• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

No Military Experience

saptech

saptech

Android Expert
Mitt Romney's selection of Paul Ryan makes this the first presidential election in 80 years in which no one on either ticket has served in the military.

The last time that happened was 1932, before the United States helped win World War II and became a military superpower.

Obama & Ryan were too young to be drafted during Vietnam, and neither volunteered, Biden & Romney was able to dodge getting drafted as most from wealthy families did.

Political rivals, military veterans among them, suggest that Romney's own decision not to serve in the military is in conflict with his pro-military rhetoric.

Just some thoughts.
 
saptech said:
Political rivals, military veterans among them, suggest that Romney's own decision not to serve in the military is in conflict with his pro-military rhetoric.
Click to expand...


so a person cant be in favor of a strong military unless they served........ hmmmm

I guess by this same logic a person cant support gays unless theyre gay

a man can never be pro-'choice'

etc, etc, derp derp
 
copestag said:
so a person cant be in favor of a strong military unless they served........ hmmmm

I guess by this same logic a person cant support gays unless theyre gay

a man can never be pro-'choice'

etc, etc, derp derp
Click to expand...
Obabma proved it...

It can be fine and dandy, until it's your turn...then it's a different story.

Though an early supporter of the Vietnam War, Romney avoided military service at the height of the fighting after high school by seeking and receiving four draft deferments, according to Selective Service records.
Click to expand...
Maybe he shouldn't be all high & mighty about the military and stick to creating jobs, unless they will be military jobs. There is nothing wrong with patting current & past veterans on the back.
 
again...... using your logic then..... unless you have served in the military you are not qualified to be President...... after all the President is the commander in chief...... someone without military experience should not be in charge of the military?

for that matter....... congress decides the military budget...... so unless youre a veteran you shouldnt be allowed in congress either?

at what point exactly did it become not OK for someone who hasnt served to be pro-military?
 
How about putting it this way. Some one who used wealth and privilage to avoid service during a time of war when the need for troops was bad enough to have a draft has no business acting like He's one of the boys with the Patriots who served our Nation. He also has no business being a war hawk and disregarding diplomacy and starting his run for office with war rhetoric against a country that has no hope of standing up to us.

My opinion that makes Romney a Bully and a Poser.
 
PH8AL said:
How about putting it this way. Some one who used wealth and privilage to avoid service during a time of war when the need for troops was bad enough to have a draft has no business acting like He's one of the boys with the Patriots who served our Nation. He also has no business being a war hawk and disregarding diplomacy and starting his run for office with war rhetoric against a country that has no hope of standing up to us.

My opinion that makes Romney a Bully and a Poser.
Click to expand...

http://androidforums.com/politics-current-affairs/524765-romney-vs-obama-9.html#post4533891
 
OutofDate1980 said:
http://androidforums.com/politics-current-affairs/524765-romney-vs-obama-9.html#post4533891
Click to expand...

Well there you have it. Obama might not have served but he is not a hawk either nor can you really point to were his lack of service has led to bad decision:os that cost lives. He also doesn't have 4 draft dodges to his credit.

Romney does and his war mongering is as harmful as Bush's and look at the trend Nice cushy Guard job he couldn't be bothered to get up and do.

If you love war Romney/Ryan are your guys.

Also for the Christians. If you are buying the crap about how Romney believes almost the same as you like Lutherans and Baptists well you really should google Kolob Star Babies and dang I can't remember what the eye glasses with the stone glued to them were called but were supposed to llet you see the flesh and blood God the Father in the center of the Galaxy
 
PH8AL said:
How about putting it this way. Some one who used wealth and privilage to avoid service during a time of war when the need for troops was bad enough to have a draft has no business acting like He's one of the boys with the Patriots who served our Nation. He also has no business being a war hawk and disregarding diplomacy and starting his run for office with war rhetoric against a country that has no hope of standing up to us.

My opinion that makes Romney a Bully and a Poser.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Biden do the same thing?
 
Pretty much. Not much of a hawk though. But still you never heard me say I like his record much. 8 have often said that was a compromise choice Obama had to make that just added more baggage and well there you have it. Bagage.
 
correct me if IM wrong....... but nobody has died in Afghanistan????

