C-in-C Obama?

[Libsmasher]

That Obama has no relevent qualifications at all for the job of president has been clear for a long time now. One of the main areas of concern for me is the military - a person who has had absolutely no connection with the military (rare for a US president) would be suddenly promoted to Commander in Chief. It would be funny if it weren't so scary. All the officer corps in Iraq would have to watch the dispiriting spectacle of all their years of hard work NEEDLESSLY flushed down the drain in the wake of an Obama cut-and-run. My guess is that many of those officers - the captains and majors and colonels that are the backbone of the military, rather than serve under a person who has no clue what he's doing, would call it a career and bail out of the armed services. And this, just as Russia and China are emerging as strong potential threats.

 

[Bunz]

For the record, anyone in the know about the military will tell you it is not the middle ranking officer core that is the backbone of the military, but it is its NCOs. Also, the Captains, Majors and Colonels you describe have already left in droves due to the inept current leadership.

As for Russia and China, they have always been there. Always be there. A shooting war with them directly is much more likely when we have the war hawk with a heavy temper and a touch of dementia running the show. Either way, considering that the MAD policy hasnt changed in 50 odd years, if it happens humanity wont be around the debate what went wrong.

 

[Libsmasher]

For the record, anyone in the know about the military will tell you it is not the middle ranking officer core that is the backbone of the military, but it is its NCOs.

Nope - they're too low and generals are too high. It's the colonels who manage the brigades that win or lose wars.

Also, the Captains, Majors and Colonels you describe have already left in droves due to the inept current leadership.

Evidence?

As for Russia and China, they have always been there. Always be there. A shooting war with them directly is much more likely when we have the war hawk with a heavy temper and a touch of dementia running the show.

Unserious post? OK - bye bye!

 

[Bunz]

Nope - they're too low and generals are too high. It's the colonels who manage the brigades that win or lose wars.

Well when you ask the colonels and well anyone when it comes to military circles, it is the NCOs that are the backbone of the military. They are the ones that actually execute the orders. This is not a secret, you and I both know this.

Evidence?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-03-12-officer-shortage_N.htm
By Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY
WEST POINT, N.Y. — The Army, forced by five years of war to expand its ranks, faces a critical shortage of midlevel officers, interviews and military records show.
Those officers — majors and lieutenant colonels — manage troops at war. The Army estimates it has about 13,900 majors and 8,750 lieutenant colonels this year. It expects to have an annual shortage of 3,000 such officers through 2013 as it increases its ranks by 40,000 soldiers.

Beyond the shortage of midlevel officers looms an impending shortage of entry-level officers — lieutenants — from the U.S. Military Academy and university Reserve Officers' Training Corps programs. Last year, 846 cadets graduated from West Point; the goal was 900. There were 25,100 enrolled in ROTC out of a goal of 31,000, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congress' investigative agency.

Unserious post? OK - bye bye!

Unserious? Seems you can dish out all sorts of BS about Obama but when some of it comes back to your geriatric messiah, you cut and run quicker than you claim Obama will get out of Iraq.
I will stand by my claim that McCain is much more likely to involve the US in another shooting war with another country, even possibly nuclear rivals Russia and China.

 

[Libsmasher]

Quote:
Evidence?

Quote:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...shortage_N.htm
By Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY
WEST POINT, N.Y. — The Army, forced by five years of war to expand its ranks, faces a critical shortage of midlevel officers, interviews and military records show.
Those officers — majors and lieutenant colonels — manage troops at war. The Army estimates it has about 13,900 majors and 8,750 lieutenant colonels this year. It expects to have an annual shortage of 3,000 such officers through 2013 as it increases its ranks by 40,000 soldiers.

Beyond the shortage of midlevel officers looms an impending shortage of entry-level officers — lieutenants — from the U.S. Military Academy and university Reserve Officers' Training Corps programs. Last year, 846 cadets graduated from West Point; the goal was 900. There were 25,100 enrolled in ROTC out of a goal of 31,000, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congress' investigative agency.

