We seem to have some sort of military need every presidential term. It almost seems like the need for the military has to be proven every time we change presidents. My perceptions may be off, but it just seems that way to me.

 

It seems to me that Democrats have much less need of the military, dislike the military, don't understand the military.

Just in past history, wasn't it Bill Clinton's term that wiped out a pharmacy he mistook for Bin Laden with cruise missiles, took out the Chinese Embassy and so forth.

I also remember the botched rescue attempt of our people in the Iranian Embassy. It's better when you don't fool with things you don't understand.

Richard Nixon (The highest IQ of all presidents) used words and not bombs. Too bad he has to go down in History with such a bad asterisk.

 

well, maybe we should just STICK with one president, instead of 4 year terms we should go to life terms.... that way we will have less war issues...


BUSH FOREVER !!!!!

 

So, the rescue attempt for our hostages in Iran was botched because we had a Democratic president at the time? I didn't realize that the capabilities of our military went up and down based on the political party occupying the White House. Bright, intelligent officers if there's a Republican in there, but idiots replace them when the Dems come to town. Interesting. Imagine how much faster we could have ended WWI and WWII if only we had the foresight to have had the GOP in the west wing at the time. Thank God we have the RIGHT party in there this time!

 

You feel that the Military doesn't get any input from the Commander in Chief? I thought he was in charge of the military. The President has no infulence over the who is in and who's advice to take? I disagree.

 

[ I didn't realize that the capabilities of our military went up and down based on the political party occupying the White House. Bright, intelligent officers if there's a Republican in there, but idiots replace them when the Dems come to town. ]

Point of order here. Whosoever controls the White House also directly controls the military and their personal preferences and wishes are carried out by those military commanders - whether the commanders agree or disagree with the President's decisions or motives. Clinton was directly involved in the day to day decisons on the Somalia invasion. His unwillingness to provide the forces and equipment his commanders requested, directly contributed to the disastrous consequences. Carter was making the correct call in the Iranian hostage situation and he should not be held at fault for an unlucky operation.

Conventional wisdom tends to be Republicans support greater military spending and backing while Democrats oppose such measures to divert funds in favor of more social programs. Republicans do not seem to mind the consequences of using military force, while Democrats are distinctly uneasy about getting any political doo-doo on their shoes.

 

Actually Jimmy Carter had the highest IQ.

Nixon also said that he was gonna bomb Vietnam back into the stone age, and he almost did had he not been stopped by Congress.

Barry

 

Exactly- he's the Commander-in-Chief. The military will propose to him a basic course of action(s), and he then has the final say as to a "go or "no-go" situation. He does NOT choose the officers that are in charge of any given situation, nor does he make specific decisions as to how a plan is carried out. A plan fails or succeeds based on decisions made by the military personnel, both the troops and the officers. If what you're saying is true, then Eisenhower was directly responsible for Francis Gary Powers' U-2 spy plane being shot down by the Soviets. The President bears the ultimate responibility for our military's actions, but he does not make the detailed decisions that lead to those actions. I'm basing this on my general knowledge, as I'll be the first to admit that I have not served in our armed forces. If I'm wrong on any of this, then I hope one of our soldiers will straighten me out. I simply don't understand how a president's political party has any effect on the day-to-day operations of our defense system. Officers retain their jobs until they retire; they are not forced out based on a change in the Oval Office.

 

> Conventional wisdom tends to be Republicans support
> greater military spending and backing while Democrats
> oppose such measures

Speaking as an Indepentdent, that blames both parties for the trillions worth of debt, that usually votes Republican, I am just 110% glad FDR was running the country as WWII approached.

It was FDR that started the Lend Lease act was it not?

It paint every Democrat with a Clinton brush is to paint every Republican with a Nixon brush.

As inept as Jimmy Carter appeared to be commanding the military, he is probably one of the few recent presidents that you could count on as being a good, true, life long friend or someone you could leave along in the room with your young daughter.

