Question for BoomerD and any others who served in NAM.

[BoomerD]

I've always thought that any candidate for President should have to be a combat veteran....Not just "had served in the military," but an actual veteran of combat...of course, the US Constitution doesn't say that, so it'll never happen.

 

[lxskllr]

I've always thought that any candidate for President should have to be a combat veteran....Not just "had served in the military," but an actual veteran of combat...of course, the US Constitution doesn't say that, so it'll never happen.

I could go for that. Keep our asses clean long enough, no one would be qualified for office. One less politician to deal with, and we can take care of the rest later :^)

 

[Terzo]

I've always thought that any candidate for President should have to be a combat veteran....Not just "had served in the military," but an actual veteran of combat...of course, the US Constitution doesn't say that, so it'll never happen.

Out of curiosity, would you require they have been in front line combat, or would you allow support troops (mechanics, field doctors, whatever else there is) to qualify?

 

[BoomerD]

Out of curiosity, would you require they have been in front line combat, or would you allow support troops (mechanics, field doctors, whatever else there is) to qualify?

Service in a combat theater would be enough. Clerk, quartermaster, front-line rifleman, pilot, doctor/nurse in a field hospital...it's still combat.
It's a way to weed out the REMF's who never see a day of combat in any way, yet get the same benefits as the guys in the trenches with the 1000 yard stare.

I realize it's not workable...nor would it ever happen...but how the fuck can anyone who's never seen the carnage of combat be qualified to send troops into harm's way?

(of course, I also think lawyers should be permanently banned from holding ANY public office outside the department of justice)

 

[Inspector Jihad]

I've always thought that any candidate for President should have to be a combat veteran....Not just "had served in the military," but an actual veteran of combat...of course, the US Constitution doesn't say that, so it'll never happen.

is it because you feel that it would make the president more careful in deciding to go into armed conflicts?

edit: just saw your prior post. makes sense, but if we needed presidents to have some sort of 'work experience' in everything they're going to be involved in, the list of candidates would be mighty thin.

 

[BoomerD]

is it because you feel that it would make the president more careful in deciding to go into armed conflicts?

edit: just saw your prior post. makes sense, but if we needed presidents to have some sort of 'work experience' in everything they're going to be involved in, the list of candidates would be mighty thin.

Hell, I don't see that as a bad thing...as it is, we get all sorts of "unqualified" people in office...

I know we're a "government of the people, by the people, for the people," but we need QUALIFIED people...

Of course, on the negative side of having a combat veteran requirement...Adolph Hitler was a corporal in the German Army during WWI...

 

[Kirby]

My mom's brother that died earlier this year was a Nam vet. Never spoke a word about it, except that he thought Agent Orange gave him throat cancer (which eventually killed him).

Her oldest brother was in Nam too, but a contractor. He never spoke about it, but my mom said he had a Vietnamese girlfriend that was killed.

I have another uncle on my dad's side that won't talk about it either.

 

[Locut0s]

I've always thought that any candidate for President should have to be a combat veteran....Not just "had served in the military," but an actual veteran of combat...of course, the US Constitution doesn't say that, so it'll never happen.

Problem with that is that it assumes continual ongoing wars in which candidates could, or should serve. The goal should be no wars or as few as possible (since human nature basically make none impossible). That's why I think forcing them to enlist their sons and daughters is a good idea. That way if they want to get involved in a war they are forced to think about making the ultimate sacrifice, not your own life but the lives of those you love.

 

[schneiderguy]

Was the M16 really as unreliable as everyone says it was?

 

[BoomerD]

Problem with that is that it assumes continual ongoing wars in which candidates could, or should serve. The goal should be no wars or as few as possible (since human nature basically make none impossible). That's why I think forcing them to enlist their sons and daughters is a good idea. That way if they want to get involved in a war they are forced to think about making the ultimate sacrifice, not your own life but the lives of those you love.

OK, I can't argue against that either. In time of war, there should be NO exemptions except for severe disability...no "anal cyst" exemptions. No "I'm in college...I don't have to serve," no "I'm rich, so my children don't have to serve...that's for peons."

 

[Binarycow]

the thing about humans is memories die with people. 100 years from now when all people that were involved have died youngsters won't be able to tell who we fought agaisnt in VN. They probably will answer it was the australians that we fought like how some now would answer about the revolutionary war.

 

[Locut0s]

OK, I can't argue against that either. In time of war, there should be NO exemptions except for severe disability...no "anal cyst" exemptions. No "I'm in college...I don't have to serve," no "I'm rich, so my children don't have to serve...that's for peons."

I bow to your experience and thank you for what you have sacrificed, truly I do. But personally I'm very anti war, except in the most extreme of cases. I'm also a pussy so I'd probably flee the country if it came down to it.

 

[lxskllr]

the thing about humans is memories die with people. 100 years from now when all people that were involved have died youngsters won't be able to tell who we fought agaisnt in VN. They probably will answer it was the australians that we fought like how some now would answer about the revolutionary war.

