Gates: Obama is more analytical than Bush

[jillio]

U.S. Military Recruiting Demographics


perhaps you should visit West Point.... It is educational. The demography and the old stereotype of US Military is just not what you thought it was.... and that is where your shortcoming of knowledge in this issue is clearly evident.

And the majority are still enlisted men and women, not West Point graduates. Your extensive postings have simply supported that.

Now, back on topic.

 

[Foxrac]

You are entitled to your opinion. The majority of the American voters happen to disagree with you, however.

There's no point for majority, neither democrat or republican members make up any majority in America, only independent, it means no affiliate with either of parties but maybe leaning to one side to other side.

If you said polls in individual media, polls don't count all of US adult population.

 

[Foxrac]

:roll:


watching online/tv news medias are all over the world. duh

Not all of it, some media are exclusive.

 

[jillio]

There's no point for majority, neither democrat or republican members make up any majority in America, only independent, it means no affiliate with either of parties but maybe leaning to one side to other side.

If you said polls in individual media, polls don't count all of US adult population.

It certainly mattered this election. Remember the landslide?

 

[Foxrac]

It certainly mattered this election. Remember the landslide?

If landslide make any happen then majority of independent voters are leaning to Obama over McCain, there's alot of factors to make victory in election.

We had republican and democrat presidents in last many decade ago, we will have republican president in next election or after Obama's 2nd term or who know it.

Majority of Americans are care about who that what they like than focus on party.

 

[Jiro]

And the majority are still enlisted men and women, not West Point graduates. Your extensive postings have simply supported that.

Now, back on topic.

Perhaps you need to reread my posts. It is not about West Point graduates. My extensive postings does not support your statement which stated "The military, by and large, has always been composed of people coming from less than affluent backgrounds, most especially since the draft was outlawed."

 

[jillio]

If landslide make any happen then majority of independent voters are leaning to Obama over McCain, there's alot of factors to make victory in election.

We had republican and democrat presidents in last many decade ago, we will have republican president in next election or after Obama's 2nd term or who know it.

Majority of Americans are care about who that what they like than focus on party.

And the whole point is, the majority disagreed with Bush's handling of the war, and it was an influence on their decision to support Obama in this election.

 

[jillio]

Perhaps you need to reread my posts. It is not about West Point graduates. My extensive postings does not support your statement which stated "The military, by and large, has always been composed of people coming from less than affluent backgrounds, most especially since the draft was outlawed."

Nor does your post refer to "affluence". Likewise, you stated in said post, again, that perhaps I should visit West Point, which again brings it into the topic. Irrelevently, but it brings it in, all the same. West Point is not indicative of the majority ppopulation in the military, and therefore, your constant use of such as an example is fallicious.

 

[Foxrac]

And the whole point is, the majority disagreed with Bush's handling of the war, and it was an influence on their decision to support Obama in this election.

Ok, I don't know that until you made point about war issue.

I found your debate is more enjoyable and civil than others.

 

[Jiro]

Nor does your post refer to "affluence". Likewise, you stated in said post, again, that perhaps I should visit West Point, which again brings it into the topic. Irrelevently, but it brings it in, all the same. West Point is not indicative of the majority ppopulation in the military, and therefore, your constant use of such as an example is fallicious.

Again... my post has refuted your statement that military population does not largely comprise of those from "less than affluent" backgrounds because it implies the US military is a "poor man's force." According to the finding - "on the socioeconomic side, the military is strongly middle class, Gilroy said."

My suggestion for you to visit West Point does not imply that majority of population in military is West Point graduates. It's to give you a renewed respect and optimistic view on military because your post has a hint of disdained/negative view of military.

That is why I prefer President to have a military background (even just for 3 years) because any President's decision regarding military is a multifaceted issue. That's the best way to understand the complicated, intrinsic nature of defense budget and national security policy... It beats listening to each member to speak their mind for hours at conference room. That's why GWB does not need to listen to every single person's opinion to make a military decision.

 

[deafskeptic]

Again... my post has refuted your statement that military population does not largely comprise of those from "less than affluent" backgrounds because it implies the US military is a "poor man's force." According to the finding - "on the socioeconomic side, the military is strongly middle class, Gilroy said."

My suggestion for you to visit West Point does not imply that majority of population in military is West Point graduates. It's to give you a renewed respect and optimistic view on military because your post has a hint of disdained/negative view of military.

That is why I prefer President to have a military background (even just for 3 years) because any President's decision regarding military is a multifaceted issue. That's the best way to understand the complicated, intrinsic nature of defense budget and national security policy... It beats listening to each member to speak their mind for hours at conference room. That's why GWB does not need to listen to every single person's opinion to make a military decision.

Some of our greatest presidents (Lincoln,Jefferson, FDR among others) never served in the military or had a military background so I don't think it's de rigeur for them to have military experience. I would think they were well served by advisors who had such a background.

 

[jillio]

Some of our greatest presidents (Lincoln,Jefferson, FDR among others) never served in the military or had a military background so I don't think it's de rigeur for have military experience. I would think they were sell served by advisors who had such a background.

Exactly. That is the whole point of choosing one's advisors well. One man cannot be expected to have espertise in all areas.

