sight of the perils of societal regimentation. If everyone marches to the beat of a single drum then who can be trusted to beat the drum?

History records as exceptions such men as Cincinnatus or George Washington eschewing unchecked power to return to their lives.

[TheStatutoryApe]

I disagree somewhat with that. You can learn a lot by yourself or outside of the academia.

But on a related note, what do you think about computer literacy? Do you think that a pre-requisite in this day and age should be that a President know how to operate a computer and be somewhat conversant with the use of modern technology?

I'm sure a person can learn alot outside of academia. I've personally never been to college.
But we're talking about an important job that is very demanding. When I see presidents and presidential candidates who can't seem to keep straight the basics of who's who and what their relationships are to one another in the war that they are advocating that any highschool student with a newspaper should be able tell you it really bothers me. And bothers me more so when I think just how complex are the policies, legislation, and economic issues they deal with. Sure they will always have their advisors but it doesn't matter much if they can't tell whether their advisors are at all qualified or just full of bologna.

[LowlyPion]

Regardless of the specifics of the vision, good leadership is what gets people behind a leader's vision.

You can't seriously suggest that the US is in Iraq because the American public was anything but manipulated to it by the fabrication and misrepresentation of unreal threats. I'd say Bush-Cheney-Rove have not exercised leadership by whatever scalar you want to apply to it so much as they have exercised their ability to manipulate and trick through deceit. Manipulation is not leadership any more than a coyote causing a stampede would be considered a leader.

[LightbulbSun]

Too many people today can't grasp what it was was like to live 500, 600, 800 or 1,000 years ago. They've become too accustomed to everything always being there. Everything always being available whenever, wherever they want... Their freedom being simply handed to them. Well, that hasn't always been the case. At one time people had to put their lives on the line to for their freedom. The had to put their lives on the line to search for food for their families. The had to put their lives on the line to keep invaders out and their territory... otherwise they would loose their freedoms.

IMO, not understanding or fully comprehending the above, now that's true desensitization.

That's all true except who's fighting for what freedom nowadays? When politicians say that the soldiers are in Iraq to protect our freedom, I know it's pure propaganda. Just remember that they're fighting for oil, and not your freedom.

[B. Elliott]

I would have to disagree with that. A more massive service would take on a life of its own. I think it would become a concentration of power that would offer temptations too great for even the best of men. Look at how these men in power today have justified their actions and would likely cling to power still if they could only figure a bigger lie or had any hopes of subverting the checks that will apparently drive them from office in 6 months.

Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate the personal discipline and accountability and opportunity to succeed in life through the exercise of ones skills that service provides. But I can't lose sight of the perils of societal regimentation. If everyone marches to the beat of a single drum then who can be trusted to beat the drum?

History records as exceptions such men as Cincinnatus or George Washington eschewing unchecked power to return to their lives.

But not every single person will be in the military at the same time. I'm suggesting that everyone should be required to serve time in the military. Whether it be four years, or 30 is up to the individual. After your four years is up, you are now qualified to run for presidential office since you now have first hand knowledge of how the military which you are in command of operates.

[TheStatutoryApe]

You can't seriously suggest that the US is in Iraq because the American public was anything but manipulated to it by the fabrication and misrepresentation of unreal threats. I'd say Bush-Cheney-Rove have not exercised leadership by whatever scalar you want to apply to it so much as they have exercised their ability to manipulate and trick through deceit. Manipulation is not leadership any more than a coyote causing a stampede would be considered a leader.

I have to agree with the Pion. Its not just a matter of making decisions and getting people behind them but making good decisions and getting the people to support you. After the Iraq invasion Bush quickly lost most of his followers. Definitely not a sign of a good leader.

[LowlyPion]

My point about military service is based more on the fact that it would become a much bigger entity.

Currently - if I may quote Wikipedia at least insofar as to talk orders of magnitude:

"As of May 2007, about 1,426,705 people are on active duty in the military with an additional 1,458,400 people in the seven reserve components."