Expanding ranks is not the same as officers LEAVING - try again.

Quote:
Unserious post? OK - bye bye!

Unserious? Seems you can dish out all sorts of BS about Obama but when some of it comes back to your geriatric messiah, you cut and run quicker than you claim Obama will get out of Iraq.
I will stand by my claim that McCain is much more likely to involve the US in another shooting war with another country, even possibly nuclear rivals Russia and China.

I stand by every single syllable I've said about Obama, and DARE you to prove me wrong. Your comment about "dementia" is just typical Obamabot defamation for which you have not the slightest shred of proof.

 

[GOP(JT)]

Expanding ranks is not the same as officers LEAVING - try again.




I stand by every single syllable I've said about Obama, and DARE you to prove me wrong. Your comment about "dementia" is just typical Obamabot defamation for which you have not the slightest shred of proof.

Mccain's mother is 90 something and she doesn't seem to have lost any of her mental capability. I think dimentia is an unlikely problem for mccain

 

[lipmonkey]

That Obama has no relevent qualifications at all for the job of president has been clear for a long time now. One of the main areas of concern for me is the military - a person who has had absolutely no connection with the military (rare for a US president) would be suddenly promoted to Commander in Chief.

You mean none that you feel are relevant. A simple "conection" doesn't mean a lot really. Take a look at Bush for example. Simply flying a plane doesn't seem to have seved him well where decision making is concerned.

All the officer corps in Iraq would have to watch the dispiriting spectacle of all their years of hard work NEEDLESSLY flushed down the drain in the wake of an Obama cut-and-run.

I disagree. With a new president in place that has stated that he supports a withdrawl it might make them finally see a light at the end of the tunnel.

My guess is that many of those officers - the captains and majors and colonels that are the backbone of the military, rather than serve under a person who has no clue what he's doing, would call it a career and bail out of the armed services.

They are currently serving under a commander in chief who doesn't have a clue so I doubt that will affect them much.

 

[The Scotsman]

Nope - they're too low and generals are too high. It's the colonels who manage the brigades that win or lose wars.

...........bollocks

 

[r0beph]

Of course libsmasher, since being well connected to the military is great for a president. I mean look at bush with all his experience, he's taken more power and control over the military than any president in history. He's stirring **** in the balkans, peppering it with border incursions into an allies territory, spreading our ranks thin and disregarding the veterans medical needs.

I mean remember also, if you vote for McCain, you're really just voting for Palin, McCain will not last beyond 2 years in office, the guy will die of something while in office, I can almost guarantee that. We'll see for sure once his medical records come clear, but I'm betting skin cancer or Cerebral Vascular problems. and sir, Palin as commander in chief is asking for some serious ****.

 

[Libsmasher]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
That Obama has no relevent qualifications at all for the job of president has been clear for a long time now. One of the main areas of concern for me is the military - a person who has had absolutely no connection with the military (rare for a US president) would be suddenly promoted to Commander in Chief.

You mean none that you feel are relevant. A simple "conection" doesn't mean a lot really. Take a look at Bush for example. Simply flying a plane doesn't seem to have seved him well where decision making is concerned.

It's a continuing misapprehension for you libs, but Bush isn't running for president. And McCain's "connection" is certainly deep and profound. Obama on the other hand has as much connection with the military as he does with general relativity, or come to think of it ANY intellectual endeavor.

Quote:
All the officer corps in Iraq would have to watch the dispiriting spectacle of all their years of hard work NEEDLESSLY flushed down the drain in the wake of an Obama cut-and-run.

I disagree. With a new president in place that has stated that he supports a withdrawl it might make them finally see a light at the end of the tunnel.

I have no clue what that means, and I doubt anyone else does.

Quote:
My guess is that many of those officers - the captains and majors and colonels that are the backbone of the military, rather than serve under a person who has no clue what he's doing, would call it a career and bail out of the armed services.

They are currently serving under a commander in chief who doesn't have a clue so I doubt that will affect them much.

Save the masturbatory non-debate for someone else's threads, OK?