Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I always wondered (especially this election season ) why less and less top military officials choose to run for office. Many choose to join the service at a relatively young age (18 - 21) and have 30 plus years of service to their country. With that much experience in foreign affairs and managing personnel I think they would be prime candidates. I wonder why America has leaned away from choosing service members.

Because democrats are anti military by and large

Originally posted by Raisen
Because democrats are anti military by and large

One you're wrong. Two that has nothing to do with what I asked since NEITHER party produces politicians with military backgrounds.

I think this has to do with how the perception of the government and the military has changed over the years. We used to be a very trusting country. When our leaders told us something we believed them. When our military took part in something we knew it had to be just and true.

These perceptions changed over the years, starting with a growing distrust of the government by the late 1960's and being exacerbated during the 1970s by political scandals. Some of the biggest of which were Watergate and the entire thing with the FBI getting their files stolen and published and all the shady things they did coming out to the public.

So I don't think people hate the military or anything, but like I said I think there is a certain amount of distrust of the military complex and of course of the government overall.

Originally posted by Sin I AM
One you're wrong. Two that has nothing to do with what I asked since NEITHER party produces politicians with military backgrounds.

Are you a liberal or staunch conservative today?

Originally posted by Raisen
Are you a liberal or staunch conservative today?

What relevance does that have to do with anything? Nice trolling though. Keep on doing god's work.

Originally posted by Surtur
I think this has to do with how the perception of the government and the military has changed over the years. We used to be a very trusting country. When our leaders told us something we believed them. When our military took part in something we knew it had to be just and true.

These perceptions changed over the years, starting with a growing distrust of the government by the late 1960's and being exacerbated during the 1970s by political scandals. Some of the biggest of which were Watergate and the entire thing with the FBI getting their files stolen and published and all the shady things they did coming out to the public.

So I don't think people hate the military or anything, but like I said I think there is a certain amount of distrust of the military complex and of course of the government overall.

I think the general public nether hates nor loves the military. I just think to most they are a means to an end. Kinda like nukes are a deterrent. It's good to have around but just keep it in the back outta sight and outta mind.

One of the main reasons a buddy discussed with me is the militaries staunch apolitical attitude. It's ingrained in their psyche. I've always considered Powell or Patreaus as good examples of generals I'd vote for.

Wait trolling is God's work?

Originally posted by Surtur
Wait trolling is God's work?

The Judeo-Christian God is the ultimate troll...so yea

http://img1.rnkr-static.com/user_node_img/50006/1000101984/420/2ec5818e-9247-425a-a339-9a2ee03041a5-photo-u1.jpg

http://img2.rnkr-static.com/user_node_img/50043/1000858633/420/a-photo-u1.jpg

http://img1.rnkr-static.com/user_node_img/50043/1000858635/420/a-photo-u1.jpg



http://img2.rnkr-static.com/user_node_img/50043/1000858636/420/a-photo-u1.jpg

LMFAO

Just because God loves you doesn't mean he approves of your actions.

And as for the Generals in Public Office thing. I would bet a lot of them don't take those positions anymore because they already may know what its like to stand in front of someone aiming a weapon at them and don't want to repeat the experiance.

Well the right occasionally puts up veterans for president while the left puts up never have been or draft dodger. Or in the case of Jim Webb he gets laughed off stage by his peers

Can someone explain to me why dodging the Vietnam draft (specifically that war, I don't know much about Korea) is considered a bad thing? It's interesting because it seems to be generally accepted that it was a really pointless war and that it ruined countless people's lives and kind of ****ed up a whole generation of Americans. Yet if you dodged the draft you're a 'coward' rather than a conscientious objector? Are there some elements of it that I'm missing?

Originally posted by Scribble
Can someone explain to me why dodging the Vietnam draft (specifically that war, I don't know much about Korea) is considered a bad thing? It's interesting because it seems to be generally accepted that it was a really pointless war and that it ruined countless people's lives and kind of ****ed up a whole generation of Americans. Yet if you dodged the draft you're a 'coward' rather than a conscientious objector? Are there some elements of it that I'm missing?

I think it has to do with the fact that some people didn't dodge the draft. Either they willingly joined to fight or they were forced to fight. I don't think it was exactly easy to get out via conscientious objection and I only think for stuff like religion it might of worked with. But it wasn't easy because a lot of people got out of having to serve by purposely injuring themselves to the point where they would no longer qualify.

So a lot of people died and I think that is where the feelings come from. I'm not saying it is right or wrong to feel that way. There is a misconception in America that most of the people against the Vietnam war were the college age kids. But actually it wasn't, the older generation had a much larger percentage of people against it. Why? Because it was their kids being sent over there to die.

Also to me it depends on when you dodged the draft. Since it's not like from day 1 everyone saw how hopeless this war was. For a long time people supported the war. I don't know if I can fault someone for trying to dodge the draft if they were drafted as the war was drawing to a close. Nixon began withdrawing troops in the early 70's, but they were also still sending soldiers out on missions. If you're going to be pulling out anyways why go looking for trouble? Defend yourself if you have to, but don't go looking for it.

