Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

REVISITED We need a "REAL" Military President!

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 25 2003 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by m0rbid
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]



you're blaming the war all over the place on the US? HA! idoit. Its not entierly the US fault. hell say what if Putin get wacked in russia and a strict commie, anti-west hardliner comes to power and wants to recalim all the land that was once under the soviet empire? then what? whos to blame there? its not all our fault. personally i have no porblem with it. even if the US wasnt trying to take over the world there will still be wars. have you heard of Africa? that place is a hornets nest hit with a stick. war is a cancer on this planet that will only go away if there are no more humans left. war has always been apart of human nature and always will be. WWIII is not to far around the corner. and no WWIII doesnt mean the end of the world. it means that another large scale war with many nations will break out. thats it.




posted on Jul, 25 2003 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by David
Stupid poll.

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



sure if you want wnother coward communist like clinton or an idoit like bush be my guest.



posted on Jul, 25 2003 @ 02:03 PM
link   
....being the obvious choice for president.
But qualification is needed: 'Military Man' is too broad a label. Someone coming into public life shortly after their military life would be a horrible choice, as has been painfully illustrated in this administration with Thomas White and Powell. While Powell had great bipartisan respect prior to the 2000 election and was courted by both parties upon his military retirement, he's proved himself a horrible politico who will stay the company script as opposed to being truthful.
I'm in favor of all that truly served, GW Bush does not fit in that category. Had he actually gone through a boot camp, been torn down and rebuilt, served a tour of duty and been accountable for others lives, he might have at least one redeemable quality today - or had been a friendly fire casualty, a win win no matter how you slice it!
So yes, someone who did serve has a grasp of life that some of us got growing up, some of us got it in the Military....I was fortunate enough to get it from both. But they need that buffer of time to see the public sector for what it is and understand first hand the ugliness, pettyness and depravity that makes up society - instead of being shell shocked coming off the military idealism.
Seeing how screwed up the country will be in 2004, John Kerry or Dean and Wes Clark are a shoe in.



posted on Jul, 25 2003 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Bush is an idiot, the man is far to inward looking, he seems incapable of coherent thought, and worst of all his only solution to problems seems to be miltary action, rather than political insight.
The great ole US of A needs a president of the people for the people..a person with experience outside the borders of his country, a person who is firm yet fair...and most important of all..a person that would rather talk than shoot.
Having said all that.....we are better off without the taliban and saddam.......on this occasion the sword was mightier than the pen.

I do ramble on a bit dont I...



posted on Aug, 18 2003 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by spear
Bush is an idiot, the man is far to inward looking, he seems incapable of coherent thought, and worst of all his only solution to problems seems to be miltary action, rather than political insight.
The great ole US of A needs a president of the people for the people..a person with experience outside the borders of his country, a person who is firm yet fair...and most important of all..a person that would rather talk than shoot.
Having said all that.....we are better off without the taliban and saddam.......on this occasion the sword was mightier than the pen.

I do ramble on a bit dont I...


"War is a continuation of politics by other means Von Kloushwits" Gene Hackman Crimson Tide



posted on Aug, 18 2003 @ 03:50 PM
link   
i'm gonna say people should govern themselves, we shouldn't only have input on how we are controlled once a year lol, especially when it doesn't matter what puppet gets put in there, lol military is an absolute waste of humanity haha jsut like nationalism, capitolism, hmm lotsa stuff, we're such a devolved society for being so technologically advanced, we can't even work as a race yet hahaha, even the people in the "developed countries" all fight each otehr, ha the "world superpower" has a skyrocketing unemployment and poverty rate and yet theya re the land of the free home of opportunities, the people of this world are flowered! even if there is a revolt those who cae to power would likely flower it all up the same way cuz they'd still have the concepts of our crap society, crap i say!!!



posted on Aug, 18 2003 @ 04:04 PM
link   
...someone in charge who has experience in the military,who understands that people get killed in conflicts,who is not so quick to send someone to their death because they understand that war is no solution to a problem.

Not like these little rich fkrs we have in charge now,who may know the consequences of their decisions,but also know they will never be accountable.
How about a guy in charge who won't accept payment for his position?,an honest guy who really wants to help others and not just himself?...........

Yeah,Right!,never gonna happen here.

America is a CORPORATION,and we are it's PROPERTY.



posted on Aug, 18 2003 @ 07:49 PM
link   
do not ever say that war doenst not slove anything



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   
I would like to rekindle spark that ignited this fire, about a decade ago.

My opinion has not changed, and is only re-enforced more so.

So, how about it, do we need a real military president, to step up and run this nation?




Talk about a delayed response...



reply to post by Bout Time
 




Originally posted by Bout Time

But qualification is needed: 'Military Man' is too broad a label.


Agreed, and I quote this now because, in order to tighten the parameters of the definition, I'll define it as a "combat veteran". Not necessarily combat arms, but a veteran who has been engaged by the opposing force, or has engaged the opfor. Seeing as we have many support personnel whom have been in combat, along side combat arms, logpac etc.
edit on 9-1-2013 by ADVISOR because: added delayed reply



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 07:59 PM
link   
edit on 9-1-2013 by ADVISOR because: double



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Yeah like Romney, oh wait.
Yeah like Reagan, nope.
Ooh I know... John Kerry.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 05:10 AM
link   
reply to post by sealing
 


I was thinking more along the lines of Colin Luther Powell, but hey those are my hopes.


That in my mind, is what I mean.






top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join