McChrystal Article

[runwhiteyrun06]

I totally agree that mccrystal wanted to go. Its the only explanation for such an obvious mistake.  You don't get where he got without some political savvy.  It was a f*ck for a person in his position . . .but seemingly not for him personally.  So do we see Palin/McCrystal 2012?  'We won't quit on democracy . . .just on alaska and the armed forces'

I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but I'm pretty sure I read that McChrystal is at least a liberally socially and voted for Obama.

[vansmack]

You really have no idea what you're talking about.   If you're not in the military, you are a civilian.    You cannot be in the military and hold another full time job, whether it's President or Car Wash Specialist.  You should stick to discussing your latest cell phones.

I'll get to the phones in a minute.

Now you're using technicalities, which is exactly the point I made from the beginning to undermine you're orignal argument.

You were upset that there was a notion made that Obama is unfit to serve as commander in chief of the Armed Forces because he never served in the military.

You said "The whole reason the President is Commander in Chief is the founders recognized the importance of civilian control of the military."

If every President is a civilain regardless of military service, a point which you somehow think I don't understand, then why would you opposed to an idea that every President needs to have military experience using the argument that the founding fathers wanted civilian control?  If every President is a civilian then having the requirement that every President have military expericene doesn't effect your argument one bit because every President is a civilain, and thus maintaining civilian control of the military.       

[vansmack]

Now, going back to my original point, civilian vs military experience had absolutely no bearing on the founding fathers decision to make the President in charge of the armed forces.

The only thing that mattered was that the military was not one of the pillars of our democracy, that the President did not have autonomous authority without the consent of congress, and that the Supreme Court has oversight authority.

We have had great Presidents with substantial military experience and great Presidents with no military experience (as well as bad Presidents in each category).  The only thing that matters is that they were elected by the people and upheld the constitution when it comes to the military, or suffered the consequences when they didn't (whether that was criminal or lack of re-election).

[Herr Professor Doktor Doom]

You really have no idea what you're talking about.   If you're not in the military, you are a civilian.    You cannot be in the military and hold another full time job, whether it's President or Car Wash Specialist.  You should stick to discussing your latest cell phones.

I'll get to the phones in a minute.

Now you're using technicalities, which is exactly the point I made from the beginning to undermine you're orignal argument.

You were upset that there was a notion made that Obama is unfit to serve as commander in chief of the Armed Forces because he never served in the military.

You said "The whole reason the President is Commander in Chief is the founders recognized the importance of civilian control of the military."

If every President is a civilain regardless of military service, a point which you somehow think I don't understand, then why would you opposed to an idea that every President needs to have military experience using the argument that the founding fathers wanted civilian control?  If every President is a civilian then having the requirement that every President have military expericene doesn't effect your argument one bit because every President is a civilain, and thus maintaining civilian control of the military.       

This is a nonsensical and circular argument of the sort one only finds on computer forums.  The idea that you cannot be a President without a military background implicitly calls into question the concept of civilian control, even if a President is no longer in the military.   

[vansmack]

This is a nonsensical and circular argument of the sort one only finds on computer forums. 

I know.  That's YOUR argument and I was pointing out how circular it was.

[runwhiteyrun06]

[vansmack]

Come on - it's fantastic that we have spent this much time agreeing on the what (military service should not be a requirement for President) but not on the why (founding fathers intentions).  Only on the internet and I would argue even more so, only on the 9:30 board.

I blame the Japan-Paraguay game.  If that game was even the slightest bit exciting I never would have clicked on this thread.... 

[ggw]

I know.  That's YOUR argument and I was pointing out how circular it was.

Try speaking slowly to him, as if to a retarded adult.

[killsaly]

Wow, the first topic i ever made on here...

I dont think it is necessary to have been in the military first to become commander and chief, but it helps.

So does being smart.

And being a great rhetorician.

And being a governor.

Or secretary of state. 

[godsshoeshine]

you know what helps generals succeed? not guzzling bud light limes in front of a journalist

[vansmack]

bud light lime 

I thought that was the street lingo for Afghan opiates?

[godsshoeshine]

man, i had to fix that post.

opiates would be more respectable