Gates: Obama is more analytical than Bush

[Jiro]

JFK was a Vietnam soldier? That's news to me. I thought he served as as soldier in WW2?

Anyway, technology and social conditions may have changed but some things do not change. As our history books will point out, the majority of our greatest presidents didn't serve in the military or have a background pertaining to the military.

perhaps you should read the history book first before you say anything...... :|

You will see in history book that majority of our "greatest Presidents" have served in military like Harry Truman, Reagan, Thomas Jefferson, Lincoln, JFK, Nixon (well... lol), Dwight Eisenhower (debatable), Teddy Roosevelt, George Washington, etc........................

Like I said - any President's decision regarding military is a multifaceted issue. It affects technology and social conditions as well. After all - government is the largest employer. I prefer the President to have a military background because it's the best way to understand this complicated issue.

 

[deafskeptic]

perhaps you should read the history book first before you say anything...... :|

You will see in history book that majority of our "greatest Presidents" have served in military like Harry Truman, Reagan, Thomas Jefferson, Lincoln, JFK, Nixon (well... lol), Dwight Eisenhower (debatable), Teddy Roosevelt, George Washington, etc........................

Like I said - any President's decision regarding military is a multifaceted issue. It affects technology and social conditions as well. After all - government is the largest employer. I prefer the President to have a military background because it's the best way to understand this complicated issue.

Nixon and Reagan our greatest presidents? I doubt it and I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that. As much as I like Teddy Roosevelt, I don't think he's considered one of our greatest presidents.

Thomas Jefferson to my knowledge has never served in the miltitary. He did serve our country very well by drafting the Declaration of the Iindependince and other deeds. The White House web site doesn't indicate that Jefferson ever served in the Military. Nor do most biographies on Jefferson. The same can be said for Lincoln. This applies to FDR as well. Get your facts straight.

 

[Jiro]

Nixon and Reagan our greatest presidents? I doubt it and I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that. As much as I like Teddy Roosevelt, I don't think he's considered one of our greatest presidents.

That's fine. It's your opinion. I listed those because they are widely considered as important Presidents in the history.

[removed as I've made a fatal mistake on my part regarding JFK. my apology - deafskeptic]

Here's the proof from National Guard archive

In 1770, at the age of 27, the Governor of Virginia appointed Thomas Jefferson as the county lieutenant, with the rank of colonel, of the Albemarle County Militia. Colonel Jefferson was responsible for all militia affairs in the county including insuring that the Albermarle County Regiment of Militia drilled on a regular basis, that the regimental and company muster rolls were kept up, and that militia fines were collected by the sheriff. Jefferson also presided over courts-martial and councils of war. With the start of the Revolutionary War, Colonel Jefferson's military duties increased. He reported directly to the governor in preparing the county militia for mobilization. Jefferson was also responsible for providing militia soldiers as replacements for the Virginia regiments of the Continental Army. He found the time to represent Virginia at the Continental Congress which adopted the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, written almost entirely by Jefferson. Elected governor in 1779, Jefferson resigned his militia commission. As commander-in-chief of the Virginia militia, he mobilized the militia to reinforce the Continental Army in the Southern campaign which ended in victory at Yorktown on October 19, 1781. Jefferson later served as Minister to France, Secretary of State and Vice President. Architect, scholar, statesman and citizen-soldier, Thomas Jefferson became the third president of the United States in 1801.

Did you know Thomas Jefferson created United States Military Academy at West Point? Again - please read your history book first before you talk to me

 

[Grummer]

hmmm interesting thread, i reckon that to be the POTUS, you dont need to have military experience to be show good leadership. I am surprised to see some posters here hold this view quite strongly and i am honesty concerned because the media seem to have done a terrific job to condone such a stance in believing to armed intervention is going to resolve all the setbacks which affects America. On other hand, the world, there is a alot of threat of military violence upon USA (from all sorts of reasons, and many different places have their own 'agendas') so it is hardly surprising that the 'guards' are up which has got to the point that it is now a conspicious matter of activity.

