Gates: Obama is more analytical than Bush

[jillio]

<-- state college graduate

Mind you - many military leaders have always been composed of people coming from affluent backgrounds. Did ya forget... West Point?

And leaders coming from West Point were not drafted, now were they? Nor do they make up the majority of military personel.

 

[Jiro]

No it isn't. You seem to consider yourself capable of second guessing decisions in areas that you have absolutely no expeirience, and the military would just be one of those. Likewise, you don't even have the credibility of having been elected to the highest position in this country.

who said I want to run for those seat? I'm a voter and I'd like to elect a qualified person to the seat. Again - in my previous post, I was forced to vote for lesser evil.

But, let's follow your advise and get back on topic. In case you need reminding the topic is the difference in decision making strategies employed by Obama and Bush.

and that's what 99% of my posts have been about.

Good day!

 

[jillio]

who said I want to run for those seat? I'm a voter and I'd like to elect a qualified person to the seat. Again - in my previous post, I was forced to vote for lesser evil.


and that's what 99% of my posts have been about.

Good day!

Hardly. You were not "forced" to vote for Obama. Someone hold a gun to your head while you were at the polls? Reality is, you made a choice. One among several available.

No dear, that is not what 99% of your posts have been about. Decision making strategies employed by Bush and Obama have virtually nothing to do with military service. Nor does your requirement that public servants serve at least 3 years in the military, the draft during the Viet Nam era, nor Clinton's military status.

 

[Jiro]

And leaders coming from West Point were not drafted, now were they?

some were. some were traditionalists. some volunteered. Regardless of their status - they have my utmost respect. I have been there many times and I continue to go there... got invited to their bbq party as well.

Nor do they make up the majority of military personel.

lol officers do not make up majority of military personnel either!!!

 

[jillio]

some were. some were traditionalists. some volunteered. Regardless of their status - they have my utmost respect. I have been there many times... got invited to their bbq party as well.

What does your visiting at West Point have to do with anything? And perhaps you need to go back and check the draft regulations and Commisioned Officers.


lol officers do not make up majority of military personnel either!!!

That is exactly what I am talking about. West Point graduates do not enter the military as enlisted private status. They enter as Commissioned Officers. An enlisted man has to work his way up to officer status, and there is a ceiling on how high he can go.

The bulk of the military is made up of enlisted men.

 

[Hear Again]

Physically unfit for military duty.

 

[jillio]

You're welcome.

 

[Jiro]

That is exactly what I am talking about. West Point graduates do not enter the military as enlisted private status. They enter as Commissioned Officers. An enlisted man has to work his way up to officer status, and there is a ceiling on how high he can go.

The bulk of the military is made up of enlisted men.

dang you. why must you make me respond to your post? lol - sorry to say but the highest enlisted soldier can go is Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy or Sergeant Major of the Army or Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force. Most enlisted soldiers are not college educated. It's extremely difficult for enlisted soldiers to receive officer ranking. The best they can get is NONCOM (Non-commissioned officers).

Perhaps you should visit West Point back to subject

 

[jillio]

dang you. why must you make me respond to your post? lol - sorry to say but the highest enlisted man can go is Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy or Sergeant Major of the Army or Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force. Most enlisted man are not college educated.

Perhaps you should visit West Point

Why do you keep making my point for me? You are simply repeating what I said in my above post.

Exactly how does attending a bar-be-que at West Point confer expertise? I attended a cook out at a law school, too. Doesn't make me an expert in the law. By your logic, Obama visiting the troops should confer all the expertise needed to satisfy your requirements.

BTW...I don't "make" you do anything. You choose to do it.

 

[Jiro]

Why do you keep making my point for me? You are simply repeating what I said in my above post.

Exactly how does attending a bar-be-que at West Point confer expertise? I attended a cook out at a law school, too. Doesn't make me an expert in the law. By your logic, Obama visiting the troops should confer all the expertise needed to satisfy your requirements.

BTW...I don't "make" you do anything. You choose to do it.

whew! I finally made it to work safely. that was one heck of the weather. to answer your question - no it does not make you an expert in law but it gives you a better insight of the system (assuming you attend the cook-out on number of occasions and/or knowing them personally).

Your shortcoming in this issue is quite apparent and it's louder than the first shot heard round the world. It is unsightly view of a person with megalomania-like knowledge not conceding of one's simple error.

Well... because, honey... the soldiers I congregated with at "bar-be-que" are the first-hand experience of what's really happening in wars and the consequence/effect of president's military decision - something that you don't see much in news. You should have known this better than me, considering that you claimed to be from a family of veterans. What better source and in-depth perspective can you get than hearing it from veteran/soldiers? some authors who have never served in armed force? Methinks not. Sorry but watching saving private Ryan or military channel does not qualify.

Bill Clinton could be a commissioned officer and with his family's political connection, he would not have to serve in combat zone. but the fact is that he did not answer the president's order to report to duty so how can you expect men and women of armed force to listen to him? Isn't that a hypocrisy?

