Amazon 7 #126 December 29, 2008 Ah the Mikee Defender of the Right Wing Realm comes to the rescue of his Imperious Leader yet again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #127 December 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteYeah, but he wiggle out by being in England.... you *were* talking about Clinton, right? I'm sure you were, since it's proven fact (from records) that GW *did* complete his military requirements. Wasnt speaking of Clinton, but he had his issues as well. I dont care what his (bush) official record says. He went AWOL and did not complete his service. If I or any other service member had pulled the number he did. We would have done time in jail and been labeled a deserter. Whatever you say, bro - being the expert on the ANG during the 70's that you are. I'll make sure to let the 3 coworkers of mine that are on leave from the Guard know that they're technically deserters and to avoid the MP's here on base, just in case.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #128 December 29, 2008 Quote Ah the Mikee Defender of the Right Wing Realm comes to the rescue of his Imperious Leader yet again. Beats being a feminist that adolizes a serial sexual abuser and rapist, I suppose.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #129 December 29, 2008 Quote HE in fact is a deserter and should have done jail time. Should have doesn't really hunt. He didn't, and would be eligible under your wonder plan. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #130 December 29, 2008 Wrong again Bubba Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #131 December 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteMeaning, that the only way you'd vote for these women is if they had been a nurse. Were there any other eligible military roles for women in the 50s, 60s, even 70s? Even fast forwarding to now, there are limits on the opportunity for women soldiers. Are you intentionally not reading what I said? I NEVER said they had to be a nurse. I simply used that as an example. I never said that they had to have any specific job what so ever. Not sure why you are caught up on a certain occupation. K: Women didn't serve in wars, couldn't. D: They could have been nurses. K: So it's nursing or no Presidency? D: They don't have to be a nurse. so what are the other roles they could have served in WW2, Korea, or Vietnam? As for seeing wounded, you could just go to the dropzone. Or the VA hospital. (apparently the CinC hadn't been doing that) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dgskydive 0 #132 December 29, 2008 Quotehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_military_service_controversy There is enough info in this alone to make any sane person see that he did not complete his service. That he did disappear from duty and that it was covered up. As for you co workers that are on leave. If they are on leave, they are not deserters.Dom Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #133 December 29, 2008 DUDE your link is not on FAUX NEWS or the EIB Network so its not valid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_military_service_controversy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #134 December 29, 2008 Presidential pardon season is always an outgoing President's opportunity to make an ass of himself one last time before getting out of town. It gives the rest of us something to fume about. But thankfully, they don't shape the future course of the country either, so I at least hope you're enjoying getting so pissed off about it. Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dgskydive 0 #135 December 29, 2008 QuoteK: Women didn't serve in wars, couldn't. D: They could have been nurses. K: So it's nursing or no Presidency? D: They don't have to be a nurse. so what are the other roles they could have served in WW2, Korea, or Vietnam? Again, read what I said and not what you are trying to make it out to be. The role they would serve is not the important part. The FACT that they served would be enough. your top reply that women couldnt serve in wars is so completely wrong. Granted, back in the day, they were not given a gun and told to go shoot someone. They did in fact Serve During a war. QuoteAs for seeing wounded, you could just go to the dropzone. Or the VA hospital. (apparently the CinC hadn't been doing that) I would rather that person see what the results are before they send someone to war. Potentially know that "it could have been them"Dom Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #136 December 29, 2008 Quote The role they would serve is not the important part. The FACT that they served would be enough. The role is important to me. I think our country is much better off if these people do meaningful work rather than a pointless RE clerk job during peacetime. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dgskydive 0 #137 December 29, 2008 QuoteThe role is important to me. I think our country is much better off if these people do meaningful work rather than a pointless RE clerk job during peacetime. Ok, that is your right to think so. TO be honest, any person that has the ambition to be president would probably not be in that type of job anyway. They would probably have a college degree and be an officer. In charge of service men and women, making decisions that potentially could mean the difference between life and death. Learning the whole time what it means to be a soldier and as a result appreciating the lessons they learned while serving and using those lessons when it comes time to make a decision as CINC that that not only effect the country but also the very lives of the people that they are sending off to fight.Dom Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #138 December 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote And as Kallend has pointed out, our national interests were much better served letting the scientists on the Manhattan Project build the bomb. That's just the best known and most obvious example. Others include radar, sonar, navigation aids, aerodynamics, engine technology, ballistics, fuel technology, electronics, metallurgy, codebreaking... Those who are able to do these things are wasted as infantrymen. So you would have an infantry that was not able to understand or even operate radar, sonar, navigation aids, fuel management systems, or codebreaking equipment? Not able to understand or use basic engineering concepts? Sounds like a giant step backward and a good way to get a lot of men killed. Do you bother to read threads, or are you another one who just kneejerks and then hits "Post"? Yes, I read the posts. In this entire thread there is only the small group of posts that mention the subject I addressed. I interpreted your remarks to mean that you feel anyone who is above average intelligence should not be in the infantry, that their talents would be wasted. If that is not the intent of your remark then maybe you need to do a better job of making yourself clear so there is no doubt as to your meaning.