McCain Avoids Vietnam Vets Tough Questions

[MichaelFJF]

Hmmm You manage 11 people and McCain's had a career in the armed forces and the senate. Wow this is a tough one. who would I trust? 11 people. Wow. That must keep you up at night. I think I'll put my trust in the guy who's running for president of the US instead of the guy on the message board. By the way, try reading "Lincoln on Leadership" some time.

 

[geocajun]

Hmmm You manage 11 people and McCain's had a career in the armed forces and the senate. Wow this is a tough one. who would I trust? 11 people. Wow. That must keep you up at night. I think I'll put my trust in the guy who's running for president of the US instead of the guy on the message board. By the way, try reading "Lincoln on Leadership" some time.

Heh, I'm not running for president there smart guy.

 

[JoabAnias]

Exactly! You have no idea what you are talking about.

I manage a team of 11 people who do a job I can't do. It happens all the time. You think a CEO can perform every function within his organization? Of course not. Leaders hold employees accountable for doing the job they are expected to do, and communicate their goals, and remove obstacles from them getting their job done. That is what leaders do.
Have you ever worked in a leadership role? It sure doesn't sound like it...

You still have something in common being the goal that I am sure even you would admit helps. I guess you would be in trouble without your team huh?

I think I mentioned I was a sargent (means your in a leadership role) in case you missed it and owned a business or two for 10 years. All irrelevant to what makes a good leader. Its not just about being in charge or barking orders is it? I have no need to lead anyone and don't exalt myself. Your constant put downs makes it sounds like you do and really don't care about people.

I follow Jesus willingly because He inspires me with His leadership. The mark of a true leader. You tell Jesus you want to vote for someone who will advocate for abortion and leave the nation defenseless if you want, thats on you.

 

[geocajun]

You still have something in common being the goal that I am sure even you would admit helps. I guess you would be in trouble without your team huh?

Of course - I'm not following how this flows with the conversation one bit. Did I say I was divorced from my team, or that I didn't need them? Are you having trouble finding something meaningful to say so you just say whatever crosses your mind?

I think I mentioned I was a sargent (means your in a leadership role) in case you missed it and owned a business or two for 10 years. All irrelevant to what makes a good leader. Its not just about being in charge or barking orders is it? I have no need to lead anyone and don't exalt myself. Your constant put downs makes it sounds like you do and really don't care about people.

Who said anything about barking orders? We aren't even talking about 'how to lead' but rather just the fundamental differences between leaders and operative employees.
You sure don't sound like you understand leadership. You can take that as a put down if you like, but I'm just offering it as an observation based on your comments. I'm not alone in seeing it either.

I follow Jesus willingly because He inspires me with His leadership. The mark of a true leader. You tell Jesus you want to vote for someone who will advocate for abortion and leave the nation defenseless if you want, thats on you.

So once all the dust from your righteous indignation based arguments and ad hominems settle, it boils down to an abortion argument in the end, coupled with a guilt trip and the implication that you are a better Christian for voting republican.
Weak.

 

[MichaelFJF]

Heh, I'm not running for president there smart guy.

You've made my point.

 

[Fantine]

If we want peace in our world today, do we need a leader who looks to military solutions to solve all our problems?

I thought Governor Bill Richardson had a good resume in international affairs--Ambassador to the UN and Secretary of Energy. Wouldn't someone who knew the ins and outs of diplomacy, and who knew that we needed to become energy independent, using primarily alternative forms of energy, be a better fit for President?

Leadership involves many qualities--character, organizational skills, decision-making capability, intelligence.

History has shown that some of our strongest generals (Ulysses S. Grant, for example) have been some of our weakest Presidents.

 

[geocajun]

You've made my point.

Your point was that I'm not running for president? Try to follow along better here. I addressed an argument went like this "those who lead have to be able to do the work of the operative employees". It is proven throughout history that is total baloney, and I pointed out my own experience to show it as well. What is your beef anyway?

 

[isshinwhat]

What specifically is so bad about his record, Issi? Explain in simple terms that even a civilian can understand.