As for Obama, like I said repeatedly, what can compensate for lack of or no experience in armed force is to have extensive background in civil service. I still stand by my statements from last year and pre-election. I felt Obama is a better choice than McCain to fix our internal crisis rather than national security policy. I questioned his ability as Commander-in-Chief. Like Clinton, both did not handle military situation well. That's naturally their shortcomings. To me - the President of United States and the Commander-in-Chief are completely different roles.

Not always do we need a President with extensive military background like President Bush, Sr. because the time/trend changes all the time but I still always question especially the President with non-military background when making critical military decisions.

 

[Babyblue]

I do say that Obama is doing his part by hearing what others have to say about the issues. That is a smart move and a good choice to make by listening to all sides.

Does not mean it will necessarily change his way of thinking. but at least he is allowing others to voice what they have to say. By him doing that he knows how certain people feel. Believe it or not. It does have an impact on people, when they allow all sides to converse on what they feel about issues.

His decision is going to be just like any presidents decisions. We all may not agree. "I" may not agree. But he was voted chief of commander. "The President" by majority of people in the U.S.

 

[Jiro]

I do say that Obama is doing his part by hearing what others have to say about the issues. That is a smart move and a good choice to make by listening to all sides.

Does not mean it will necessarily change his way of thinking. but at least he is allowing others to voice what they have to say. By him doing that he knows how certain people feel. Believe it or not. It does have an impact on people, when they allow all sides to converse on what they feel about issues.

His decision is going to be just like any presidents decisions. We all may not agree. "I" may not agree. But he was voted chief of commander. "The President" by majority of people in the U.S.

Well said but ya'all are missing the BIG point - DESPITE of what Obama did.... by listening and making sure everybody's said their piece... he's still USING Bush's policy and Bush didn't even have to listen to everybody.

Both have different styles but both came to same decision.

 

[Reba]

What Jiro is failing to recognize is that people can be excluded from military service for any number of reasons. To say that a President must serve in the military is to say that we can never elect a President who, for example, has "flat feet", one is has a mibility impairment, one who has certain visual impairments, or one who is deaf. That excludes a whole constellation of men....

...and women.... :P

 

[Bottesini]

...and women.... :P

 

[Jiro]

...and women.... :P

 

[Reba]

There is nothing in that letter that would indicate labeling Clinton as a "draft dodger".

I believe that is referred to, in the letter as well, as a Conscientous Objector. They were numerous during the period inclusive of the VietNam War.

"Conscientious Objector" is a very specific legal term, with very specific qualifications. The content described in that letter would not qualify.

If Clinton was classified a CO, it would not be on the basis of the information contained in that letter. Also, classification as a CO does not automatically excuse one from military duty. A CO can serve in a non-armed combatant status, such as chaplain or medic.

Selective Service System: Fast Facts

 

[Reba]

Physically unfit for military duty.

For reference:

Selective Service System: About the Agency - Classifications

 

[Jolie77]

Mod's Note:

For once and all, Let's get back on the topic. The posts that were related to the "hijacking" part has been removed since it bears no relations to this thread.

Thank You.

 

[jillio]

whew! I finally made it to work safely. that was one heck of the weather. to answer your question - no it does not make you an expert in law but it gives you a better insight of the system (assuming you attend the cook-out on number of occasions and/or knowing them personally).

Your shortcoming in this issue is quite apparent and it's louder than the first shot heard round the world. It is unsightly view of a person with megalomania-like knowledge not conceding of one's simple error.

Well... because, honey... the soldiers I congregated with at "bar-be-que" are the first-hand experience of what's really happening in wars and the consequence/effect of president's military decision - something that you don't see much in news. You should have known this better than me, considering that you claimed to be from a family of veterans. What better source and in-depth perspective can you get than hearing it from veteran/soldiers? some authors who have never served in armed force? Methinks not. Sorry but watching saving private Ryan or military channel does not qualify.

Bill Clinton could be a commissioned officer and with his family's political connection, he would not have to serve in combat zone. but the fact is that he did not answer the president's order to report to duty so how can you expect men and women of armed force to listen to him? Isn't that a hypocrisy?

As for Obama, like I said repeatedly, what can compensate for lack of or no experience in armed force is to have extensive background in civil service. I still stand by my statements from last year and pre-election. I felt Obama is a better choice than McCain to fix our internal crisis rather than national security policy. I questioned his ability as Commander-in-Chief. Like Clinton, both did not handle military situation well. That's naturally their shortcomings. To me - the President of United States and the Commander-in-Chief are completely different roles.

Not always do we need a President with extensive military background like President Bush, Sr. because the time/trend changes all the time but I still always question especially the President with non-military background when making critical military decisions.

Their first hand experience related to you is still second hand experience and does not confer expertise to you. Experience is not absorbed through osmosis.

 

[jillio]

I do say that Obama is doing his part by hearing what others have to say about the issues. That is a smart move and a good choice to make by listening to all sides.

Does not mean it will necessarily change his way of thinking. but at least he is allowing others to voice what they have to say. By him doing that he knows how certain people feel. Believe it or not. It does have an impact on people, when they allow all sides to converse on what they feel about issues.

His decision is going to be just like any presidents decisions. We all may not agree. "I" may not agree. But he was voted chief of commander. "The President" by majority of people in the U.S.

Well said, Babyblue.