The pathetic armed-service record of our "elite" leaders...winners everytime they lose.

Am I right to assume, that in a harsh Darwinian reality only the strongest and most successful survive and prosper? That is why our leaders are called "elites" after all, because they are. Elite, that is. Right?

Naturally our leaders must have been great war heros, in our darwinian culture? Well...maybe. It depends on how you define a "hero". Lets be easy on the requirements. Lets say a hero isn't required to be a "great conquerer". Lets say a hero just wins sometimes or something. We all win sometimes.

Lets see if my memory serves me correctly and look at the war heroism of our leaders. Off the top of my head:

Kennedy: famous as a war hero for - being a CAPTAIN WHO DROVE HIS PT BOAT IN FRONT OF AN ENEMY DESTROYER, WITHOUT EVEN SEEING THE GIGANTIC SHIP, a ship he was supposed to be hunting and destroying, and actually getting rammed by the giant enemy ship and having his boat sunk. Where i come from, you get fired for that. You dont get a medal. Now lets look at the average-joe. First off, the average joe has to serve 2 enlistments before he is allowed to captain a PT boat. Then, the average Joe will return from patrol, more often than not, without getting blindsided by a ship bigger than a city block. Already he is more a hero than kennedy, just for getting his crew back safely. If he managed to sink an enemy ship while on patrol, then he is a hero compared to Kennedy. A winner. Getting your boat sunk stupidly is technically losing.

George Bush junior: AWOL as a pilot. Average Joe doesnt get handed any fighter pilot jobs, but gets in bigggg trouble if AWOL. No heroism in Bush's career. No winner there. His father didnt do much better, and was shot down. Loser. I want *MY* illuminati elite ruler to have actually shot down enemy planes repeatedly and returned safely to base a winner, at least if he wants to lead me around like a cow.

John Kerry. Oh John Kerry. Another gifted PT boat captain who is famous for... you guessed it... leading his patrol into an ambush. Another illuminati winner. What a hero as he tried to save the wounded men he led into an ambush. Still, if i was a foot-soldier under some countryclub-boy officer, i would really prefer to AMBUSH an enemy patrol before i called my leader a hero. yes, theres a concept. do these secret society guys ever ambush the enemy? or o they always just let the enemy ambush or sink or shoot them down? because these elites are the oddest darwinian masters i've ever seen.

John McCain: a hero for being shot down and a becoming prisoner of war? I understand he was treated better than all the other american prisoners since his father was an admiral. i mean, being a prisoner is rough and all, just ask 10 percent of america's citizens, as they have experienced incarceration firsthand. but still, my war heros actually attack and conquer the enemy, and cant really be darwinistic leaders just for surrendering...at least in my book.

I am sure the list is infinite. But my point is simple. These "elites" get every break in the world. Leadership is handed to them. They cannot fail no matter how many times they lose. no matter who they hurt, every card they pull is always an ace, and they lose everytime. But even though they are weak, and stupid, and lose, and make wrong decisions on policy almost everytime, they are our leaders, seemingly forever, without interferance from democracy. but dont ever think it is because they are stronger or better. the facts show just the opposite. sink a PT boat? no problem. Lie to start a war in iraq? no problem. crash the economy? no problem. lead us oh great ones. lead us until forever with yr heroism.

You're under the assumption that only 'strong' military leaders can make for 'elite' leaders fit for running the country.

Nearly 3 million people are in the military in this country, are you saying that only those 3 million...or at least, the 'best' of those 3 million should be allowed to lead the country? In my experience, armed service members would do well not to overspeak their accomplishments after serving.

This country has a serious infatuation problem with veterans in some regards. A vast majority probably didn't do much more than their job required them to, yet their lauded as great leaders for it.

you forgot to mention draft-dodging bill clinton. what a brave example he set for the troops he orders to fight.
but atleast he had the brains not to start any wars.

Ummm, Clinton killed his fair share of people in office as well. Funny, what was Obamas military record again? Oh that's right, he didn't serve as he was too busy hanging out with known terrorists.

You forgot all the other Chickenhawk Pentagon "leaders" like:
Dick Cheney - several deferments during the vietnam war.
Paul Wolfowitz
Richard Perle
Douglas Feith
William Kristol
- zero military experience between all of them.

Politicians and lawyers have no place running our military.

All this really shows is that military or physical prowess are not essential to leadership.
Money is.
No wonder we're getting our butts whipped.

