Those working on this mod do so in their own free time and for no pay.
Show your support for them by enabling ads on this site!

Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 100 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Verification:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
What is the name of the planet we live on? Type it backwards then add a 5.:
Who is taking revenge? (lowercase):

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: Isamu
« on: February 26, 2008, 08:48:44 PM »

what i meant was that a president should know what he/she is doing when it comes to war so they are not talked into doing something stupid by a military advisor who will not be taking responsibility for what the president orders. say clinton is elected and her military advisor convinces her to nuke iraq. who takes the blame for giving the order? clinton does.

No one is stupid enough to do that because some guy says to.  You forget that politicians never take the advice of those in the military any more

that was just an example
Posted by: Dane Kiet
« on: February 26, 2008, 07:08:34 PM »

Which is one of the problems......
Posted by: Scarecrow63
« on: February 26, 2008, 07:06:54 PM »

what i meant was that a president should know what he/she is doing when it comes to war so they are not talked into doing something stupid by a military advisor who will not be taking responsibility for what the president orders. say clinton is elected and her military advisor convinces her to nuke iraq. who takes the blame for giving the order? clinton does.

No one is stupid enough to do that because some guy says to.  You forget that politicians never take the advice of those in the military any more
Posted by: Enceladus
« on: February 26, 2008, 06:15:31 PM »

Well there is this system called a military dictatorship that allows the decision maker to be blamed....not that anything can be done about it.
Posted by: Isamu
« on: February 26, 2008, 05:56:12 PM »

what i meant was that a president should know what he/she is doing when it comes to war so they are not talked into doing something stupid by a military advisor who will not be taking responsibility for what the president orders. say clinton is elected and her military advisor convinces her to nuke iraq. who takes the blame for giving the order? clinton does.
Posted by: Dane Kiet
« on: February 26, 2008, 05:36:45 PM »

Maybe I should rephrase that. What I intended to say was is that the president needs to know how to properly balance resources between military and civilian areas of government... Like cash.
Posted by: Slornie
« on: February 26, 2008, 05:26:23 PM »

While I think the president needs to be a good leader, He (or she if we ever elect a woman) does not need to know how to fight a war from a STRATEGIC stand point. He/she would need to know how to fight from a LOGISTIC stand point.
I didnt think the President needed to be able to fight from either perspective - Doesnt the Pentagon have a load of military commanders, advisors, strategists, and associated personnel to do that?
Posted by: Dane Kiet
« on: February 26, 2008, 05:11:27 PM »

While I think the president needs to be a good leader, He (or she if we ever elect a woman) does not need to know how to fight a war from a STRATEGIC stand point. He/she would need to know how to fight from a LOGISTIC stand point.
Posted by: vadereclipse
« on: February 26, 2008, 04:52:53 PM »

I do understand that the president is the commander of the military as whole. You see we have it the same way. Halonen is the supreme commander of our military forces. But I doubt she knows how to fight wars. and that wasn't the reason she was elected. And what I've seen Bush to do he isn't so good commander himself. In Iraq there is casualties piling up on daily bases while you make near zero progress.

near zero progress? Casualties and enemy conflicts have been on the decline for a few months now......

how can you call it progress when nothing good has really come out of iraq. soldiers ahve died, al'quaeda have moved into iraq, and the war is endless. not progress, actually. plus, taxes and economy are damaged through an war.
Posted by: Scarecrow63
« on: February 26, 2008, 04:17:39 PM »

I do understand that the president is the commander of the military as whole. You see we have it the same way. Halonen is the supreme commander of our military forces. But I doubt she knows how to fight wars. and that wasn't the reason she was elected. And what I've seen Bush to do he isn't so good commander himself. In Iraq there is casualties piling up on daily bases while you make near zero progress.

near zero progress? Casualties and enemy conflicts have been on the decline for a few months now......
Posted by: Meyer
« on: February 26, 2008, 12:36:57 AM »

I do understand that the president is the commander of the military as whole. You see we have it the same way. Halonen is the supreme commander of our military forces. But I doubt she knows how to fight wars. and that wasn't the reason she was elected. And what I've seen Bush to do he isn't so good commander himself. In Iraq there is casualties piling up on daily bases while you make near zero progress.
Posted by: GrndAdmrlPellaeon
« on: February 26, 2008, 12:14:44 AM »

I agree with you we don't need a Republican and we don't need a Democrat. If their were a Democrat who could get the job done I would vote for him/her. Party doesn't matter, its like a glorified extracurricular club. Right now there is no one running on either side that I would vote for, and I hope that you will understand that saying that we don't need a Republican/Democrat is not an intelligent statement.

Right now we need someone who understands the economy, doesn't want to put taxes on paying taxes, someone who can fight a war and not make us look like sissies.


Also Meyer, because one of his main jobs as president is commander-in-chief, the commander of the military as whole. But I do understand that you don't know because you don't live here. This is why Obama and Clinton couldn't run the US, because they are PUSSIES!
Posted by: Meyer
« on: February 25, 2008, 11:55:31 PM »

Why would president need to know how to fight a war? That might cause some suspision on the world if your president was some war crazy loonie.
Posted by: Isamu
« on: February 25, 2008, 08:08:02 PM »

apparrently, he told a texas senator to "f**k off" for criticising one of his policies. do you really want a man like him in power of the USA?
Well, to be honest, if it were up to me, i would want someone who's honest and speaks his/her mind rather than someone who says one thing and means another, or just says what they think people want to hear.

nonetheless, a republican is the last thing america needs. i mean, name me a good republican president.
the only thing i requre out of a president is past military expierience, the knowlege of the usa economy, and the ability to fight a war well. everything you would expect out of a president branches out from there. like the really key stuff such as tax breaks.
Posted by: Scarecrow63
« on: February 25, 2008, 04:05:42 PM »

McCain considered by most to be one of the only actual 'good people' politicians (by good people i mean his history/likeability/personality).  But i'd pick Nader just cause i'm tired of real politicians.
Those working on this mod do so in their own free time and for no pay.
Show your support for them by enabling ads on this site!