[QUOTE=Monty]
I can’t think of any of those where military service is required for government office.
[/QUOTE]
Not for government service per se, but it can be argued that military service is a requirement of full citizenship. Anyway, Heinlein’s concept is not so far removed from this practice that it qualifies as exaggeration.
No, no military service should be required. But maybe they should be required to give birth and raise a child.
Our government leaders should not be required in general to have served in the military. I don’t think the Speaker of the House needs to have carried a gun in a war zone. Of course, they should listen to those who do have an understanding of war when making military decisions. But restricting power to those honorably discharged from active service could end up as putting a “party of the military” in power, which is a bad idea.
As a matter of expertise, the Secretary of Defense should have the highest understanding of the realities of armed service & of war. This does not necessarily mean that he himself was ever in uniform. I’d happily put a survivor of Pol Pot’s Killing Fields in over some dude who was an undistinguished Army Captain in the Gulf War.
Clinton notoriously “loathed the military,” but he was less abusive to service personnel than Bush, who was sort of a technical veteran (reserves).
[QUOTE=foolsguinea]
Clinton notoriously “loathed the military,” but he was less abusive to service personnel than Bush, who was sort of a technical veteran (reserves).
[/QUOTE]
Bush was not a technical veteran. He was a member of the Armed Forces. That means he’s a Veteran.
I really don’t recall that Clinton ever said he loathed the military or made any similar comments. Could you provide a cite for your assertion? Thanks.
[QUOTE=Monty]
Bush was not a technical veteran. He was a member of the Armed Forces. That means he’s a Veteran.
[/QUOTE]
The definition of “veteran” is not quite that cut and dried. While “having served in the armed services in any capacity” is one definition, most people intepret “veteran” is implying someone who has actually served in a war.
Bush 2.0’s status as a veteran (though certainly not his father’s) is thus fairly open to some degree of clarification. You cannot honestly say Bush 2.0 is a veteran in the same sense that his father was.
What’s the government’s definition, the military’s definition? I’ll go with the fact of the matter and not try the lame “kind of sort of” insult to the man. No, he is not a combat veteran; however, that does not mean that he’s not a veteran.
[QUOTE=Marcus Tullius Cicero]
And while this may seem tangential, I just have to address one of Blast Master’s comments: Andrew Jackson did indeed have a highly-decorated military career, but he is certainly not considered one of our worst presidents. He’s actually considered one of the best ones, with an average scholarly ranking at the eighth best out of the 42 individuals to have held the office Historical rankings of presidents of the United States - Wikipedia, because of his keeping the Union together during the crisis over the Tariff of Abominations, among other things. I just had to address that, because he’s one of my favourite presidents (right behind T.R., Wshington, Jefferson, and a select few others).
[/QUOTE]
I take it you have no Native America blood?
[QUOTE=Monty]
Bush was not a technical veteran. He was a member of the Armed Forces. That means he’s a Veteran.
[/quote]
Technically, you’re right, Monty. Bush was a member of the National Guard at a time when the job was about as dangerous as being a member of the Boy Scouts, which is exactly why he was there. At the time, it was considered a good way for rich kids who might have political futures to avoid service in Vietnam. It’s not out and out draft dodging, but it was close. You should know this. so putting the term “technical” before “veteran” in Bush’s case is a perfectly appropriate way of distinguishing him from those who actually could have found themselves in combat in circumstances less compelling than Armageddon.
So, you’re admitting that the man is a Veteran? Good. Then perhaps we can dispense with the crud about “kind of sort of” and the like.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
The definition of “veteran” is not quite that cut and dried. While “having served in the armed services in any capacity” is one definition, most people intepret “veteran” is implying someone who has actually served in a war.
Bush 2.0’s status as a veteran (though certainly not his father’s) is thus fairly open to some degree of clarification. You cannot honestly say Bush 2.0 is a veteran in the same sense that his father was.
[/QUOTE]
WTF?
I can understand that you’d feel better if person X were a war veteran. But to say that someone who’d put in their time in the military, but didn’t serve during an acknowledged war isn’t a “real” veteran is asinine.
Are you saying that my father, who got through college on his GI Bill benefits wasn’t a “real” veteran? Even though he was in, and serving in GITMO while Castro was coming out of the hills, and as the Base was closed to the rest of the island?
What about veterans of the Korean War, which for decades wasn’t called an official “war” by Congress?
Do you think that the Marines who were killed in 1983, in Beruit weren’t giving real service?
For that matter, what about the service members killed every year because of equipment failures? Are you going to say that they didn’t risk enough to have qualified as a Veteran?
I should ask, then, if you consider the first Gulf War a real war for the purposes of being a “real” veteran? If it does, then I am a real veteran. But, does the answer matter if one served without actually being in a combat zone? I was stuck in training and then TPD during that conflict, so I guess I’m not a “real” veteran.
Contrariwise, does one only get to consider oneself a “real” veteran if one got combat pay? Well, in that case, I got a month’s combat pay when we went to Cartegena, Columbia in the early nineties - so I guess I am a “real” veteran, after all. Even though that combat pay was for going to a port for a weekend’s liberty - and I choose not to go ashore?
What about submarine sailors? During the 1960’s there was no declared war on the seas. No matter that the US lost two nuclear powered subs during that time. At least one of those boats is likely to have been lost due to an ordinance failure, like what sank the Kursk, do you really have the chutzpah to tell those men who survived that they didn’t risk enough to be considered veterans?
For that matter, I’m sure Airman Doors has a better feel than I do, for the regular casualty losses suffered by the Air Force during normal peacetime operations.
Make the distinction between combat veterans and non-combat veterans, if you like. I’ve got no problem with that. But don’t say that someone isn’t really a veteran because they didn’t see the elephant. For that matter - I don’t think the elephant comes in just one flavor, anyways.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
The definition of “veteran” is not quite that cut and dried. While “having served in the armed services in any capacity” is one definition, most people intepret “veteran” is implying someone who has actually served in a war.
Bush 2.0’s status as a veteran (though certainly not his father’s) is thus fairly open to some degree of clarification. You cannot honestly say Bush 2.0 is a veteran in the same sense that his father was.
[/QUOTE]
Since we have developed a propensity for getting into wars or police actions or peace keepint or whatever the definition has definitely changes. During the 1930’s “veteral” unquestionably referred to those who had served in a war, most likely WWI. It would have been laughable to call some guy who enlisted in 1933 and served one hitch a “veteran.”
As to the OP, I already said I gidn’t think miltary service was necessary. Any thoughtful person can weigh the consequences of a war without having been engaged in one. Good judgement and width and depth of experiences are mugh more important than having served during a war and I cite George Patton as a case in point. He served in two wars and consistently showed bad judgement in everything except war, and according to Omar Bradley, his judgement in war wasn’t all that good.
GW could have been in a hundred battles and his judgement would still be lousy.
[QUOTE=OtakuLoki]
WTF?
I can understand that you’d feel better if person X were a war veteran. But to say that someone who’d put in their time in the military, but didn’t serve during an acknowledged war isn’t a “real” veteran is asinine.
[QUOTE]
This, and much of your subsequent post, is a preposterous and largely straw-man-based overreaction and puts words into what I wrote that were not there; I never accused anyone of not being a “real” veteran, or came up with the idiotic idea that the Korean War wasn’t a war. Calm down.
I made exactly one point, and one point only: that “Veteran” can mean different things to different people. The fact of the matter - it is not an opinion - is that the word “Veteran” has different connotations, depending on the speaker and context. If you don’t believe me, ask a hundred different people what a “veteran” is and see if you get the same answer a hundred times. Whatever your opinion of a sailor who served in subs in the 1960s is, it is simply obvious that a man who served in combat in the PAcific war and had his plane shot out from under him by the Japanese navy, like George H. Bush, is a veteran in a very different sense than a guy who spent his entire Vietnam War service Stateside.
[QUOTE=Monty]
So, you’re admitting that the man is a Veteran? Good. Then perhaps we can dispense with the crud about “kind of sort of” and the like.
[/QUOTE]
No, I’m saying exactly that he is “kind of sort of” a veteran, and that using the term as it is now understood is misleading.
How is it misleading? Did anyone say he was a combat vet? A veteran is someone who’s been in the Armed Forces. The man was in the Armed Forces; therefore, he’s a veteran.