Ah yep,some batch of screwups hey?
Its my contention that the real leaders, the ones who lead from the front, the ones we would follow into hell and back, dont last.Very few of those guys even make it back in one piece.
They lie buried in foriegn soil where they have fallen.
Wars have always taken the best and brightest, leaving us to carry on, that much the poorer for the loss of these fine men and women.
The present system of goverment tends to reward the unconscionable, the unpreturbable liars, the greed and avarice addicted.
these are the ones who we let abuse our trust.
The self proclaimed heroes....

reply to post by Asktheanimals


So, by your standards the country should be run by the military? I've never seen such outright acceptance of the US becoming a totalitarian nation as this. You've stunned me, well done.

dont be silly
you are here to work and die for your masters, period

that's what the Oligarchic Principle is all about:
"all humans are animals and only the fittest have a right to rule"

from their POV getting away with draft dodging or any kind of dangerous service "proves they are fitter"

question is, who decides who is the fittest?

make sure its you.

Good thread, I like it!!

Reminds me this quote:

"When stupidity is considered patriotism, it is unsafe to be intelligent." ~ Isaac Asimov

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
You forgot all the other Chickenhawk Pentagon "leaders" like:
Dick Cheney - several deferments during the vietnam war.
Paul Wolfowitz
Richard Perle
Douglas Feith
William Kristol
- zero military experience between all of them.

Politicians and lawyers have no place running our military.

All this really shows is that military or physical prowess are not essential to leadership.
Money is.
No wonder we're getting our butts whipped.

you nailed that right on the head, brother. my point is EXACTLY THAT. we are told we are simply in a darwinian cultural reality, and that they are therefor our "leaders" because they are stronger, smarter, better. when actually, in most cases, the opposite is true. its about money, betrayal of democracy, and connections. illumiscumbaggery.

Originally posted by stirling
Ah yep,some batch of screwups hey?
Its my contention that the real leaders, the ones who lead from the front, the ones we would follow into hell and back, dont last.Very few of those guys even make it back in one piece.
They lie buried in foriegn soil where they have fallen.
Wars have always taken the best and brightest, leaving us to carry on, that much the poorer for the loss of these fine men and women.
The present system of goverment tends to reward the unconscionable, the unpreturbable liars, the greed and avarice addicted.
these are the ones who we let abuse our trust.
The self proclaimed heroes....

amen to that, man

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by Asktheanimals

 

So, by your standards the country should be run by the military? I've never seen such outright acceptance of the US becoming a totalitarian nation as this. You've stunned me, well done.

you completely misunderstand my sarcasm. i dont even believe in darwanistic models for society. society [as well as natural ecology] functions mostly from cooperation, not competition. i was just highlighting how they push us into a darwinian model with the assumption that they are on top because they are better, which is wholely untrue. as my examples point out.

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
dont be silly
you are here to work and die for your masters, period

that's what the Oligarchic Principle is all about:
"all humans are animals and only the fittest have a right to rule"

from their POV getting away with draft dodging or any kind of dangerous service "proves they are fitter"

question is, who decides who is the fittest?

make sure its you.

here is how it is decided who is fittest:

first, everyone lines up at the starting line for a 4 lap race around a track. then, all the financial elites/secret societies line up on the same track as the rest of us, only they start 3 laps ahead of the rest of us. then we all race. surprise! they win again. proof of survival of the fittest.

i meant to say it's all subjective


At 1st they tried brute force but to many people are inclined to hit back so..

first it was "we are representing god"= the priest kings
then they started to claim they were gods until the 3rd Judge of Israel put a stop to that nonsense
then it was again"we are representing god" = divine right of kings


nowadays its "the will of the people"
the names change but it's all the same garbage.

I recommend the writings of Arthur Silber to help clear up the fog

powerofnarrative.blogspot.com...

thesacredmoment.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by urmenimu2
you completely misunderstand my sarcasm.

Sarcastic text. Perhaps I missed the inflection on your a's.

Just goes to show that the bigger a failure in life a person is, the better a success rate one will have in politics.

The past experiences and failures of most of our popular politicians would make them undesirable for even being employed as a waiter or bus-boy position in the real world. But in the world of politics, the bums excel. The bigger a failure and loser you are in life, the more desirable you are for politics. You just cannot make up stuff like this. Its simply the way it is.

reply to post by urmenimu2


Since when is an armed service record a prerequisite for a good political leader. I do not support draft dodgers or those who hung back when the could have come forwards into battle but please consider the logical implications of the OP. I just don't care whether or not they prefer cats over dogs as pets. I just want good goverment. Period!