Obama who refused to serve has killed thousands in Afghanistan.......... this is somehow different in the feeble thought?

are you serious?

the POTUS is commander in chief........ you can either say/demand he has served/is experienced........... or you cannot

what you cannot do is say that someone who has no service record for 'evading the draft' or failing to volunteer is different........ neither has served and neither were (insert whatever blahblah reason/excuse/whatever here) going to serve

either you served or you didnt........ you have the same exact amount of military background if you didnt for whatever reason.........are you somehow rationally thinking that if the draft existed and obama were eligible he wouldnt have taken a waiver???

personally (as a veteran.... youre quite welcome and STFU {I earned that right come take it from me}) I thought we were beyond the whole "he took waivers for college" whine of the past....... I thought we all agreed that was an acceptable reason for avoiding what in todays society would be a free choice to serve........ the man went to college and made this country a better place by helping thousands........... how did obamas military service work out? oh he also didnt serve?

seems both are equally qualified to lead the troops..... do you have some other criteria?
 
copestag said:
correct me if IM wrong....... but nobody has died in Afghanistan????

Obama who refused to serve has killed thousands in Afghanistan.......... this is somehow different in the feeble thought?

are you serious?

the POTUS is commander in chief........ you can either say/demand he has served/is experienced........... or you cannot

what you cannot do is say that someone who has no service record for 'evading the draft' or failing to volunteer is different........ neither has served and neither were (insert whatever blahblah reason/excuse/whatever here) going to serve

either you served or you didnt........ you have the same exact amount of military background if you didnt for whatever reason.........are you somehow rationally thinking that if the draft existed and obama were eligible he wouldnt have taken a waiver???

personally (as a veteran.... youre quite welcome and STFU {I earned that right come take it from me}) I thought we were beyond the whole "he took waivers for college" whine of the past....... I thought we all agreed that was an acceptable reason for avoiding what in todays society would be a free choice to serve........ the man went to college and made this country a better place by helping thousands........... how did obamas military service work out? oh he also didnt serve?

seems both are equally qualified to lead the troops..... do you have some other criteria?
Click to expand...
Not sure what of that was directed at my comments or not, some of it made no sense. Though I do find it amusing you will role an old Lib arguement to defend a Neocon that did not seek to avoid war because he objected to war but because he is a coward. The fact he glams so much to the troops as if he were one of their own is just not honorable.

My point wasn't about if you have to serve to or not to be President but rather a general critique on people who didn't serve in the military acting like a war monger and using war rhetoric in their campaigning.

Obama and Biden are both innocent of that. While Romney's campaign contains a fair bit of rhetoric. Not to mention it has been exclusively his party that gave us Presidents who declare war on abstract ideas or inanimate objects. Terror? Drugs?
The over the top saber rattling by far right conservatives terrifies me, under the war on terror shouldn't that be addressed.
I mean we are at war with terror right, well nix roller coasters and water slides, haunted houses, they are intended to instill fear that can be defined as terror.

Not to mention that to say neither candidate or vp have served is factually incorrect or is being Commander in Chief not military service. That being true Obama has almost 4 years of service to his credit.
If you think that we need a president with service experience there is your man. Also to note, Obama has proven he is not a Liberal Dove. His track record for invading foreign Nations matches W's
 
PH8AL said:
... Also to note, Obama has proven he is not a Liberal Dove. His track record for invading foreign Nations matches W's
Click to expand...

Not exactly, Obama has yet to invade a new country and U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq was completed on 18 December 2011, so there is an open slot.;)
 
copestag said:
again...... using your logic then..... unless you have served in the military you are not qualified to be President...... after all the President is the commander in chief...... someone without military experience should not be in charge of the military?pro-military?
Click to expand...
That is not what I was saying. Being in the miltary is not a qualification to become president. But I don't want someone who draft dodge to get out of being in the military all of a sudden pro-military, patting those in the service on the back either.
 
thats just silly........ of course couldnt you also say that in a volunteer military, if you dont volunteer youve done the exact same thing as a "draft dodger"?

btw.... did you serve?
 
I don't think you should have to have military service to initiate military actions. That said Romney's policy of increasing military spending and of going to war against Iran certainly suggests he is in the pocket of the Military-Industrial complex to a far greater extent than Obama.
 
OutofDate1980 said:
Not exactly, Obama has yet to invade a new country and U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq was completed on 18 December 2011, so there is an open slot.;)
Click to expand...
While not as grand as W's wars Obama has invaded the territory of a Foreign Nation twice.