 

[Hear Again]

A President doesn't need experience in the military to understand national security. That's what they have a Defense Secretary for as well as the Department of Homeland Security.

 

[naisho]

Some of you guys may not be catching the point.

The motives of the Revolutionary War =/= The Civil War =/= World War II =/= Cold War =/= Modern Iraq.

This is why it is hard to draw a conclusion based on the previous generations of ex-presidents.

Hell, John F Kennedy was a Vietnam soldier; I believe the majority consensus was that he was a great president. Credit where credit’s due, can’t we also agree that there were great presidents who also served in the military?
Yeah, they were wars for that era of that particular time. Could one quickly make a perfunctory decision and say that all the consequences of those wars face the same results that Obama faces with Iraq today?

Any clairvoyant individual will see that as modern era, technology, laws became advanced, it became much difficult to draw solid decisions. A clueless one will have yet even more trouble, and have to rely on what others tell him rather than an educational background.

What it really boils down to right now is, do you believe in experience first, or education first? This question is applying for anything regarding an individual’s beliefs in life.

The point is, if the president is capable enough faced in rational issue to make _his_ (or her) own decision from their _own_ perspective, THEN see what the advisers and their "professional" dudes and people have to garble in the matter.

It’s what S.D. Rumsfeld was good at, despite getting shot down - drawing his own opinion to how he thought something should be carried out, by his own honest words. I don't think he required needing advice from another colleague.

Course, there are protégés that shadow around with these guys and their purpose is to make sure that who makes the right decisions, and what the public will perceive of it.

However, I don't think what’s being discussed.

I never bothered to understand the ulterior motives of those that are pro on having background in military relations until this discussion. By just listening to what they have to say, and giving it simple thought — it is quite understandable why they continually choose and favor to do so.

 

[Jiro]

Some of our greatest presidents (Lincoln,Jefferson, FDR among others) never served in the military or had a military background so I don't think it's de rigeur for them to have military experience. I would think they were well served by advisors who had such a background.

sorry but Lincoln and Jefferson have served in military. check your history. Again - you forgot to remember my comment that extensive experience in civil service can compensate for it. Obama has neither. I believe First Lady Michelle Obama is even more qualified and passionated than Obama in that area... I actually thought she should have ran for President. I'd pick her over Hillary Clinton. oh well!

 

[Jiro]

Exactly. That is the whole point of choosing one's advisors well. One man cannot be expected to have espertise in all areas.

and Obama has chose Bush's advisors.... odd, huh?

 

[jillio]

and Obama has chose Bush's advisors.... odd, huh?

Not all of them, he hasn't.:roll:

 

[deafskeptic]

Some of you guys may not be catching the point.

The motives of the Revolutionary War =/= The Civil War =/= World War II =/= Cold War =/= Modern Iraq.

This is why it is hard to draw a conclusion based on the previous generations of ex-presidents.

Hell, John F Kennedy was a Vietnam soldier; I believe the majority consensus was that he was a great president. Credit where credit’s due, can’t we also agree that there were great presidents who also served in the military?
Yeah, they were wars for that era of that particular time. Could one quickly make a perfunctory decision and say that all the consequences of those wars face the same results that Obama faces with Iraq today?

Any clairvoyant individual will see that as modern era, technology, laws became advanced, it became much difficult to draw solid decisions. A clueless one will have yet even more trouble, and have to rely on what others tell him rather than an educational background.

What it really boils down to right now is, do you believe in experience first, or education first? This question is applying for anything regarding an individual’s beliefs in life.

The point is, if the president is capable enough faced in rational issue to make _his_ (or her) own decision from their _own_ perspective, THEN see what the advisers and their "professional" dudes and people have to garble in the matter.

It’s what S.D. Rumsfeld was good at, despite getting shot down - drawing his own opinion to how he thought something should be carried out, by his own honest words. I don't think he required needing advice from another colleague.

Course, there are protégés that shadow around with these guys and their purpose is to make sure that who makes the right decisions, and what the public will perceive of it.

However, I don't think what’s being discussed.

I never bothered to understand the ulterior motives of those that are pro on having background in military relations until this discussion. By just listening to what they have to say, and giving it simple thought — it is quite understandable why they continually choose and favor to do so.

JFK was a Vietnam soldier? That's news to me. I thought he served as as soldier in WW2?

Anyway, technology and social conditions may have changed but some things do not change. As our history books will point out, the majority of our greatest presidents didn't serve in the military or have a background pertaining to the military.

 

[Jiro]

A President doesn't need experience in the military to understand national security. That's what they have a Defense Secretary for as well as the Department of Homeland Security.

Like I said in post #50 -

Not always do we need a President with extensive military background like President Bush, Sr. because the time/trend changes all the time but I still always question especially the President with non-military background when making critical military decisions.

Right now - the foreign policy is the least of my concern. We have a serious domestic issue.... which is why I thought Obama is the better choice for it. In other word - the Isolationism (just for short time). Again - I will always question Obama regarding national security policy and defense policy.

 

[Jiro]

Not all of them, he hasn't.:roll:

I've never said all. Point is - Obama has heavily criticized in his campaign on Bush's poor handling of wars and his "disgusting" disregard of the Constitution & Geneva Convention.... so why would he appoint Bush's advisers? They will advise him the same way they advised for Bush. :roll: