We need to have a General become President again

[DragonStryk72]

I was thinking about this earlier when I read the topic posted by RSR where a US Army General, McChrystal, is being thrown to the wolves by the Dems for criticizing Obama, and I was behind the generals who spoke against Bush's strategies. This to me is an abominable act, castigating a General because he does not agree with the war plan. That's like getting pissed at a heart surgeon cause he disagrees with the first year resident's plan to help a heart attack patient.

I think that the time has come to actually elect a General to the Presidency. Let's face it, We are in a much different world right now, and a good section of it is violently opposed to us. First off, a General obviously knows how to get stuff done (you may get commission on smarts and background, but General takes work), as well as being someone who obviously understands how to use the military. We need a strategic thinker, and that's the best example of one I can think of.

[avatar4321]

ummm.... I understand your thinking, but I am not sure I agree. We live in a different time than we did when General Eisenhower was President. Honestly, I am not sure I want someone who knows how to use the military in the top spot. It could be very dangerous at this time of our nations history.

[DragonStryk72]

More dangerous than two in a row who bungle it horribly and are exacerbating two wars now? I'll take swift and sure.

[abso]

More dangerous than two in a row who bungle it horribly and are exacerbating two wars now? I'll take swift and sure.

maybe i partially agree, a general who had fought in battles, would know how terrifying war is, and would try his best to prevent wars, military personals suffer the most from wars, they understand it, and understand how horrible is it for mankind, but..... a military personal may not be diplomatic enough to deal with other nations, his decision will always be decisive as military people think that war is the only war to protect the nation.

so its two sided, they may suffer from war, understand how horrible it is, they may dislike it, but they wont hesitate to go to war if they feel the need to protect the nation from a threat, so any misinterpretation made by his advisors about a situation, could lead the general to decide to go to war without fully understanding the situation, just because his advisors interpreted the situation as a real threat to the national security.

Military people as much as they hate war, they also need to be decisive and they feel that war is neccessary to protect the nation, so that may lead to many wars that could be avoided with diplomacy.

finally, its very hard to find the right man, that favours peace much and also know when he must go to war, military leaders through history have fought many wars that was useless and could have been avoided, its hard to find a wise leader.

[CSM]

Generally speaking (pun intended), generals are leaders (some more effective than others) but they are also politicians. They have to be to get that third or fourth star.

That being said, I'll settle for a president that has the best interests of the citizens of this country and the prosperity of the nation at heart. I would settle for a Congress that is more interested in doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do than a Congress that is only interested in pandering to extreme ideologies, special interest groups and getting re-elected.
(rant on)
I will settle for a president that operates with common sense rather than "intelligence"; I am truly tired of the arrogant and elitist attitude of our current crop of politicians. I am tired of a Congress that passes legislation without even reading the bills they pass, never mind considering any repercussions of their actions. I am tired of a government that ignores the supreme law of the land and subverts the founding principles upon which this nation was founded. I am tired of politicians who point their fingers at other people in false outrage for some politically incorrect statement or action while diddling an intern behind the scenes. I am tired of political parties distorting the truth, hiding the facts, and propagating lies. I am tired of public servants with flexible principles and situational morality. I am tired of politicians that want to turn over the governing of this country to some international body; of judges that think foriegn nation's laws take precedence over our own.
(rant off)

I could go on and on but the end result is the citizens of this country need to wake up and get busy cleaning up the mess that is the government of the United States of America. This includes local and state governments. If they do not, then they deserve the misery the will surely suffer as a result.

[DragonStryk72]

maybe i partially agree, a general who had fought in battles, would know how terrifying war is, and would try his best to prevent wars, military personals suffer the most from wars, they understand it, and understand how horrible is it for mankind, but..... a military personal may not be diplomatic enough to deal with other nations, his decision will always be decisive as military people think that war is the only war to protect the nation.

so its two sided, they may suffer from war, understand how horrible it is, they may dislike it, but they wont hesitate to go to war if they feel the need to protect the nation from a threat, so any misinterpretation made by his advisors about a situation, could lead the general to decide to go to war without fully understanding the situation, just because his advisors interpreted the situation as a real threat to the national security.