Cleaning up Bush's mess isn't going to be straight forward, and neither withdrawing the military from Iraq arent either, so I'd give Obama the benefit of doubt to say that I dont believe he is doing what bush is doing, rather it's the army's generals are pulling the strings on these matters, for all we know - we dont really know why they are doing this or why they extending the period....there has to be reasons (real important reasons) affecting safety of america, indeed perhaps the rest of the western?? maybe to fight off other 'undisclosed parties of interests' bent of stealing or secure the oil supply? who knows

i just think its a waste of time and energy to think 'you know more or better than Obama' as there is a hell of a lot more going on than this US government letting on, you can be sure of that. Who knows Maybe China is that dangerous 'unseen' party, and theres no special prize for guessing the reason....

 

[C.C.Sinned]

JFK served on the PT109 in WWII. the PT109 sunk in August 1943 John F.Kennedy and the PT109

 

[DURAY]

Clinton never served and Gore served in Vietnam but he has "bodyguards" due to his father's position. McCain was a POW. Bush served in the National Guard as a pilot.
Experiences counted. Obama could join the military but he preferred academia which is mostly theory. His life at Columbia University is full of blurred.

Some of you guys may not be catching the point.

The motives of the Revolutionary War =/= The Civil War =/= World War II =/= Cold War =/= Modern Iraq.

This is why it is hard to draw a conclusion based on the previous generations of ex-presidents.

Hell, John F Kennedy was a Vietnam soldier; I believe the majority consensus was that he was a great president. Credit where credit’s due, can’t we also agree that there were great presidents who also served in the military?
Yeah, they were wars for that era of that particular time. Could one quickly make a perfunctory decision and say that all the consequences of those wars face the same results that Obama faces with Iraq today?

Any clairvoyant individual will see that as modern era, technology, laws became advanced, it became much difficult to draw solid decisions. A clueless one will have yet even more trouble, and have to rely on what others tell him rather than an educational background.

What it really boils down to right now is, do you believe in experience first, or education first? This question is applying for anything regarding an individual’s beliefs in life.

The point is, if the president is capable enough faced in rational issue to make _his_ (or her) own decision from their _own_ perspective, THEN see what the advisers and their "professional" dudes and people have to garble in the matter.

It’s what S.D. Rumsfeld was good at, despite getting shot down - drawing his own opinion to how he thought something should be carried out, by his own honest words. I don't think he required needing advice from another colleague.

Course, there are protégés that shadow around with these guys and their purpose is to make sure that who makes the right decisions, and what the public will perceive of it.

However, I don't think what’s being discussed.

I never bothered to understand the ulterior motives of those that are pro on having background in military relations until this discussion. By just listening to what they have to say, and giving it simple thought — it is quite understandable why they continually choose and favor to do so.

 

[jillio]

Some of you guys may not be catching the point.

The motives of the Revolutionary War =/= The Civil War =/= World War II =/= Cold War =/= Modern Iraq.

This is why it is hard to draw a conclusion based on the previous generations of ex-presidents.

Hell, John F Kennedy was a Vietnam soldier; I believe the majority consensus was that he was a great president. Credit where credit’s due, can’t we also agree that there were great presidents who also served in the military?
Yeah, they were wars for that era of that particular time. Could one quickly make a perfunctory decision and say that all the consequences of those wars face the same results that Obama faces with Iraq today?

Any clairvoyant individual will see that as modern era, technology, laws became advanced, it became much difficult to draw solid decisions. A clueless one will have yet even more trouble, and have to rely on what others tell him rather than an educational background.

What it really boils down to right now is, do you believe in experience first, or education first? This question is applying for anything regarding an individual’s beliefs in life.

The point is, if the president is capable enough faced in rational issue to make _his_ (or her) own decision from their _own_ perspective, THEN see what the advisers and their "professional" dudes and people have to garble in the matter.

It’s what S.D. Rumsfeld was good at, despite getting shot down - drawing his own opinion to how he thought something should be carried out, by his own honest words. I don't think he required needing advice from another colleague.