Now if the US currently has in excess of 300M people and you would talk about 4 year terms then you may be talking about a service - assuming 80 year life expectancy and even population distribution by age to be 4/80 or 1/20 that if you apply to the 300M population suggests a military establishment of some 15M individuals. That would be about 5 times larger than now. That much power and influence would take on a life of its own. Just think of all the projects military planners would have the manpower to consider and possibly attempt. That thought should be enough to tighten most any sphincter.

[LightbulbSun]

As you said, most people also have the preconceived image in their head of a military personnel; They have an assault rifle, they're all thick-skulled brainless grunts, they have a shoot first ask questions later mentality, they're mindless killers, ect, ect.

This is the 21st century.

And most people have the preconceived image of an anti-war person as a bleeding heart liberal. You know, if you seek alternative options to solving problems other than bomb the **** out of someone, that makes you spineless.

I'm sorry if you hear frustration behind my posts, but I can't stand the distorted stance of military people being the only true leaders and all of that other nonsense. Maybe the Iraq War is agitating me. Maybe there will be a future war that makes a little more sense than this one where I won't be so agitated. But I'm sick of regular citizens being treated like turds all because we weren't quick enough to jump the gun, and be inclined to bloodshed.

[B. Elliott]

My point about military service is based more on the fact that it would become a much bigger entity.

Currently - if I may quote Wikipedia at least insofar as to talk orders of magnitude:

"As of May 2007, about 1,426,705 people are on active duty in the military with an additional 1,458,400 people in the seven reserve components."

Now if the US currently has in excess of 300M people and you would talk about 4 year terms then you may be talking about a service - assuming 80 year life expectancy and even population distribution by age to be 4/80 or 1/20 that if you apply to the 300M population suggests a military establishment of some 15M individuals. That would be about 5 times larger than now. That much power and influence would take on a life of its own. Just think of all the projects military planners would have the manpower to consider and possibly attempt. That thought should be enough to tighten most any sphincter.

Sure, you could do a lot of wrong with it, just as any president can now... or has, whichever way you want to look at it. The key is, The President isn't as powerful as people believe. Yes he is a position of power, but he isn't end-all powerful. His power has limitations. Any act which he intends to follow through with, has to go through congress first.

On the other side of the coin, look at how much good can come from it; Everyone will be provided an avenue for education, everyone will learn basic leadership skills, everyone will learn the basics behind our government and the way it operates, everyone will have a job.

Sure, there's a bad side. There's also a bad side to offering free health care to everyone.

[B. Elliott]

And most people have the preconceived image of an anti-war person as a bleeding heart liberal. You know, if you seek alternative options to solving problems other than bomb the **** out of someone, that makes you spineless.

That's an extreme interpretation of the a typical military personnel. You obviously have no grasp whatsoever of the military, so I guess it's easy to call it whatever you like. Until you experience it, you do not know.

If you believe that every aspect of the military involves dropping bombs, that in it's self is proof of the ignorance.

I'm sorry if you hear frustration behind my posts, but I can't stand the distorted stance of military people being the only true leaders and all of that other nonsense. Maybe the Iraq War is agitating me. Maybe there will be a future war that makes a little more sense than this one where I won't be so agitated. But I'm sick of regular citizens being treated like turds all because we weren't quick enough to jump the gun, and be inclined to bloodshed.

Regular people (you) aren't being treated like turds!! How are you being treated so badly? Explain. Remember that EVERY single military personnel was a civillian at one time and VERY many are now. I'm not getting upset, I seriously want to understand what the military has personally done to you to make you feel so bad. I'm all ears.

[LowlyPion]

His power has limitations. Any act which he intends to follow through with, has to go through congress first.

Sadly that particular check falls prey to the very deceit that Bush/Cheney/Rove employed in using Colin Powell to front their lies.

Not to pick on just the Republicans let's not forget the Gulf of Tonkin resolution either that kicked off another ill advised episode of adventurism.

I realize less war would mean fewer War Heroes. But maybe that would be a good thing?

[Gokul43201]

That's one of the primary reasons why critical thinking skills and ethics are so important. For one thing, officers are duty-bound to r