It is just too bad we went from a president (Regan) that would not take off his suit jacket in the Oval Office out of respect, to a president (Clinton) having sex in the oval office.

We should not ridicule (even Gore) our leaders and work together towards the common enemies of our Christian founded nation. Including the evil within our own borders.

 

Elaphant or donkey, it doesn't matter. The point I was implying is that there is ALWAYS some sort of large scale military action needed to keep politicians looking like they made a difference.
Point: We already slapped Saddam once with the gulf war. But what was really acomplished with it? He's still in power, he still has weapons he isn't supposed to, and his people now think he's a big man for standing up to the US. If we had taken a stronger stance last time, we would be focusing on Asama instead. But now we are going to waste billions of dollars to finish a job that should have been over years ago.
And besides, who's going to pay for it? What new war disease will we face this time? How many innocent people are going to be in harms way to set Saddam straight?

I know when I got my butt kicked by someone, I didn't jack with them anymore! but if they just cried and fussed, I kept it up. The US needs to stop bullying and whip some butt.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BuiltToughF250
[B]well, maybe we should just STICK with one president, instead of 4 year terms we should go to life terms.... that way we will have less war issues...



Unless we have a war monger for president, like we do now !!

 

WHAT??????????????????????

Do you really believe your own BS, or do you just spout off what your liberal handlers tell you without doing any research?

The only war i see we are at right now is finishing up in Afghanistan against the evil taliban regime which unprovoked and for no reason attacked and killed 3000 US CIVILIANS.

If he was such a war-monger, why would he go to the UN? Why would he go to NATO? I don't see Bush threatening to send nuclear missles like the leader of North Korea. I dont' see Bush killing off his own people like Saddam. I don't see Bush ignoring an ally against an enemy like france against Turkey. Cite your facts.

Wake up. This kind of stupid unsupported talk is just divisive for no reason. Either support your position or learn reading comprehension or move to France. I dont' care which.

Debate is good, just screaming out obscenties with no basis in fact helps nobody.

 

> But what was really acomplished with it?

U.S. troops killed close to 100,000 of the worse criminals in the world. It made the world a safer place.

Like the ones that invaded Kuwait, Iraqi men and woman that took baby infants from incubators, smashed their heads, and made off with the equipment.

Iraq was literally raping, pillaging, and cold blooded murdering Kuwait (civilians) to death.

 

Who was screaming obcenities?

 

the political party who controls the government and the commander in chief have a huge outcome on military actions. they can micromanage situations like you wouldn't believe. many covert and clandestine operations are conducted with direct presidential orders- and he is also the one who can very easily put limitations on their rules of engagement, their weapons, their methods of insertion, extraction etc. these factors are often the difference in a sucessful vs an unsucessful mission.

a great US example- macarthur not getting permission to run the korean war like he wanted and eventually getting removed from his position of power, by the president. you don't think that decision had a huge factor on the outcome of the war? the outcome was more affected by how the president kept our officers in check than it was by our actual military capability. we had an incredibly capable military, its just that it was severely held in check. perhaps if a different president held the reins, we would be occupying a whole lot more land in the far east than a few bases in south korea.

a great german example- hitler opening a second front on russia, against every single one of his senior general's wishes. none of his military officers wanted that, but he did it- for many reasons which i won't go into. it didn't matter what kind of military germany had at the time, the presidential decision to invade russia is one of the major reasons they lost the war. and there was nothing the troops could do otherwise. they were just overmatched and overwhelmed.


bill clinton half assed every military endeavor he pursued, from bosnia to haiti to the strikes on iraq, to the strikes on bin ladens camps. he definitely had a direct affect on the outcomes of the engagements.


and don't even talk trash about george w bush. he is a great man who deserves respect. if you don't agree with some of his decisions thats fine, more power to ya. i also don't agree with some things he says and does- but i still respect the man and i stand behind him because he is our leader. he's doing the best damn job he can. he's not a war monger. he's looking out for YOUR interests, so you can be safe and have access to the internet where you can publicly bash him about things you don't understand and about issues you can't comprehend.