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #139 December 29, 2008 QuoteI would rather that person see what the results are before they send someone to war. Potentially know that "it could have been them" There are at least three potential problematic scenarios the follow from that reasoning: (1) It suggests that in order to empathize one must have a specific experience. That’s the argument that is used to argue for eliminating jurors based on racial or ethnic grounds, e.g., if you’re not black/brown/white/red/yellow, you can’t truly understand the plight of the black/brown/white/red/yellow man. It would also suggest that there is some validity to arguments that a white President can’t represent the non-white population and vice versa … if one asserts that one has to be a member of that group to represent or empathize with the other group. (2) It also intimates that the only or most important identification for the President be with the military and with the warfighting. Being the Commander in Chief (CINC) is one role/duty of the US President not the only one. The President is also the honorary head of the Boy Scouts; no one is likely to argue membership in the Boy Scouts as a requirement for Presidency. And, yes, I intentionally chose an example at the end of the metaphorical spectrum for illustrative purposes. You are also likely aware that until a very few years ago, CINC was used with a lot more military commanders rather than solely reserved for the President. From before WWII to 2002, there was CINCPAC, CINCEUR, CINCLANT, CINCUSEUR, etc. One might build an argument that in addition to the power being concentrated in the Presidency (over the other 2 branches of government since Pres Nixon), that the Presidency has also been militarized, as evidenced by SecDef Rumsfeld's CINC memo. (3) If seeing the “results” of war is the criterion, there are likely to be other organizations whose membership has a higher percentage achieving that criterion than the military, particularly up until 5 years ago. USAID, Foreign Service Officers, Doctors Without Borders, Peace Corps, Public Health Service, CIA Operations, intelligence community analysts, all see and have to deal with the “results” of war, whereas the semi-notional acquisitions officer, public affairs officer, medical service corps member, supply clerk, may not. Your proposal also disqualifies gays & lesbians. Lastly, and what is most problematic, imo, is that the proposal exacerbates the civilian-military divide. Overwhelmingly, this community/forum (dz.com) is strongly supportive of the military – yes, one can track down rare exception. And that’s a very good thing, imo (the support not the exceptions). Institutionalizing the kind of requirements that you are suggesting is not. Your proposal formalizes that civilian-military divide. Conversely, rather than suggesting the kind of requirement you propose, perhaps you and the country would be better served by investigating the origin and proximal factors exacerbating the civilian-military divide. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #140 December 30, 2008 QuoteQuotehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_military_service_controversy There is enough info in this alone to make any sane person see that he did not complete his service. That he did disappear from duty and that it was covered up. ANG records showed he filled his points - I think I'll take their word for it over some armchair quarterback 35 years later. QuoteAs for you co workers that are on leave. If they are on leave, they are not deserters. I guess my coworkers are ok since they're not Bush, right?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 6 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
nerdgirl 0 #139 December 29, 2008 QuoteI would rather that person see what the results are before they send someone to war. Potentially know that "it could have been them" There are at least three potential problematic scenarios the follow from that reasoning: (1) It suggests that in order to empathize one must have a specific experience. That’s the argument that is used to argue for eliminating jurors based on racial or ethnic grounds, e.g., if you’re not black/brown/white/red/yellow, you can’t truly understand the plight of the black/brown/white/red/yellow man. It would also suggest that there is some validity to arguments that a white President can’t represent the non-white population and vice versa … if one asserts that one has to be a member of that group to represent or empathize with the other group. (2) It also intimates that the only or most important identification for the President be with the military and with the warfighting. Being the Commander in Chief (CINC) is one role/duty of the US President not the only one. The President is also the honorary head of the Boy Scouts; no one is likely to argue membership in the Boy Scouts as a requirement for Presidency. And, yes, I intentionally chose an example at the end of the metaphorical spectrum for illustrative purposes. You are also likely aware that until a very few years ago, CINC was used with a lot more military commanders rather than solely reserved for the President. From before WWII to 2002, there was CINCPAC, CINCEUR, CINCLANT, CINCUSEUR, etc. One might build an argument that in addition to the power being concentrated in the Presidency (over the other 2 branches of government since Pres Nixon), that the Presidency has also been militarized, as evidenced by SecDef Rumsfeld's CINC memo. (3) If seeing the “results” of war is the criterion, there are likely to be other organizations whose membership has a higher percentage achieving that criterion than the military, particularly up until 5 years ago. USAID, Foreign Service Officers, Doctors Without Borders, Peace Corps, Public Health Service, CIA Operations, intelligence community analysts, all see and have to deal with the “results” of war, whereas the semi-notional acquisitions officer, public affairs officer, medical service corps member, supply clerk, may not. Your proposal also disqualifies gays & lesbians. Lastly, and what is most problematic, imo, is that the proposal exacerbates the civilian-military divide. Overwhelmingly, this community/forum (dz.com) is strongly supportive of the military – yes, one can track down rare exception. And that’s a very good thing, imo (the support not the exceptions). Institutionalizing the kind of requirements that you are suggesting is not. Your proposal formalizes that civilian-military divide. Conversely, rather than suggesting the kind of requirement you propose, perhaps you and the country would be better served by investigating the origin and proximal factors exacerbating the civilian-military divide. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #140 December 30, 2008 QuoteQuotehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_military_service_controversy There is enough info in this alone to make any sane person see that he did not complete his service. That he did disappear from duty and that it was covered up. ANG records showed he filled his points - I think I'll take their word for it over some armchair quarterback 35 years later. QuoteAs for you co workers that are on leave. If they are on leave, they are not deserters. I guess my coworkers are ok since they're not Bush, right?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
