Tiniest bit unfair. In all modern conflicts, the vast majority of service people never fire a shot in anger. They are logistical personnel, etc. “Rear echelon mutherfuckers” outnumber combat troops by a minimum of 10 to one. Besides which, Saigon is one hell of a lot closer to the shit than Houston.
Not to mention the possibility of being wounded as a result of venereal combat.
Yeah, I’ve heard all about Houston
We still had a military during those years, didn’t we? Even if there really wasn’t anything for them to do?
A bigger problem is that we would, in effect, be barring anyone from running for president who had exceptionally poor eyesight, or fallen arches, or was in a wheelchair, or suffered from asthma, or anyone of the hundreds of medical conditions that preclude military service. And I, for one, do not want to tell this guy he can’t run for president, because he will completely kick your ass, even if he doesn’t have the use of his legs.
Define it any way you want. Whatever it is, should there be a prerequisite of military service for being President? If you think there should be, what should it be?
What David Simmons said about military service as a qualification for high political office.
In the meantime I am soliciting orders for a bumper sticker to read as follows:
“I support the troops in this unnecessary and reckless foreign adventure”
The background would be a tastefull arrangement of red and white stripes with maybe a few white stars on a blue ground. Surely the boys in Washington can find no fault with these sentiments.
May I suggest including an image of Alfred E. Neuman?
I also agree that military service is not a prerequisite. The reason Bush (& company) are getting shit is not because they led the country into war when themselves avoided it, but rather that they led the country into a reckless military adventure while they themselves had avoided service. (You will notice that there was only a very small number of people who were irked by this during the Afghanistan conflict because more of us saw that as justified or at least justifiable.) It is the reckless actions and the use of the military as they own personal plaything that galls us.
Oh my, now we America haters aregetting German intelligence people to do our dirty work on the noble leader.
Absolutely not, and not just because it’s a violation of so many people’s rights. It seems that as time goes on, we’re moving away from the idea that it should be. I’m hopeful that Vietnam will not be an issue in the next election, that 2004 was the last waving of that particular bloody shirt.
Also, veteran by the name of Kennedy helped get the US into Vietnam, so let’s not pretend that military service means the President won’t make lousy decisions and get the country into unnecessary wars.
Lyndon Johnson was Navy Lt. Commander in WWII.
I guessed he probably served too, but I wasn’t sure. And hey, nobody ever lied America into a bad war better than Johnson did.
My favorite line of that story is:
Still more evidence that the White House’s response to the inspections was to rush to war as the inspections were basically imploding their case for war.
Translation: (whatever)(whatever)(whatever) I’m just trying to get off the subject on which my ass is currently being spanked. How about them Packers?
-Joe
Spanked? Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I originally asked if military service should be a prerequisite for being President. tomndebb asked me to define it and gave some examples. I replied back that he was free to define it ANY way he’d like, leaving the question: regardless of how you define it, should their be ANY requirement of military service for the Presidency? Perhaps you should read more slowly or have someone read to you.
Advice: the next time you try to be cute or clever, try to know what you’re talking about. Otherwise you run the risk of looking like a jerk.
I agree. In fact, everyone seems to agree. Not one person has advocated military service being a prerequisite for holding the presidency.
Which brings me back to the reason I asked the question in the first place: If we all agree that a President needn’t have served in the military, isn’t it just a comlpete waste of time to repeatedly attempt to slam Bush for not having been in Vietnam, as some have done earlier in this thread.? Surely the incompetence with which he has managed this war has nothing to do with that.
It seems fair to criticize him for displaying a “reluctance” to serve him combat himself, while not being very reluctant to send others into combat, but as far as the manangement of the war, whther he fought or not seems immaterial—unless we are willing to say that a President should have served in the military.
But his eagerness to go to war brings his lack of service into the discussion. We knew guys like Ike and JFK knew full well the realities of combat and wouldn’t go to war unless absolutely the last resort. The fact that Bush went to war as the first resort (and the only option ever considered) makes his lack of service fair game. Clinton didn’t serve either, but had he started a war with as little grounds as Bush, it certainly would have been the same story. Don’t start a war for nothing, and it doesn’t matter if you served.
Well yes, and it seems fair to say that besides that assassination thing, Mrs. Lincoln rather enjoyed her night out at the theatre. In my view the whole point of the issue regarding Bush et al.'s combat is how they are using the military as their personal plaything, extinguishing lives for stupid reasons, lies, and deception, while they were unwilling to risk their own lives. However, the fact that they were unwilling to risk their own lives is just icing on the cake as far as I am concerned. I’d still be against their policy even if they had served bravely themselves. It just helps complete the picture of how depraved these people are.
I think Merijeek’s point is that this whole thing about military service has been a hijack from the thread. (Admittedly, it would have been clearer if he had linked to the beginning of your hijack instead of one of your posts in the middle.) Actually, considering that your whole fixation with supporting the troops and the best way to express one’s opposition to the war is also a hijack of the thread, I’d say that what we have is a hijack of a hijacking (by the same person who committed the original hijacking).
Well yes, and it seems fair to say that besides that assassination thing, Mrs. Lincoln rather enjoyed her night out at the theatre. In my view the whole point of the issue regarding Bush et al.'s combat is how they are using the military as their personal plaything, extinguishing lives for stupid reasons, lies, and deception, while they were unwilling to risk their own lives. However, the fact that they were unwilling to risk their own lives is just icing on the cake as far as I am concerned. I’d still be against their policy even if they had served bravely themselves. It just helps complete the picture of how morally depraved these people are.
I think Merijeek’s point is that this whole thing about military service has been a hijack from the thread. (Admittedly, it would have been clearer if he had linked to the beginning of your hijack instead of one of your posts in the middle.) Actually, considering that your whole fixation with supporting the troops and the best way to express one’s opposition to the war is also a hijack of the thread, I’d say that what we have is a hijack of a hijacking (by the same person who committed the original hijacking).
Sorry about the double-post…Damn hamsters!
Please reread my post. You begin with “But”, then make a point that I acknowledge.