People already can't place the 20th century wars in the proper decade :^S

 

[BoomerD]

the thing about humans is memories die with people. 100 years from now when all people that were involved have died youngsters won't be able to tell who we fought agaisnt in VN. They probably will answer it was the australians that we fought like how some now would answer about the revolutionary war.

People already can't place the 20th century wars in the proper decade :^S

Sounds like an episode of "Jaywalking:"

"Who did the US fight in the Vietnam War?"

"Ummm....Japan."

"Japan? OK... when did this take place?"

"Ummm...in the 1870s?"

 

[Locut0s]

Sounds like an episode of "Jaywalking:"

"Who did the US fight in the Vietnam War?"

"Ummm....Japan."

"Japan? OK... when did this take place?"

"Ummm...in the 1870s?"

It's sad but the really scary thing is you can tell just walking around your average neighborhood that they didn't work very hard to find these people.

 

[Rudee]

A couple years back I met a Vietnam vet who had participated in the battle of Fire Support Base Ripcord in July, 1970 near the end of the war. The story he told me captivated me, and I couldn't believe I hadn't heard about this battle before. I ended up doing some research and was able to locate an excellent paperback book on the account: Ripcord: Screaming Eagles Under Siege, Vietnam 1970. I've read a few books about the Vietnam war, and this one is my absolute favorite. Could not put it down. I highly recommend it.

 

[yllus]

I've always thought that any candidate for President should have to be a combat veteran....Not just "had served in the military," but an actual veteran of combat...of course, the US Constitution doesn't say that, so it'll never happen.

Less serious, but I think it'd be fun, in the same way Marines are required to, if the President was required to pass a marksmanship qualification program every year. Even better, require all of Congress to do the same.

 

[Broheim]

Was the M16 really as unreliable as everyone says it was?

it wasn't the rifle, but the ammo.

 

[BoomerD]

Less serious, but I think it'd be fun, in the same way Marines are required to, if the President was required to pass a marksmanship qualification program every year. Even better, require all of Congress to do the same.

You just keep your nose out of US issues...you Canuckistanian terrerst!

 

[gaidensensei]

is it because you feel that it would make the president more careful in deciding to go into armed conflicts?

edit: just saw your prior post. makes sense, but if we needed presidents to have some sort of 'work experience' in everything they're going to be involved in, the list of candidates would be mighty thin.

It could be a good thing. Less quantity, more quality, less sponsor money. Never met a honest military man who did not do what he said.

Boomer, never knew you toured Vietnam. I'm sure it's not something you're fond of remembering, but I'm honored and jealous in a way to read of all these experiences in life you've gotten.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I've always thought that any candidate for President should have to be a combat veteran....Not just "had served in the military," but an actual veteran of combat...of course, the US Constitution doesn't say that, so it'll never happen.

Clinton was the first modern president that did not serve.
Most also were in combat.

I would assume that the list of those that have not served is very short through the 20th Century.

 

[BoomerD]

Clinton was the first modern president that did not serve.
Most also were in combat.

I would assume that the list of those that have not served is very short through the 20th Century.

Yeah, I know. I always held that against Clinton...even though I voted for him both times...and in spite of the "Monica issue," thought he was a decent president.

My standard would have excluded Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama from candidacy. Bush daddy served honorably in combat...even though I thought he was a horrible president.

 

[Locut0s]

Yeah, I know. I always held that against Clinton...even though I voted for him both times...and in spite of the "Monica issue," thought he was a decent president.

My standard would have excluded Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama from candidacy. Bush daddy served honorably in combat...even though I thought he was a horrible president.

I don't really think combat experience is important so much as an open mind and a relatively good education. When it comes to foreign politics you need someone who really understands the world in all its complexity and not just US and "dem strange foreign types I don't like". Combat experience is certainly one way to get some idea of the complexity of world politics and cultures but equally as good if not better is a good well rounded education and an open mind.

 

[Luzah]

My best friend (whom has passed away) was in Vietnam from I -believe- '68 to 71'. He started off as a Combat Photographer, and left Vietnam as a SSGT of the USMC. I can remember asking him about what it was like over there, but he would never tell me. I shouldn't have let my curiosity get the best of me. He did have a box full of pictures that he was able to sneak home with him, and I will never forget some of the images I seen.

Sadly, the war really messed him up bad and when he got home he started to drink heavily and drank himself to death. I've never met a more kinder, gentler man than him and I most likely never will. I will never understand what happened to him, and I don't think I want to.


P.S No, he never brought a Vietnamese woman home with him

 

[NetWareHead]

Hell, I don't see that as a bad thing...as it is, we get all sorts of "unqualified" people in office...

I know we're a "government of the people, by the people, for the people," but we need QUALIFIED people...

Of course, on the negative side of having a combat veteran requirement...Adolph Hitler was a corporal in the German Army during WWI...

The speculation about Hitler is endless but in WW1 he was blinded by mustard gas during a battle. That experience (according to many historians) was the reason why Hitler never authorized Nazi Germany's use of chemical and nerve weapons because he feared likewise retaliation from the allies.