Mr Natural
Platinum Member
- Aug 23, 2009
- 23,332
- 11,158
- 950
And since when is it necessary (or even desirable) to have other countries fear us?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
L K Elder eat shit you kool-aid drinking fool!!!!
LK Eder has never contributed anything of value or substance to any thread I have seen. Best put on ignore.
Man lighten up you are overthinking that stuff into a mania.
Who would make a better Commander in Chief?
And since when did having military experience become the most important trait to have in a president?
No, that is not true.Ironically, his escalation of the war in Afghanistan, that liberals widely and wisely opposed, was widely supported by conservatives.
Poll: 50% oppose U.S. surge in Afghanistan - USATODAY.com
Now post evidence that supports your claim.
Yo Bucs............not going to throw in boardmember NYCaribneer in the mix????
At least he's a Boy Scout.
Here's a recent pic............................
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/boyscouts109-1.jpg[/IMG[/quote]
I'm a veteran, smegmabreath. Are you?[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/laughing_man-5.jpg
Just a thought, since we elected Obama as our Commander in Chief and with recent "low morale" amongts his officers towards him: Who would make a better Commander in Chief?
A) Barack H. Obama on November 1st, 2008
B) A cadet at West Point or the Naval Academy 1 day before his graduation
C) A Marine Corp infantry grunt with 4 tours of combat
D) A top-5 world military historian
E) New England Patriots football coach Bill Belichek
Now, I'm prepared to argue anyone, B, C, D, E, would have made a better Commander in Chief than Barack H. Obama just before his election. Why? Experience and relative skills.
B) A military academy graduate would have military leadership, discipline, and a working knowledge of military practices. He would be a member of the military, and maybe have a deployment under his belt.
C) A USMC grunt would have combat experience, leadership skills and a working knowledge of just how war works, how it is fought, and how morale is affected by homeland issues.
D) A military historian would be better with global foreign policy, having a knowledge of how war works, past conflicts, ethnicities and their past battles, and long-term consequences of military decisions.
E) Patriots coach Bill Belicheck. A football coach in the NFL who has won several Super Bowls with many different players. He's a natural leader, has led men into adversity and through it successfully. No military experience at all, but, neither had Obama had any. So, in my opinion, his experience organizing and leading a group of 100 men in a physical struggle is closer to leading a military than anything Obama had ever done.
So, thats my premise. That we elected a man in 2008 to Commander in Chief who was less qualified to that position than a military historian, a West Point cadet on graduation day, any USMC grunt infantryman, or even an NFL football coach.
And we wonder how this McChrystal thing happened, and why other countries no longer fear us.
Next, someone said since when is military experience needed to be commander in chief. Well, it's not required. But imo, should be. You're #1 in chain of command for the military. You should have knowledge and experience in it. That would be like getting hired as CEO of Microsoft, but having never owned or operated a computer. Duh.
And since when did having military experience become the most important trait to have in a president?
It is not, but to have a pimplewad like BO fire a 4 star general because the General Mocked BO's administration is ridiculous.
I have not found any place in the article that the General said a direct derogatory comment about BO.
BO is childish and looses his temper like a street thug, so to answer the OP any of those would make a better CIC, but some are not eligle.
.
I am pretty sure that both B and C would be ineligible to be president, thus making them both less qualified than Obama. Until we get some other criteria for president than age no one can really gripe about anyone not being qualified. What they should focus on is how good of a job he, or she, will do, because every natural born citizen over the age of 35 is equally qualified. If nothing else, Obama has proved that.
It's pretty bad when the President has to fire a brilliant general to not look weak. Obama is a joke.