We need a "REAL" Military President!

What will this recent poll reflect? Are the people still of the opinion that a True Military Man will make the best President, or will the Politician/Professional Liar get the results. To represent a different view please explain.

[Edited on 7-7-2003 by ADVISOR]

Im still waiting to see Jesse Ventura on the ballot.

Agreed Irondragon, He would qualify as a "Real" military man.

Personally, I'd like to see Schwartskoff (sp) or even Powell on the a ballot. JUst me anyhoo.....

regards
seekerof

Stupid poll.

We need a president for the people, not a military man.

Uh, yeah...


The Presidency of the USA is not a purely military office... in fact, it is the very definition of 'civilian control over the military'.

Not all great presidents have been soldiers, not all soldiers are good, and not all politicians are evil. To be frank, those who often express distaste for politicians yet reverance for soldiers are the types who really, secretly, dislike the discourse that must go on inorder for democracy to work.

Lincoln served in the Illinois state militia for like 3 months and never saw combat..

Jackson was a militia commander, not a regular soldier, and was actually a lawyer when not touring in the militia.

FDR and Woodrow Wilson never served in the military, and Washington spent most of his life as either a surveyor or planter. His ranks, in both the militia and continental army, were won because he was the politically sound choice for those jobs.

Granted, Eisenhower was a good president, but he also KNEW that, as president, that he was a civilian. His farewell speech, in fact, warned of the military-industrial complex...

I fear the day when a career military man, who has disgust for civilians, presumes to take over the duties of the president.

Jim

also,
keep in mind that rome began to fall when its leadership posts were seized by soldiers... and were not filled by actual administrators.

same with the roman republic... once the generals set-up the culture where you had to be supported by the army to rule... the freedom of the romans was lost.

There is a difference between Roman Military and the Current US Military. The US Armed Forces are SWORN to protect the People and their Liberty. Swearing to an OATH to uphold the Constitution. I am not against the regular person in Office of Commander in Chief, I just see that through history, those with some military history are better prepared for the task.


SOLDIER'S CODE

I am an American soldier-a protector of the greatest nation on Earth- SWORN TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

I will treat other with dignity and respect and exspect others to do the same.

I WILL HONOR MY COUNTRY, the Army and my fellow soldiers by living the Army values.

No matter what situation I am in, I will NEVER do anything for pleasure, profit, or personal safety which will disgrace my uniform, my unit, OR MY COUNTRY.

Lastly, I am PROUD OF MY COUNTRY and it's flag. I want to look back and say that I am proud to have served my Country as a soldier.

IMO, I prefur a person who can uphold and follow a simular set of values. It means that person has integrity, honor and will put the PEOPLE before themselves. I have not met very many Civilians who could imagine such a concept, let alone follow it. Find me a person who is willing to put the PEOPLE before themselves, and I will vote for them. Until then, I am still of the opinion that a Warrior is still the best choice for any countries leader. History after all does not lie.



[Edited on 7-7-2003 by ADVISOR]

Advisor I must disagree with you.

Patriotism and soldiering are two different things, just because a soldier swears those oaths doesn't make him believe it.

I would gaurentee you any Military man becomming president would not be a Private, or a Seargent, the men whom believe that oath.

The Generals, by their time, probably have their own agendas.

In my opinion.

In conclusion we need a President who will not seek to increase Federal power, doesn't matter who he is...or what he was.

Wow,
To think bush is not a military man and he has brought about all this war.
Imagine what a military man in power could do.
I for one believe that we need a Ghandi type leader.
Someone who could lead the people in ways that helps humanity and bring them together.
War does not bring the world together. It never has and never will.
Deep

I should be president. I would make all you republicans cower. Then you would know why you are afraid of the dark. Then, you would know why you fear the night (MUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA)!

OK, Batman.

I've, personally, had military people laugh at me when I've brought up the whole constitution thing with them. Even your reply, here, indicates a certain disdain for civilians (the "average person" as you put it). After all, didn't you just say that the average person couldn't live by a code of honor or service? Tell that to all the teachers who get shot at by gangbangers in the inner city, or even the guy who spends his whole life taking on pro-bono legal cases.

Lives at risk for what?..
I respect the fact that you believe that america needs a military leader, your entitled to your own opinion.
As bad as this may sound, i agree that the world does need one goverment, not the NWO though, The world has to come together, technology has brough us so close to eachother, its time our hearts were at the same pace.
A military leader is needed only for the purpose of being a good leader at times of war.
Deep

I stated

Refuring to the majority. I understand that many people have dedicated them selves to others, and have not served a day in thier lives. But those people are not the majority. If they were things would be WAY different.

I have no dislike of "average people", just those people who have let themselves be overcome by corruption, greed, and willing ignorance.

Someone who will not hand me a shaft, and help me insert it would be nice. On the other hand I don'twant someone who thinks diplomacy involves bombs first and words during surrenders.

powell would be a great president. but he'd porbally get shot by some racist guy. anyways they should make the requirement that to run for president you should have been an officer in the military. that way we can weed out the bushs and the gores and the libermans and the clintons. thats a good idea right there

Personally i think we should keep the military out of politics as much as possible. The military seem to be interested in one thing only - testing their latest weapons on anybody they can.

Look at the quotes from GI's in Iraq now - they appear to be bored by their peacekeeping role but were gung-ho enough when they are allowed to shoot anything that moved.

As for protecting their country don't make me laugh most army people I have met have been so shaped and controlled by the Army they have lost what tiny ability to think they had in the first place.

What sane person takes a job where their life expectancy on the battlefield is a matter of hours and will blindly follow orders no matter how stupid or immoral they are.

Making Iraqi's run naked through streets, shoot to kill policies with suspected 'undesirables', instituionalised rape on manouvers(UK in Africa).

The military machine is the scariest thing on the planet as at any moment some Colonel/General with access to serious weapons could go awol as they have over history. Have all the the former USSR nuclear suitcase bombs been found yet?

Thinking a bit more just look at the countries ran by the Military (N.Korea, Argentina, China,USSR) and would you want to live/ lived in any of them?

Seeing how the USA is acting, I think that while we move toward the future, we'll need a really good military man. Since the USA is trying to rule the world...Wars are not over.

[Edited on 24-7-2003 by m0rbid]

A military commander, AND an administrator?

I don't think so....

Not to mention, it really depends on the goals of that term. For example, the goal for the next term, might be one more of economic repair, as well as repairing international relations, vs. getting the bad guys.