Course, there are protégés that shadow around with these guys and their purpose is to make sure that who makes the right decisions, and what the public will perceive of it.

However, I don't think what’s being discussed.

I never bothered to understand the ulterior motives of those that are pro on having background in military relations until this discussion. By just listening to what they have to say, and giving it simple thought — it is quite understandable why they continually choose and favor to do so.

Uhhh....JFK didn't serve in Nam.

 

[jillio]

I've never said all. Point is - Obama has heavily criticized in his campaign on Bush's poor handling of wars and his "disgusting" disregard of the Constitution & Geneva Convention.... so why would he appoint Bush's advisers? They will advise him the same way they advised for Bush. :roll:

Not necessarily. This thread is about the different decision making straegies employed by Obama and Bush. Having the same advisors doesn't necessarily equal the same decisions being made. How the decision is made can result in a completely different perspective.

 

[jillio]

Nixon and Reagan our greatest presidents? I doubt it and I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that. As much as I like Teddy Roosevelt, I don't think he's considered one of our greatest presidents.

Thomas Jefferson to my knowledge has never served in the miltitary. He did serve our country very well by drafting the Declaration of the Iindependince and other deeds. The White House web site doesn't indicate that Jefferson ever served in the Military. Nor do most biographies on Jefferson. The same can be said for Lincoln. This applies to FDR as well. Get your facts straight.

Oh, yeah. Good ole Tricky Dick is one to be proud of. Not.

 

[jillio]

That's fine. It's your opinion. I listed those because they are widely considered as important Presidents in the history.

[removed as I've made a fatal mistake on my part regarding JFK. my apology - deafskeptic]

Here's the proof from National Guard archive

Did you know Thomas Jefferson created United States Military Academy at West Point? Again - please read your history book first before you talk to me

What is your obsession with West Point?

 

[Jiro]

Not necessarily. This thread is about the different decision making straegies employed by Obama and Bush. Having the same advisors doesn't necessarily equal the same decisions being made. How the decision is made can result in a completely different perspective.

well I don't know about you but lately in news - Obama is adopting more and more of Bush's policy (such as Gitmo Camp) and appointing more of Bush's advisers. Talk about "change", huh?

 

[Jiro]

What is your obsession with West Point?

because it's founded by our good ole' George Washington and your image of military is distorted. What better historical lesson than West Point can you get?

 

[naisho]

JFK was a Vietnam soldier? That's news to me. I thought he served as as soldier in WW2?

Anyway, technology and social conditions may have changed but some things do not change. As our history books will point out, the majority of our greatest presidents didn't serve in the military or have a background pertaining to the military.

My honest mistake. I apologize.

I was referring to WW2, but I was thinking of the Vietnam situation while I was typing. I am a bit sure that you will reconcile with the fact that I was speaking in regards to the military experience with JFK, not exactly that he was/related to Vietnam.

However I'm glad you were able to follow through with the rest of my post instead of just stopping at the error.

But I'm sure you can realize that there are other analytical presidents whom had military experience that served just as well if not better.

The purpose of my previous post I focused on (and not just me); is exactly related to the belief of personal experience or personal education over a presidential issue. That is what I am bringing to the table, not that we are supposed to get into a debate of which guy served or did not serve in this or that and which one was better. There are just as much presidents who have served in some form of military or civil duty versus those who have not.

The point is, can you accept that for some other fellow Americans, they prefer experience over education (edumucation)?

It is similar to reviewing an employee's record for a private company: as in, private individual beliefs - would you pick the candidate who has more experience, or more education? Would you blame or bash the employer's ideology for choosing one over the other?

This is what I'm hopefully trying to get across. Perhaps their ideas may clash with another's. But I see it perfectly reasonable for them to draw where they are coming from.

 

[Beowulf]

Uhhh....JFK didn't serve in Nam.

Nor any deaf people?

 

[jillio]

well I don't know about you but lately in news - Obama is adopting more and more of Bush's policy (such as Gitmo Camp) and appointing more of Bush's advisers. Talk about "change", huh?