Military people as much as they hate war, they also need to be decisive and they feel that war is neccessary to protect the nation, so that may lead to many wars that could be avoided with diplomacy.

finally, its very hard to find the right man, that favours peace much and also know when he must go to war, military leaders through history have fought many wars that was useless and could have been avoided, its hard to find a wise leader.

Actually, here in America, we have had more non-military presidents than military presidents. Shockingly, the higher ranked the officer was, looking over the histories involved, the less likely they were to just jump into war. Washington was obviously an exception to this rule, but can hardly be put at fault, given that we had the whole fight for independence.

The ones who have been especially good for our country, Washington, Lincoln, Eisenhower, and others fought in horrible wars before their presidency came about, and were actually able to cross lines that their non-military brethren simply could not have done.

As to CSM, seriously, I have not one word of argument for you. I feel the same, I'm looking for something that could lead to a solution, and I think the best chance for basic common sense to start prevailing.

Actually, I had another thought on it, that we need to rescind the policy we started back in the sixties of paying our Congressmen to be Congressmen. Seriously, before, they had to actually be able to survive in the real world rather than only being able to sling bullshit. They were business owners, people who actually had to manage things. Our current breed lose all connection to that past, because they are paid quite well to be politicians, so that a trend goes where politicians fail upwards

[Binky]

How many really good generals do we actually have in America? Would there be enough to pick and choose from when deciding which one we asked to run for office?

[Gaffer]

I'll settle for someone with military experience. Just as long as they know how the military works and the best use for them. A former sergeant would be better than the elitist pin heads in washington now. A commission doesn't make a leader.

[LuvRPgrl]

I agree with your initial idea that a President would be better if he had military background but your claim that most presidents have NOT had military service in their background is not correct.
Actually, here in America, we have had more non-military presidents than military presidents. Shockingly, the higher ranked the officer was, looking over the histories involved, the less likely they were to just jump into war. Washington was obviously an exception to this rule, but can hardly be put at fault, given that we had the whole fight for independence.

The ones who have been especially good for our country, Washington, Lincoln, Eisenhower, and others fought in horrible wars before their presidency came about, and were actually able to cross lines that their non-military brethren simply could not have done.

As to CSM, seriously, I have not one word of argument for you. I feel the same, I'm looking for something that could lead to a solution, and I think the best chance for basic common sense to start prevailing.

Actually, I had another thought on it, that we need to rescind the policy we started back in the sixties of paying our Congressmen to be Congressmen. Seriously, before, they had to actually be able to survive in the real world rather than only being able to sling bullshit. They were business owners, people who actually had to manage things. Our current breed lose all connection to that past, because they are paid quite well to be politicians, so that a trend goes where politicians fail upwards

[sybarite]

IMHO, I always thought a president should have at least two years experience in the military and two years experience in the private sector. We now have a Commander in Chief with absolutely no military experience whatsoever. How would you like to have a Chief Surgeon who has never gone to medical school? Obama can't even pronounce the word "corpsman". How is he going to lead the military?

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bNr66HHhMjs&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bNr66HHhMjs&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[red states rule]

I was thinking about this earlier when I read the topic posted by RSR where a US Army General, McChrystal, is being thrown to the wolves by the Dems for criticizing Obama, and I was behind the generals who spoke against Bush's strategies. This to me is an abominable act, castigating a General because he does not agree with the war plan. That's like getting pissed at a heart surgeon cause he disagrees with the first year resident's plan to help a heart attack patient.

I think that the time has come to actually elect a General to the Presidency. Let's face it, We are in a much different world right now, and a good section of it is violently opposed to us. First off, a General obviously knows how to get stuff done (you may get commission on smarts and background, but General takes work), as well as being someone who obviously understands how to use the military. We need a strategic thinker, and that's the best example of one I can think of.

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/kn062510j20100623024537.jpg