Since Arab men are sexually bias Is this the wrong time for America to break the Presidential gender barrier??

Question

I'm not anti Hillary but I see this as a time to have a strong Military man as President.

Even though McCain is a bit of a lose canon I think his back ground makes him good for the job at this time.

Oh where oh where is Colin Powell.

On the other hand Clinton would have bombed the snot out of AlQaeda if it hadn't been for Newt's Coup (Contract with America)

And Hillary is no doubt much more inclined to use force than Bill

I did not intend sexually bias as a racist statement. The Arab men brag about not alowing women to drive vote ect.

The burka is the way of life for millions of Arab women.

Answer 1

You know. It just may be the ULTIMATE HAHA towards them.

Answer 2

Given that Golda Meir managed to earn the respect of Arab leaders, I don't see that it's necessarily a problem.

I can see an argument, based on W. Bush's history "serving" in a draft-dodgers' unit, that having someone who really appreciates the risks commanding the military is better than having someone who treats real soldiers like a child's tin toys.

However, I think the crucial need here is a grasp of reality. John McCain is by all accounts a very good person, and he certainly understands the risks of war at a personal level, but his notion that marching into a market in Baghdad protected by a bulletproof vest and two companies of soldiers proves that it's become "safe" is a little over the top. I keep expecting him to say straight out that we should win this war the way we did the one in Vietnam.

Colin Powell also understands military matters, but I'm not certain that I can trust him after the bogus "evidence" presentation to the Security Council. The U.S. military knew darned well that those alleged portable biological weapons factories were rail-car-mounted fermentation systems with peaceful applications. (Saddam acquired them when he was a golden-boy client of the Reagan-Bush Republican administrations, prior to 1990.)

A person without military background might be better than a person whose "service" was a political gimmick. We seem to have avoided a lot of military fiascos between the two Presidents Bush, and stumbled into a couple immediately after.

I want a President who will not sacrifice American soldiers for personal or political gain, but only place them at risk when necessary to defend the country. It's clear to me that a lot of others lack that level of judgment; it is not entirely clear that Hillary possesses it.

Answer 3

Colin Powell hasn't been seen since it became obvious that Bush used him at the UN.
Why do we think that our country should be run based on the preferences of the Arabs? Does this really seem the thing to do, alter our beliefs and way of life to appease the Arab world?
I'm not sure a strong military man is the way to go, it would n't be bad in and of itself, but FDR wasn't a military man and he did fine, while Ike was and we got a fifty year truce in Korea instead of a decisive win. All the Presidents we had during Viet Nam were in the service, and it made no difference.
We need to remember that we are the most powerful nation on earth at present. They need to remember that we aren't to be toyed with, that we aren't all Bushly incompetents.
Male or female.

Answer 4

To answer the first question....why should we allow the Arabs to dictate who we should elect because of gender?
As for McCain he is just a loser who has bowed down to GWBs masters since the 2000 election!That simple fact was proven when he pushed the interrogation bill before the republicans lost control of congress last year!
As for Powell he lost any credibility when he went in front of the UN with the administrations distorted facts about Iraq's WMD program!

Answer 5

A military dictatorship you want. oh sorry forgot to read the McCain part. hate to tell you this but what makes you think a person who has a military background would be any good. who was the last Eisenhower. he done well really and when he left office he warned of the Military industrial complex. that group is still around and stronger now than it was.

Answer 6

I dont see any relevance between the US presidency and the narrow minded Arab sexual Mentality because that is confined only in the Arab culture and societies in the Middle East.
Hillary Clinton will make a good and strong President, maybe same as the powerful Margaret Thatcher of Britain.

Answer 7

We don't elect our Presidents to please other countries or adhere to their sexist standards. The Arabs can have any attitude they please about women. It hasn't changed in centuries past, nor is there any sign of it ever changing. Are we supposed to make our decisions based on a society of backward thinkers who put their own women in prison for having the extreme bad luck to be a rape victim?

The Arab world will deal with having a woman who is the President of the United States. They've been dealing with women heads of state for decades. Have they been rude to Condoleeza Rice or refused to accept her as the Secretary of State? Of course not. This is possibly the worst argument there is for not electing a woman President, and the most cowardly.

Answer 8

It's exactly the opposite. Having a woman President in the U.S. will lead to a revolution in the Muslim world with the women of Islam rising up and modernizing their antiquated religion. The women of Islam have no need for 7 virgins in the afterlife. The women of Islam are our only hope. Feminist solidarity may be the thing we need to alter our belligerent, patriarchal world.

Answer 9

We should not care what arabs think

PS Any one except Hillary in '08

PSS Obama too

Answer 10

The perception of Arab men or any other group is irrelevent.

It's a question of who can do the best job.

Answer 11

I would love to know that these b******s were squirming in their dresses because they would have to deal with a woman on equal or better footing.

Just The Hilde beast is not the one.