O.T. - On Target...

It's insignificant--unless it means people vote for you or against you because of your former military status.

It's part of the picture of the candidate. Vietnam: Cheney got deferred. Gore had a non-combatant commission. Bush served in the Air National Guard (something like the old RAF Auxiliary squadrons, just to cop a very broad analogy) and did not see combat. Clinton avoided military service. Schwartzenegger was in Austria, and then doing muscle beach stuff in America. Edwards was too young to be subject to the draft, and didn't enter the military. There's a lot of other things that are part of the respective pictures--Kerry's post-combat protest agains the Vietnam War, Cheney's long-term connections with Halliburton, Edwards' medical malpractice litigation, Clinton's bimbo eruptions, Bush's alleged drug and alcohol abuse, and everything else from giving CPR to a hamster to landing on an aircraft carrier and saying "mission accomplished."

The problem is that older men make saner decisions for the most part, which do not adapt well to to 30-second attack ads. You might actually have to talk about issues.

Mark Schynert

Reply to
Mark Schynert
Loading thread data ...

Only if one is willing to subjugate it to the desires of France, Germany, Russia, and the UN. N. Korea would apparently be happy to see a Kerry administration as well.....

Reply to
Al Superczynski

Instead of crying 'No Mas' when one's Viet Nam exploits are questioned after being offered up as evidence of one's fitness to be President? What happened to 'Bring. It. On.'? Seems like Mr. Kerry can't take the heat he brought on himself.

Reply to
Al Superczynski
Reply to
Digital_Cowboy

"Al Superczynski" schreef in bericht news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

Mistaken? Don't make me laugh!

The Clinton administration signed the treaty in 1998. The Bush administration decided to reject it.

Reply to
Bassie Adriaensen
Reply to
Digital_Cowboy

Re North Korea, I doubt it. Bush et al have not concentrated on North Korea, which they really should be doing, since NK really does have (or soon will have) WMD and the guy in charge is crazy enough to use them. Both Iran and NK are (and were) far more of a short- and long-term danger to US interests than Iraq ever was. Iraq was never in a position to sell or give nukes to Al Qaeda. Absent a close blockade of NK and at least a rudimentary missile defense ssytem in place, I feel far more threatened by NK than any other entity on the planet.

Nor do I expect any American president to "subjugate ... to the desires of France, Germany, Russia, and the UN." Even someone as fackless in foreign policy as Jimmy Carter pursued initiatives with what he perceived as US interests foremost. Regrettably, he didn't know how to be president. I feel no btter about Duyba's foreign policy efforts than I did Carter's, and I'm convinced Kerry would do far better, even if that happens to coincide with the positions of some traditional allies who happen to be at odds with us at the moment. The regrettable truth, though, is that we can't run this on lab rats and find out ahead of time what will happen. We have to each make our best estimate and so allocate our votes.

Mark Schynert

Reply to
Mark Schynert

Which goes back to what a friend of mine said about him, "Clinton thumbed his nose at the system, Kerry played the system". So which one would you trust??

Bill Shuey

Reply to
William H. Shuey
Reply to
Digital_Cowboy

Actually, the most vccommon abbreviation for the President in official circles is "POTUS." Sounds kinda silly when you say it but......

Actually, the presence or lack of military experience dows not, in itself, qualify or disqualify a person to be President. It can provide an overview of the person's leadership potential and capability.

I think that what's more important is the person's ability to be a decent, moral, and honest person; one the people can count on to give and then keep hos or her word. A person who won't say one thing and then do another or go back on what he or she has said. Basically it should be a person whom the people of the US can trust to do the right thing for the them and for the country in the world community.

My home page:

formatting link

" In walks the village idiot and his face is all aglow; he's been up all night listening to Mohammad's radio" W. Zevon

Reply to
Bill Woodier

Talk about a choice between the lesser of two evils.

If I were _forced_ to make a choice between those two I'd pick Clinton. He at least had the stones to (finally) do the right thing in the Balkans without waiting on approval from the *spit* UN *spit*. Too bad he couldn't see his way clear to save the lives of black people in Rwanda as well, seeing as how he was the first Black president and all...

Reply to
Al Superczynski

POTUS/PUSA - whatever. All sameysame. :-)

You can have the sawn-off little turd - come get him, he's all yours.

Reply to
Rob Grinberg

Bill, Why can't you guys get over Vietnam? I know it was not good and it severely f***ed you all up (as a nation), but why can't you let go? It's over, man... That said, the Aussies still fight Gallipoli every year...

RobG

Reply to
Rob Grinberg

Al, As I've said elsewhere - he's all yours. My only consolation is that we don't have the military and economic power of the US.

RobG

Reply to
Rob Grinberg

Ahh, yeah... I was getting it mixed up with the music group from a few years ago. Except that they made sense. :-)

And does that person exist in political circles anywhere in the world? Methinks not!

RobG

Reply to
Rob Grinberg

No, you're right, probably not. That's why we need to carefully scrutinize every aspect of each viable candidate to determine how close each one comes to our idea of the best candidate. No one said being a citizen of a democratic republic would be easy! ;~).

My home page:

formatting link

" In walks the village idiot and his face is all aglow; he's been up all night listening to Mohammad's radio" W. Zevon

Reply to
Bill Woodier

Much as it galls me, Al is right on that one. However, lies vs mistaken? The Bush regime was sold the WMD bill of goods like some bumpkin buying the Brooklyn Bridge. And that's the BEST you can say. Hell, I'd impeach him for running an incompetant administration. Kim M

Reply to
Royabulgaf

If the Bush family hadn't been in bed with the bin Ladens and the House of Saud, we wouldn't have invaded Iraq. Kim M :+P

Reply to
Royabulgaf

How would this change our foreign policy for the worse? Kim M

Reply to
Royabulgaf

Speaking of Gallipoli. I finally got a look at the terrain of the Balkans in 1998, courtesy Bill Clinton. Man! It's the finest natural defensive terrain on the face of this planet. Where in hell did Churchill get that "soft underbelly of Europe" crap??

Bill Shuey

Reply to
William H. Shuey

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.