It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What happened to generals running for president?

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy
Does that mean that they make good administrators? That is, after all, part of the job description for President.




posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 11:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: burgerbuddy
Does that mean that they make good administrators? That is, after all, part of the job description for President.



lol, probably yeah.

Since they actually know how and what to delegate.
And I don't think you can get to that rank without pushing SOME papers.







posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 11:15 PM
link   
William Henry Harrison was a General.

And he was the best President ever.

He did the least damage of all 44 so far.

Zachery Taylor I think was a general too.




posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 11:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Isurrender73

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



Considering we lost both wars we went into as a result of 9/11, I would say that from the perspective of our enemies it was a very good idea.

Oddly enough, more bombing would only increase the degree by which we lost. Bombs don't win ideological wars.



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

Read anything by Jeremy Scahill, watch any of his documentaries (Dirty Wars on NetFlix) he writes about military corruption, how we create new enemies to continue this horrible war which already goes up to the President, I did a thread about this some time ago. Now you want an actual General there? Huge mistake.

So we kill of DAESH, unseat al-Assad... then what? Who fills that vacuum of power? Our next enemy, of course. Meanwhile more and more of our budget goes to the military 54% isn't enough, you want to make it an even 60-65%.

Then there's defense contracting and the black budget.



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Is that military or military industrial complex?

There's a difference.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: onequestion
Can you have an effective military without an industrial base?



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 12:11 AM
link   

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?


The reason is pretty simple. We haven't had a GOOD general in the US in decades. Petraeus was close but he didn't have the political skill for the job that would have prepped him for it. We've had decades of soaring defense budgets, horrible cost/benefit results, massive corruption with the MIC, and poorly fought/poorly managed wars.

All the military has managed to do is siphon trillions of dollars while making everything they touch get worse. We haven't had a real military victory since Gulf War 1 which was 25 years ago and was so lopsided that we probably shouldn't even count it as an example of strategic/tactical excellence.

Any serious military candidate today would need a successful career of being a reformer that was able to fix the corruption. Instead what we have is the President firing generals left and right because of corruption, and no good candidates have been able to rise up.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 12:27 AM
link   
There have been 12 former Generals who became President. And for the most part they are a forgetful lot. Washington, Jackson, Harrison, Taylor, Pierce, Johnson, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Harrison, and Ike. In a day and age when you have the Joint Chiefs, the Service Secretaries, the SecDef, the National Security Adviser and the National Security Council plus the CIA, DIA, NSA, NRO etc. A General is going to be no better prepared for such a massive big picture than anybody else. In fact his prior experience may even color the information he is given. Kind of like how it is easier for the military to teach somebody who has never used a weapon before than it is somebody has experience in say hunting.

In fact if you look through the US Presidents military experience seems to have no more bearing on well a President will than anything else. They are as great and as terrible and those who have no service. And when you ad to all that the while active in the military you are no allowed to be political, Generals are far behind the curve in building political ties. You also have a lack of interest. People like General Powell who would were popular on all sides of the aisle just have no interest in taking a job that makes their old one seem relaxing.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 01:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

That depends on what you mean by effective. If you mean that, on aggregate, your military kills more things than another military, or captures more objectives than other military organisations, then it is of course impossible to even start to bring that situation about, without a solid industrial base.

However, like much in civic life, there are some things in the world, which, for old fashioned and entirely outmoded, and yet entirely relevant and vital reasons, ought to be done for better reasons than money. Furthermore, it is possible to have a military industry, without it becoming complex, or powerful in its own right. The MIC should serve the needs of the people, and a nations military should reflect the will, and the honour of its people, while defending them.

These days however, wars are created to serve the ends of the MIC and others, designed to keep the wheels greased with the blood of the largely innocent, to turn human being against human being, purely for reasons of profit for a chosen few.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 01:15 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit




The MIC should serve the needs of the people, and a nations military should reflect the will, and the honour of its people, while defending them.

Hear, hear!



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 02:55 AM
link   
No more real Generals left....Obama has kicked all the real warriors out of the military on bs trumped up charges. All the generals that disagreed with letting homosexuals openly serve and letting women on the front lines are gone....and they were the only ones that could have been considered presidential



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 02:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan
They sure do win idealogical wars...but you have to have the will to kill them all....that is unfountunately the reality of war. Leave any left and they will rise again. The reason we used to win wars is because we didnt publish the numbers of women and children killed...and we didnt have media playing up the dead ON THE OTHER SIDE. War is brutal....something only current or ex military can actually understand.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 03:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Maybe that is why the left wing media has destroyed the image of the military so they can't run any more!


4-Star General Wesley Clark ran as a Democrat in the 2004 primary season. He even won the Oklahoma state primary. Obviously, he eventually lost to John Kerry. Oh yeah, John Kerry is a military veteran, too. So what do you mean by your statement?



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 03:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: odinsway
No more real Generals left....Obama has kicked all the real warriors out of the military on bs trumped up charges. All the generals that disagreed with letting homosexuals openly serve and letting women on the front lines are gone....and they were the only ones that could have been considered presidential


Assuming that was true, I think that's a great thing. If a woman or LGBT wants to serve in the military, I support that. Why shouldn't they be allowed to protect and serve their country if they want to? Bigots need to be cleared out of positions where they can damage our internal forces. Isn't that the whole point in anti-corruption measures?

Besides, I'm sure not enlisting lol. I think I can protect & serve my country better internally, by working to make sure all Americans have equal rights, privileges, protections, and duties. So if others want to join the military in my place, I'm all for it.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Well Obama sacked them all or they retired in disgust when he took over. The Democratic Party under Obama probably illegally used all the resources of the Federal government to create dirt files on them so they can never go political to tarnish King Obama's legacy image.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 06:37 AM
link   
A general was asked to run for this election cycle, he made the choice that working with a charitable organization was a better use of his time.

Cant say I blame him... until congress is fixed the oval office doesnt have the power it once did.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

i was aware of washington and grant

the extended list provided by another member educated me

but are they relevant ???

to abuse a popular quote :

" the past is a foreign country "

i personaly dont think that wqashington or grant are particularly relevant to a discussion on the merits // demerits of elevating generals to the position of " head of state "

do you

its my opinion that the office of president has mutated over the years - the country [ any ] has changed dramatically

thats why i only cited eisenhower and degaulle - as they are the only 2 that i consider relevant to a contemporary discusion

i dont expect people to agree - but could we at least keep the threat relevant to the present day ????



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 07:15 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

The past is only a foreign country, to one who refuses to learn the language before travelling there, metaphorically speaking.

Thankfully, ignorance is not bliss for everyone!


The reality is that all matters and affairs of state, of which there is record, anywhere on the planet, and from any time in history, can be very instructive to modern day man. Are the teachings of Sun Tzu any less potent in this day and age? Does the Cuban missile crisis have nothing to teach us about the stupidity of mankind? Does the Second World War teach us less about the human race, the more years stretch between the events therein and now?

I do not think so.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: onequestion
Well, Washington and Grant and Eisenhower got there as a kind of gratitude for winning major wars.
You would probably need to wait for the next time the country wins a major war.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join