Still planning to close Gitmo. How is that following Bush's policies? He has made public tapes that Bush and the CIA kept hidden. How is that following Bush's policies? Appointing Bush's advisors, again, does not mean that he will make the same decisions as Bush. Remember the OP? Different decision making strategies.

 

[jillio]

because it's founded by our good ole' George Washington and your image of military is distorted. What better historical lesson than West Point can you get?

Yeah, I guess my father's image of the military was distorted, despite the fact that he was a Marine and a WWII veteran.:roll: I guess my brother's image of the military was distorted, despite the fact that he was a Marine, and a Viet Nam vet. I guess my uncle's image of the military was distorted, despite the fact that he was an Air Force lifer, and a Korean War vet.

 

[Jiro]

Yeah, I guess my father's image of the military was distorted, despite the fact that he was a Marine and a WWII veteran.:roll: I guess my brother's image of the military was distorted, despite the fact that he was a Marine, and a Viet Nam vet. I guess my uncle's image of the military was distorted, despite the fact that he was an Air Force lifer, and a Korean War vet.

I'm specifically referring to your statement "The military, by and large, has always been composed of people coming from less than affluent backgrounds, most especially since the draft was outlawed." You're talking about the past... which had a mandatory conscription. I'm not talking about the past. That's the different story and my posts with the findings & conclusion from 2007-2008 has refuted your statement. Sorry Jillio - nice attempt to redirect.

too bad you're not following the tradition.... oh well no biggie! btw - I salute to your father, uncle, and brother

 

[jillio]

I'm specifically referring to your statement "The military, by and large, has always been composed of people coming from less than affluent backgrounds, most especially since the draft was outlawed." You're talking about the past... which had a mandatory conscription. I'm not talking about the past. That's the different story and my posts with the findings & conclusion from 2007-2008 has refuted your statement. Sorry Jillio - nice attempt to redirect.

too bad you're not following the tradition.... oh well no biggie! btw - I salute to your father, uncle, and brother

And what tradition might that be, Jiro?

All your posts on the findings of 2007-2008 indicate are that the bulk of military personnel have a high school diploma or a GED, and a portion have "some college". Nothing regarding affluence.

"Since the draft was outlawed" statement I made disputes your mandatory conscription.

 

[Jiro]

And what tradition might that be, Jiro?

isn't it obvious? to serve in military!

All your posts on the findings of 2007-2008 indicate are that the bulk of military personnel have a high school diploma or a GED, and a portion have "some college". Nothing regarding affluence.

Re-read the finding - I included the links for you which have far more details and it has mentioned about affluence. You stated that the majority of enlisted men and women of armed force are from less affluent background. I have already shown you the conclusion of the finding that, to quote Gilroy, "on the socioeconomic side, the military is strongly middle class."

Who Serves in the U.S. Military? The Demographics of Enlisted Troops and Officers

Household Income. Enlisted recruits in 2006 and 2007 came primarily from middle-class and upper-middle-class backgrounds. Low-income neighborhoods were underrepresented among enlisted troops, while middle-class and high-income neighborhoods were overrepresented.

"Since the draft was outlawed" statement I made disputes your mandatory conscription.

Your statement would be valid immediately after draft system was abolished but I have already provided LATEST data that your statement is no longer valid (by decades ago).

 

[jillio]

isn't it obvious? to serve in military!

Re-read the finding - I included the links for you which have far more details and it has mentioned about affluence. You stated that the majority of enlisted men and women of armed force are from less affluent background. I have already shown you the conclusion of the finding that, to quote Gilroy, "on the socioeconomic side, the military is strongly middle class."

Who Serves in the U.S. Military? The Demographics of Enlisted Troops and Officers

Strongly middle class is not affluent, Jiro.

And, it was a tradition for the males in my family. I am a female.


Your statement would be valid immediately after draft system was abolished but I have already provided LATEST data that your statement is no longer valid (by decades ago).

Strongly middle class is not affluent, Jiro.

And, it was a tradition for the males in my family. I am a female.