The last post is the WINNER!

[Revoltingest]

It is not winning to have this discussion in this winning thread. When I get back here for longer, later today, I will start a new thread specifically to discuss universal public service and how--and why--it might differ from male-only military conscription.

My non sequitur response....

 

[Stonetree]

I'm here to win, even at the expense of being sent to Nam. This time we WIN..!

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

and it's my turn to win now

take that and stick it in your afterburner!

 

[Stonetree]

and it t's my turn to win now

take that and stick it in your afterburner!

Bringing a big stick was tried many moons ago....Teddy Roosevelt...However, your gong ho attitude might catch the attention of the ladies....WINNER!

 

[John53]

Peek a boo

 

[Stonetree]

My non sequitur response....

Videos demonstrating the superiority of American engineering and production of military hardware remind me of the US being defeated in Viet Nam by a then thought to be third world country. No country is a default winner during a war. There are smart cookies all over the world and fighting any war is forced on the young who actually have the most to lose. When citizens can forget how many wars their country sent the young off to fight, it's time to rethink war policy.

 

[John53]

Ain't you so glad she is home. Just think, without her you'd be sat on you butt all looking at birds and petting the she dog

It turned out to be a little coincidently weird... I usually take the dog for a bit of a walk about 3 but because of the extended hairdo it was after 5 and almost dusk when I left. On the way round the block I saw a woman leaning up against her fence, asked if she was ok and she had fallen and couldn't get up. Unlikely anyone even a few minutes after I went past would have seen her because it would have been too dark, and it got down to 4c overnight.... so I guess it was a good thing I waited in the car.

 

[John53]

 

[ChristineM]

It turned out to be a little coincidently weird... I usually take the dog for a bit of a walk about 3 but because of the extended hairdo it was after 5 and almost dusk when I left. On the way round the block I saw a woman leaning up against her fence, asked if she was ok and she had fallen and couldn't get up. Unlikely anyone even a few minutes after I went past would have seen her because it would have been too dark, and it got down to 4c overnight.... so I guess it was a good thing I waited in the car.

There ya go, karma in action

 

[Revoltingest]

Videos demonstrating the superiority of American engineering and production of military hardware remind me of the US being defeated in Viet Nam by a then thought to be third world country. No country is a default winner during a war. There are smart cookies all over the world and fighting any war is forced on the young who actually have the most to lose. When citizens can forget how many wars their country sent the young off to fight, it's time to rethink war policy.

The problem in Vietnam was that we played chess
while they played go (ie, they had unlimited pieces
that are more readily sacrificed in a longer game.
Also, this was on their home turf, & we lacked such
motivation. Technology cannot overcome that.

It should've been a lesson learned, but there we went
again in Korea, Iraq, & Afghanistan. Nonetheless, we
must continue weapon development. Our foes do.
And as we see with Russia & China, some are bent
on expanding. An actual self defense war could
arise once again.
So as we say in Revoltistan, speak peacefully, &
carry a big goddam gun.

 

[John53]

Top Gun is #1 in the box office, Kate Bush is #1 on the top forty and America is in a proxy war with Russia. Are we giving 1986 another try?

 

[Revoltingest]

Top Gun is #1 in the box office, Kate Bush is #1 on the top forty and America is in a proxy war with Russia. Are we giving 1986 another try?

It's not a proxy war.
No country is waging war on our behalf.
We're giving aid to a country that's resisting
invasion by an evil foreign aggressor.

 

[John53]

It's not a proxy war.
No country is waging war on our behalf.
We're giving aid to a country that's resisting
invasion by an evil foreign aggressor.

yeah ok, if that makes you feel better

 

[Revoltingest]

yeah ok, if that makes you feel better

Being accurate generally does.

 

[Stevicus]

We can discern whether Hillary was willing to serve
in the military. What's her enlistment record?
She didn't. Does lack of military service mean
she's unqualified to be Commander In Chief?

