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: 3
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

With all the different proxy wars taking place around the globe and the atrocity's associated with such any Generals running for office may find it rather hard to paint a pretty picture of themselves.




posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Seriously? With all the negatives associated with MIC fingers in general politics getting their way, you want someone career from that cesspit running the country?

Are you effing serious? And you say Obama & Co have too much bought & paid for power, just wait until someone with their fingers in BOTH pots gets that desk in this era. The days of military-trained leadership in the WH being appropriate are over. Be highly suspicious of connections & money trails if it ever happens.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 09:23 AM
link   
America has been hijacked, and Americans don't control who is put in the White House.

A rouge government, probably networked throughout the globe.

Pretty straight forward from there



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 09:24 AM
link   
The last "General" to serve as POTUS was Dwight Eisenhower. He was the only General to serve as POTUS. He did a excellent job as General of the Army. His political career was also exceptional. There are others that served at many different levels of command in the military. They were all pro military but that did not make the best president. So having a military background is good, it does not guarantee he would be a good president. As our American history moved closer to current time less and less politicians have military backgrounds. They became career politicians early in their careers, instead of going into the military first. IMO I have never found a career politician to be that good of a leader, for many different reasons.


edit on 1 25 2016 by Ceeker63 because: Added additionl sentenance.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Ceeker63

All generals are career politicians. Once you start hitting the high ranks in any bureaucracy (which the military is), everything becomes political. It definitely begins in our military at the rank of Colonel and some arguments could be made for lower ranks if they're working somewhere like the Pentagon. I would imagine there's actually a lot of overlap between being a successful/effective 2 or 3 star general and a successful President in terms of being able to work deals and take a leadership role.

On the subject of Eisenhower, he was ok and he recognized the MIC (which most here will remember him for), but don't forget that he was also someone that was all too willing to throw out the First Amendment, turned the military against it's citizens (veterans no less) to break up the bonus army, was unsuccessful in his #1 goal of ending poverty for farmers, did nothing against McCarthyism, and he escalated the Cold War.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ceeker63
The last "General" to serve as POTUS was Dwight Eisenhower. He was the only General to serve as POTUS. He did a excellent job as General of the Army. His political career was also exceptional. There are others that served at many different levels of command in the military. They were all pro military but that did not make the best president. So having a military background is good, it does not guarantee he would be a good president. As our American history moved closer to current time less and less politicians have military backgrounds. They became career politicians early in their careers, instead of going into the military first. IMO I have never found a career politician to be that good of a leader, for many different reasons.



How can you say he was the only "General" to serve as POTUS? Wasn't Grant a "General" Washington?? ast I knew those stars on Grant's shoulders don't mean he is a Captain??



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Wasn't it Douglas MacArthur that was responsible for attacking the Bonus Army?

I also seem to remember there was a corruption scandal during Ike's 2nd term.

-dex



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: DexterRiley
a reply to: Aazadan

Wasn't it Douglas MacArthur that was responsible for attacking the Bonus Army?

I also seem to remember there was a corruption scandal during Ike's 2nd term.

-dex


Both were involved if I remember correctly, Ike was a Major at the time so he wasn't the commander but he was still "just following orders". I've never heard of the corruption scandal but it wouldn't surprise me. There's corruption in every administration, some of it is just more public than others.
edit on 25-1-2016 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join