What goes on, on the border of Pakistan is a joint effort with their Government even though it seems invasive. The blatant snatch and grab of a person inside Pakistan while deliberately evading their military counts as 1.

Libya counts as 1. Call it a joint this or that, what ever. Any thing done by the U.N. or Nato is us because we carry the brunt of everything either of these organizations ever do.

Who actually sent military force?

Hate to tell you this but W proved The President of the U.S. can ignore the UN and Obama would have done it even if the UN said no.

Just to point out what my bias is.
I personally disapprove of the following.

Both Obama invasions

The invasion of Iraq

that Mr. Bush didn't finish it in 91

How W conducted both of his wars

The U.N.

NATO
 
ElasticNinja said:
It doesn't matter how many countries you bomb or invade. What matters is were you right to bomb or invade.
Click to expand...

Right or wrong is fungible. Iraq was considered to be a threat to the worlds oil supply. Both US Presidents that invaded, had personal financial interest in said product and had major financial backers with the same interest.

The future solution is that the world become less dependent on nonrenewal able energy supplies. It would be less expensive.
 
PH8AL said:
While not as grand as W's wars Obama has invaded the territory of a Foreign Nation twice.

What goes on, on the border of Pakistan is a joint effort with their Government even though it seems invasive. The blatant snatch and grab of a person inside Pakistan while deliberately evading their military counts as 1.

Libya counts as 1. Call it a joint this or that, what ever. Any thing done by the U.N. or Nato is us because we carry the brunt of everything either of these organizations ever do. ...
Click to expand...

Pakistan was a police action in a failed state that was harboring a world wanted fugitive.

Libya was pursuant to a UN resolution. 2011 military intervention in Libya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The US doesn't live in isolation, it's always a good thing to have allies.
 
OFD

Police action? There is so much wrong with that statement. Up until Bush declared war on fear terorism was a police problem. Then he would have been called a defendant and executing him in his bedroom with out a warrent would have been a crime. It is unlawfulto use the Military for police work. The military police only have jurisdiction over civilians in limited ways connected to occupation peace keeping.

Bush smashes all of our rights and Obama is running with the ball. Because they are doing it doesn't justify they fact they are doing it. Most Americans are so ignorant of their basic rights they don't even know what they are doing is wrong.

We invade the territory of a Nation used electronic counter measuers against their military then our military goes in and takes a person from within that Nation circumventing their legal system and his rights under it. If some one did that here to us I'm sure you would agree it was an act of war.
 
ElasticNinja said:
Oh greaaaat.
Click to expand...

Yes great. Since you are European I will cover the U.N. and NATO.

1st NATO. Yes we need allies, we don't need dependants which is what most of NATO is. The U.K. has a decent military. The rest? We are their security forces, on our dime to boot. Want to know why our defense budget is so high? There is a big ass chunk of it right there. My opinion the E.U. needs to start paying us for it or we need to step out.

The U.N. is a no brainer. No law in the U.S. supercedes the Constitution, the U.N. is a global governing body, see the problem here?

On American domestic matters.
Your European and are biased, so I mean this as nicely as possible, your point of view on this is irrelevent and just annoying.
 
PH8AL said:
Yes great. Since you are European I will cover the U.N. and NATO.

1st NATO. Yes we need allies, we don't need dependants which is what most of NATO is. The U.K. has a decent military. The rest? We are their security forces, on our dime to boot. Want to know why our defense budget is so high? There is a big ass chunk of it right there. My opinion the E.U. needs to start paying us for it or we need to step out.
Click to expand...
The UK has a worse military than France, although both are quite good. Sure there needs to be more self sufficiency, but that doesnt require increased spending. Lets not forget other NATO countries who are doing there best; Estonia, Canada, Turkey etc.

PH8AL said:
The U.N. is a no brainer. No law in the U.S. supercedes the Constitution, the U.N. is a global governing body, see the problem here?
Click to expand...
International law is international law. Its agreed with other states. The UN is not a government.

PH8AL said:
On American domestic matters.
Your European and are biased, so I mean this as nicely as possible, your point of view on this is irrelevent and just annoying.
Click to expand...
So nobody should tell Koreans to stop being racist or Ghanaians to stop hanging homosexuals?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom