What happened to generals running for president?

We used to have a lot of experienced military men run for office and win.

What happened to that?

Do we need a general in office right now to deal with these ISIS dirtbags?

Throughout history generals have served as great presidents. They have wonderful leadership qualities and understand the battlefield.

It seems as if none of them are interested these days.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

The United States Constitution names the President of the United States the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. armed forces. Many Presidents, however, also served in the military before taking office.

As you can see many of our greatest presidents were war time generals and officers in positions of leadership.

Are they less susceptible to corruption?

What do you think?

I posted a while back why we don't have more Military candidates? This makes perfect sence to me.... we need a good Military leader as POTUS!!!! Mabel a Navy officer!!!

originally posted by: onequestion
We used to have a lot of experienced military men run for office and win.

What happened to that?

Do we need a general in office right now to deal with these ISIS dirtbags?

Throughout history generals have served as great presidents. They have wonderful leadership qualities and understand the battlefield.

It seems as if none of them are interested these days.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

The United States Constitution names the President of the United States the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. armed forces. Many Presidents, however, also served in the military before taking office.

As you can see many of our greatest presidents were war time generals and officers in positions of leadership.

Are they less susceptible to corruption?

What do you think?

I suspect, the military world no longer permits individuals to achieve that much fame. Powell could have run and at least would have had a chance. The last popular general was Petraeus and he succumbed to the intense scrutiny that public figures suffer.

The there's the ideological split amongst the population. Half would love it. The other half, especially if he was successful would have those ready to charge him with war crimes....

a reply to: onequestion

I think it depends on what kind of armed forces member you are talking about.

If you are talking about a military man who served the majority of his career actually carrying and firing a rifle in defence of his comrades and his life, then perhaps. But only if he rued every life he had to take, and prays forgiveness every single night of his life, and behaves as if he does when formulating strategy and policy.

One of these, "bomb this, this, those, that over there, and take this part of the map, basically off" types, with a barely concealed kill boner and links to the MIC, however, would be a really bad idea.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: onequestion

One of these, "bomb this, this, those, that over there, and take this part of the map, basically off" types, with a barely concealed kill boner and links to the MIC, however, would be a really bad idea.

Yes, George Bush Jr. was a really bad idea.

And Hillary is even a worse idea.

Had to Make sure to take out both parties at once.

a reply to: Isurrender73

On the other hand, perhaps the attack on 9/11 was the bad idea.....

Corporate America has taken over our country, so its no wonder that its lackeys have flooded the political arena. The presidency used to be a position of respect, nowadays it is a position that the biggest liars, ass-kissers, and bribe-takers seem to have the best shot at getting. Look at the candidates we have, that should tell you everything you need to know about our political process. It's embarrassing on every level.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Isurrender73

On the other hand, perhaps the attack on 9/11 was the bad idea.....

What does that have to do with Iraq and the Weapons of Mass Destruction?

a reply to: Isurrender73

Not to go off topic. But, simply put, no 9/11, no Iraq war II.

Plenty of threads covering the subject, as well as historical links connected to the subject. Yes, disagreement exists.

a reply to: onequestion

Throughout history generals have served as great presidents. They have wonderful leadership qualities and understand the battlefield.

eisehower , de-gaulle , who else ??????????????????

without retreating to google - i am struggling to think of more

but i am painfully aware of the number of generals who decided unilaterally that they were in charge of a given country - and turned out to be utter cockwombles

a common danger is that people revert to type

commonly -

socioalist leaders attempt to nattionalise industries

conservative leaders attempt to privatise govt services

military leaders ....................

It's now left up to the draft dodgers.

Maybe that is why the left wing media has destroyed the image of the military so they can't run any more!

I think it's downright insane to want a military leader at this point. We've been at war for 15 years, the military is as infested with corruption as Wall St. and Congress.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

without retreating to google - i am struggling to think of more

G. Washington
A. Jackson
U. Grant

Were they particularly good Presidents?

a reply to: onequestion

Many years ago when I believed in America and the bs I would have agreed. But now that I know that not one person in the military has fought for America in decades it doesn't bother me. In fact I'd argue anyone willing to get killed for absolutely nothing is an idiot unfit to lead anyone.

a reply to: Kali74

How is the military infested with corruption?

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Yet when Nazi Germany and Japan were left in military hands, things went fairly smoothly.

Iraq? Immediate civilian control and the mess started. It improved under Petraeus, a general.

I am firmly convinced that our military victories have been undermined by the diplomatic/civilians after the fact of the fracas. Another factor is combat experience, not just 'military experience. Often those that have personally suffered the effects of combat are loathe to use that means other than as a last resort. Often it's those without that experience that see it more often used.

Not saying this is true in all cases. Merely that it's hard to broad stroke it.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Yet when Nazi Germany and Japan were left in military hands, things went fairly smoothly.

Apart from the small thing we call WW2......
Or if you were a Jew.
Or were a citizen of one of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere countries.

a reply to: nwtrucker


I believe you are right.

The military have been hamstrung by politicians since Viet Nam and Korea, even.
And they also know how NOT to drag out a conflict.

a reply to: hellobruce

I was referring to the U.S. commanders of the forces after the surrender of Japan and Germany. The control and distribution of food and power to the local citizens.

In Iraq the overall command was a civilian until Petraeus.

The all East Asian Co-Prosperity sphere was a political invention by the Diet...read that civilian. The Jews for that matter, fell under a nut/civilian, Hitler, yes he served in WWI, but one wouldn't call him a career military man, by any stretch...at least not in the sense we're referring to as a[residential candidate.

But then, Your response reflects the earlier poster's comment on the left blaming all things military when those are the guys laying their lives on the line when, by and large, it's civilians causing the rifts and competitions and end up 'declaring' the wars.