No, because anyone older than 35 who was born in the U.S. is qualified to be President. But then there were some (including you, as I recall) who claimed that Trump was unqualified because he lacked previous experience in public office. Being "qualified" is in the eye of the beholder.

Do you think that only men should be compelled
to serve in the military? Should anyone be compelled?

Not at all, but I don't believe anyone should order anyone to do a job that they're not willing to do themselves. I have lived by that philosophy in my own work, and I believe that everyone should follow that same standard.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, because anyone older than 35 who was born in the U.S. is qualified to be President. But then there were some (including you, as I recall) who claimed that Trump was unqualified because he lacked previous experience in public office. Being "qualified" is in the eye of the beholder.

You recall wrong.
I said his lack of a record in office made him a "loose cannon".
If you believe otherwise, feel free to find a relevant post.
(You won't.)

Not at all, but I don't believe anyone should order anyone to do a job that they're not willing to do themselves. I have lived by that philosophy in my own work, and I believe that everyone should follow that same standard.

It seems that you greatly value military experience...but
only for male presidential candidates. Hillary gets a pass
because (as a female) she was never subject to the draft.
It seems a sexist double standard.

 

[John53]

Being accurate generally does.

uh hu

 

[Stevicus]

You recall wrong.
I said his lack of a record in office made him a "loose cannon".
If you believe otherwise, feel free to find a relevant post.
(You won't.)

Well, maybe I'm misremembering it, but it's not important enough to search for.

It seems that you greatly value military experience...but
only for male presidential candidates. Hillary gets a pass
because (as a female) she was never subject to the draft.
It seems a sexist double standard.

Not the experience itself, but just the willingness to do a job that one is aspiring to order others to do. It's not an issue of valuing military experience as much as it's valuing equality.

No one should ever consider themselves to be so special as to think they're above doing any kind of dirty work - especially when they advocate for war or might possibly order others to do such dirty work.

I don't even know how Hillary got into this discussion, but since we have no evidence that she actively and consciously refused military service (or even if she was ever asked to serve), then we can't prove that she was unwilling. I tried to serve myself but was turned down for medical reasons. So, unless we know the reasons why she didn't serve, we can't prove that she was unwilling to serve. (Note that I did not vote for Hillary.)

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, maybe I'm misremembering it, but it's not important enough to search for.

There's no "maybe".
A search would fail.

Not the experience itself, but just the willingness to do a job that one is aspiring to order others to do. It's not an issue of valuing military experience as much as it's valuing equality.

Yet it seems you don't want equality for male
vs female presidential aspirants.
What of Biden's draft dodging...OK with it?

No one should ever consider themselves to be so special as to think they're above doing any kind of dirty work - especially when they advocate for war or might possibly order others to do such dirty work.

Does this mean you'd require
military service of Presidents?

I don't even know how Hillary got into this discussion...

Your post....
"The reason many people have a problem with a draft dodger as President is because that job is also Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces. That job may entail sending others to die - something they weren't willing to do themselves."

If it's a problem that Trump didn't serve,
why is it no problem that Hillary didn't serve?

 

[Stevicus]

Yet it seems you don't want equality for male
vs female presidential aspirants.
What of Biden's draft dodging...OK with it?

It's immaterial to me. Some people may not like it though.

Does this mean you'd require
military service of Presidents?

You're totally missing the point here.

The thing is, if someone aspires to be President, then they are aspiring to become the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces. In taking on such a job, they are (for all intents and purposes) joining the military service. If they object to joining the military service, why would they want to become President?

Your post....
"The reason many people have a problem with a draft dodger as President is because that job is also Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces. That job may entail sending others to die - something they weren't willing to do themselves."

If it's a problem that Trump didn't serve,
why is it no problem that Hillary didn't serve?

In the post you're quoting, I don't see the name "Hillary" anywhere in there, nor does any of it contain even the remotest implication that it's no problem that Hillary didn't serve.