I am a veteran of this war and it really makes me wonder what is going on in this country. In the 1960's 40% of our Congress had military experience, today it is around 10%. I personally don't trust politicians who like to flex military muscle without any practical idea about what the ramifications are.
2006-11-20 12:32:56 · 15 answers · asked by rickymojo8 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Please feel free to give me examples of war hawks or neo-cons who have served.
2006-11-20 12:33:39 · update #1
I trust John McCain for the same reason I distrust this president and his "brain trust."
2006-11-20 12:54:14 · update #2
war-hawk, serving
2006-11-20 12:36:55 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Its like football, we all think we can do a better job coaching than the head coach, even though none of us have coached football let alone at the professional level.
However, unlike football, just because one has served in the military, doesn't mean that they will have the level of knowledge that you are suggesting. Try to remember that the top 3 spots on any member of the armed services chain of command are filled by civilians. Two of them are appointed and one is an elected politician. This is just the way it was setup. All we can do is hope that the politicians listen to the military leaders.
Served: 3ID, 1ID, 2AD, 1st Cav, III Corps, 2AD, 2ID
2006-11-20 12:53:01 · answer #2 · answered by AJ 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
"War hawk" serving. Deployed. In Afghanistan.
Forgive me answering a question with a question. Do you not beleive in our system of government which has always featured civilian control of the military?
Do you believe that only veterans should be allowed to comment on, let alone formulate, foreign policy?
Have you not considered that these are the logical concusions of the train of thought you've begun here?
2006-11-20 12:45:24 · answer #3 · answered by RTO Trainer 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
War hawk.
Iraq vet. Retired after being declared nondeployable because of PTSD.
My son is in basic training - infantry.
BTW - the percentage of people in congress with military service or family in the military is higher than that of the general population. Deal With It.
2006-11-20 13:27:44 · answer #4 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
General Dwight D. Eisenhower won by a landslide. Why are you calling out neo-cons? When we fight the terrorists do you suggest we split in 2-3 groups? Gee, to start with, in a war doesn't everyone need to be on the same page? While I guess it's fun to engage the verbal combat of politics, if it remains such a factor as to disunite our MAJOR side,USA, we need to disarm it if we want to be strong.
You wouldn't like McCain anyway your biased. Have you listened to him, he makes sense. About trust, look at Pelosi you like, tried to sway votes for her guy already and LOST. I don't feel good about her already!
2006-11-20 12:59:50 · answer #5 · answered by spareo1 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You do understand that in the 60's, we had people who served in WWII (draft), Korea (draft again) Vietnam (AHHH yes....that pesky old draft yet again). We have been fortunate to have an all volunteer military since 1973, so of course you are going to have a much smaller number. As a veteran you are fully aware that just because you have served, it does not automatically qualify you to lead.
USAF Veteran
2006-11-20 12:39:36 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I prefer to have a commander-in-chief that has actually seen someone die, held in his arms a bleeding buddy or experienced some tragedy where he actually saw the face of death. It is telling of leadership to come out of these situations and then able to make decisions about war, health care and issues that are life and death matters.
It worries me that so few of our leaders have never faced death, been caregivers or have been in the military. They are too fast and loose with our most precious resource.
2006-11-20 13:37:11 · answer #7 · answered by copestir 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Served 3rd Armored Cavalry
2006-11-20 12:38:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I like to take it a little further and say that most war "hawks" don't have any "combat" experience which would include many more "hawks" including Bush and Rumsfeld. Unless you've been in combat you have no idea what war is all about and that couldn't be more clear than what we've seen from our "hawks" in US Govt over the last 3.5 years. Neo Cons on the other had are a bunch of people looking for revenge for the family members they lost in the Holocaust and/or to protect Israel at any cost.
2006-11-20 12:45:39 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
Because they're good talkers. Political echoes are invaluable in the government. More than an actual line infantryman in most cases. Particular if that government is not operating correctly. Further, it's a disgrace to send someone out to possibly die to defend high flown talk with an overabundance of gangsters in one's own country. It would seem, they will never see combat enjoying the luxury of being 'defended '. You'll have to forgive me. That's how I view the ' intelligence ' community as a whole as well. Actually, as a literal, physical hole.
2006-11-20 12:37:09 · answer #10 · answered by vanamont7 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Those who have served most likely have seen the horrors of war; and the glories of battle just not what its made out to be. War is old men talking and young men dying...
2006-11-20 12:51:19 · answer #11 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