|
|
This is a brilliant post (and I highlighted a big reason why).Originally Posted by mildawg
This not so much (and I highlighted the problemHistorically that has not been true, AND I think it is because military people more often than not SEE military solutions to problems first.).
And you would be wrong...
Those with REAL military experience don't see military solutions first, that's looked at last, assuming it's not a military situation... There are just some things that are militant though, so yes, the first reaction should be seen as a military solution. But not everything...
Anytime this discussion occurs, I can't help but think of Jack Nicholson as president in "Mars Attacks". At some point, you better put up your dukes.
Being a former member of the armed services, I would have to completely disagree with the below statement. A person who has never witnessed war and/or the associated atrocities of war has no frame of reference from which to draw; therefore, that person would be the one more likely to engage the nation's military in a cavalier manner. And then there are the bleeding hearts that are so anti-military they would have refused to act after 9/11.
However, I would contend that a person who served in the military and has seen the horrors of war would do everything in their power to avoid it. I would also contend that the person with military experience would likely have better judgment on when to "pull the trigger" on the use of military force. In other words, he would be better equipped to use the military judiciously yet effectively. He would also not be afraid to order them into action when dictated by world events. McCain is the better of these two in this regard and it ain't even close.
__________________________________________________ ________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
It cuts both ways. Would you want a surgeon as your general everyday physician? A soldier in the role of Commander-in-Chief is more likely to use military solutions when unnecessary. Can you imagine if Rus-La were president?It is hard to argue with history.This is a brilliant post (and I highlighted a big reason why).
This not so much (and I highlighted the problem
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
You're particular perception of history is your reality...it may not be the one the rest of us live in.
That works both ways, of course, but I believe you would be in the minority...and mob rules.
Who ended Korea? Ike...General of the Army
Who ended Vietnam? Dick...a Lt. Commander
They were both Republicans too!
I'm an asshole! What's your excuse?
FWIW, Truman was a Democrat...(although I think everyone agrees with what he did).
Yep, history shows it's the DEMOCRATS who love to go to war... Hence, why I will always believe the Dems hate this current fighting because THEY didn't start it.
...Democrats like misery and hard times becaue it allows them to "convince" the masses that they need to be taken care of by big government. Democrats always have a deep and haunting fear that someone, somewhere can actually help themselves!
Last edited by CARTEK; 09-06-2008 at 12:25 AM.
I'm an asshole! What's your excuse?
Thats funny considering the best economic times in the last 20 years have been under a democrat, and the worst have been under a republican.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt
Wrong...wrong...wrong.
I'm an asshole! What's your excuse?
BECAUSE HE HAS NONE!!!!
He has done nothing more than put out flyers for community events, register voters, and somehow work his way up to the senate.
lol
Obama's economic plan is good if you want to sit home and collect a welfare check...
Barack Obama claims to be proposing income tax cuts for low and moderate income and middle class workers, but Reagan Republicans have already eliminated most of their income tax liability. What
Obama is calling tax cuts for the middle class is really a slew of refundable federal income tax credits that would primarily go to those who are paying little or no federal income taxes now. Such credits would primarily not reduce tax liability, but instead be checks from the federal government for child care, education, housing, retirement, health care, even outright giveaways. These are not tax cuts. They are new federal spending programs hidden in the tax code.
When Obama says that he will cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans, he is talking about his proposal for a $500 refundable income tax credit for all but the top 5 percent of income earners. For the bottom 40 percent of income earners, this will be just another check from the federal government rather than a reduction in tax liability. It is another sharp increase in government spending rather than any sort of tax cut. An arbitrary cash grant does not, moreover, do anything to improve the economy or incentivize productive business. That only comes from cutting tax rates. What Obama is proposing here is really quite similar to George McGovern's 1972 plan to send everyone a $1,000 check, which voters rightly saw as a crass vote-buying scheme rather than serious policy.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...5/533kqlep.asp
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