So the government definitely did let the people down and they got a lot of people needlessly killed. At the same time though a lot of Americans made huge mistakes in that they took out their frustrations on Vietnam vets. They'd get spit at, yelled at, called baby killers, etc. Basically they couldn't wear their uniforms in public. Since most soldiers indeed weren't crazed baby killers that was probably pretty soul crushing to have to come back from hell only to deal with stuff like that. As a result of the war our government also allowed a massive amount of drugs to come into the country. All the while waging a "war on drugs". They even at times used body bags with dead soldiers in them to ship heroin back to America. Oh and a bunch of vets came back from the war addicted to heroin and at one time late into the war the drug use among soldiers was so bad that 1 out of every 4 soldiers that died would die of a heroin overdose.

Really good post, thank you Surtur.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Just because God loves you doesn't mean he approves of your actions.



Can you truly say you love someone if you don't accept them for who they are? I think not

Originally posted by Sin I AM
I always wondered (especially this election season ) why less and less top military officials choose to run for office. Many choose to join the service at a relatively young age (18 - 21) and have 30 plus years of service to their country. With that much experience in foreign affairs and managing personnel I think they would be prime candidates. I wonder why America has leaned away from choosing service members. Because maybe after decades dealing with military-level bullshit they don't want to spend their golden years dealing with the ultimate-level bullshit.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Because maybe after decades dealing with military-level bullshit they don't want to spend their golden years dealing with the ultimate-level bullshit.

True and honest posr. Generals of this time are burnt out. They just want to fish and relax

Originally posted by Sin I AM
Can you truly say you love someone if you don't accept them for who they are? I think not

So if you have a child you can only love it if it does things that that you approve of?

Originally posted by Flyattractor
So if you have a child you can only love it if it does things that that you approve of?

Did you read what i wrote? Your question is opposite of my point.

Originally posted by Sin I AM
Did you read what i wrote? Your question is opposite of my point.

Honestly no.
Just looked at the post with all the pics....

Originally posted by Flyattractor
So if you have a child you can only love it if it does things that that you approve of?
IMHO Better example: You have a child who develops a drug addiction. But this is who they are now, so accept it LOL



As for the OP, it's an interesting topic. Not sure though if the experience in the military is necessarily a great indication one is suited for presidency.

The brass usually has their own level of inter-department politics and soul-sucking deceit to deal with. Someone who can navigate that successfully already has one major qualification under his belt.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
The brass usually has their own level of inter-department politics and soul-sucking deceit to deal with. Someone who can navigate that successfully already has one major qualification under his belt.
That is true.

Originally posted by Sin I AM
Can you truly say you love someone if you don't accept them for who they are? I think not

Yes of course you can. Do you think the parents of all the murderers in the world suddenly stop loving their children? Yet I doubt they are accepting of who their child chose to be.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yes of course you can. Do you think the parents of all the murderers in the world suddenly stop loving their children? Yet I doubt they are accepting of who their child chose to be.

That's not unconditional love. Thats something else

Originally posted by Sin I AM
That's not unconditional love. Thats something else

Unconditional love means loving despite their faults. It doesn't mean you necessarily have to accept those faults, especially when one of the faults is being a rapist or murderer.

Unconditional love does not mean a person can do whatever they want and you still think they are totally 100% awesome.

If you have a kid who gets addicted to drugs you don't stop loving them, but it doesn't mean you accept it.

Originally posted by Surtur
Unconditional love means loving despite their faults. It doesn't mean you necessarily have to accept those faults, especially when one of the faults is being a rapist or murderer.

Unconditional love does not mean a person can do whatever they want and you still think they are totally 100% awesome.

If you have a kid who gets addicted to drugs you don't stop loving them, but it doesn't mean you accept it.

Agree to disagree. Unconditional to me means without any stips, limitless love. Your viewpoint isnt unconditional by your own description it places limitations on love. Imo

Lol but again..limitless love doesn't mean you support every single thing about someone or everything they do. You can say "I love you, but you murdered someone and that isn't okay". What is wrong with that? Limitless means without limit. Just because you aren't okay with your kid being a killer doesn't mean your love has limits. Your love would have limits if you began to hate your child for this.

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol but again..limitless love doesn't mean you support every single thing about someone or everything they do. You can say "I love you, but you murdered someone and that isn't okay". What is wrong with that? Limitless means without limit. Just because you aren't okay with your kid being a killer doesn't mean your love has limits. Your love would have limits if you began to hate your child for this.

You're contradicting yourself. On one hand you're saying "my love for you is infinite" but "only if you dont do xyz". I cant understand that stance

I can see why you don't understand because you apparently did not read what I said. I never said "I love you, but only if you don't do this". I said you can love someone without having to be accepting of everything about them. I never said any act would negate the love.

You seem to think unconditional love means not only do you love someone no matter what, but you also need to be okay with all their actions.

I get what you said i just summed it up in laymens