Read this article from the BBC and it'll give a little background, then we can continue after Mass. Long and short, his decisions at this incident and his meeting with Ratko Mladic against government wishes, despite him being investigated for crimes against humanity, were the straws that broke the camel's back, a back that was already overburdened due to Gen. Clark's treatment of his suboordinates.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/671495.stm

To put it bluntly, as Supreme Allied Commander you don't order military interdiction of an ally, nor do you hang out with a man who is being investigated for war crimes against the people you are there to help, and you certainly don't jovially stop for a photo op with him and exchange hats with your general's stars on them... all with the State Department yelling, "oh my God, what are you doing?"

 

[BAFRIEND]

Even I would vote for Obama before I would vote for Gomer Pyle.

Meaning that it is really as meaningless to state a soldier would be any better qualified to president than if you said a mechanic would be, or a school teacher would be, or the janitor.

I have worked with retired and young guys coming out of the military who could not follow simple directions or show the level of competency to hold a job where I work and it is nothing all that complicated- certainly not life threatening. On the otherhand, some of them turn out to be really good employees.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

There's not one answer as it depends on what level of policy you are speaking, and what the specific policies are.

I told you it was a hard questions.

The Civilian Government sets policy.

Not the Military.

Not on any level.

 

[isshinwhat]

I told you it was a hard questions.

The Civilian Government sets policy.

Not the Military.

Not on any level.

Not 100% complete, Charlie. Let's take Air Force Basic Doctrine, for example: http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/service_pubs/afdd1.pdf. It is published by order of the Secretary of the Air Force and provides the overarching doctrine under which the Air Force Operates. It states:

Policy is guidance that is directive or instructive, stating what is
to be accomplished. It reflects a conscious choice to pursue certain
avenues and not others. Thus, while doctrine is held to be relatively
enduring, policy is more mutable. Policies may change due to changes in
national leadership, political considerations, or for fiscal reasons. At the
national level, policy may be expressed in such broad vehicles as the
National Security Strategy (NSS) or Presidential Executive Orders. Within
military operations, policy may be expressed not only in terms of objectives,
but also in rules of engagement (ROE)—what we may or may not
strike, or under what circumstances we may strike particular targets.

The ROE, for instance, are determined by the competent military authority. In the case of the Iraq ROE, SECDEF and CENTCOM Commander have authority of the broad ROE; however, the command at each succesive level has the authority to create their own ROE, further restricting or specifying policy according to the needs of their Area of Responsibility. Thus my answer that, "there's not one answer as it depends on what level of policy you are speaking, and what the specific policies are," is correct.

 

[geocajun]

Not 100% complete, Charlie. Let's take Air Force Basic Doctrine, for example: http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/service_pubs/afdd1.pdf. It is published by order of the Secretary of the Air Force and provides the overarching doctrine under which the Air Force Operates. It states:



The ROE, for instance, are determined by the competent military authority. In the case of the Iraq ROE, SECDEF and CENTCOM Commander have authority of the broad ROE; however, the command at each succesive level has the authority to create their own ROE, further restricting or specifying policy according to the needs of their Area of Responsibility. Thus my answer that, "there's not one answer as it depends on what level of policy you are speaking, and what the specific policies are," is correct.

Issi, the ability for the military to create day to day policies for itself was delegated by the civilian government. Ultimately it is the civilian government who holds the power over the military who is as I stated earlier in the thread, a means to an end.

 

[isshinwhat]

Issi, the ability for the military to create day to day policies for itself was delegated by the civilian government. Ultimately it is the civilian government who holds the power over the military who is as I stated earlier in the thread, a means to an end.

No kidding, which is why I said, Charlie's answer was not complete and "there's not one answer as it depends on what level of policy you are speaking, and what the specific policies are..." The answer to Charlie's question is not, "The Civilian Government sets policy. Not the Military. Not on any level." Under the authority granted by the United States government, the military does set policy for itself, depending on what the policy is.

 

[geocajun]

No kidding, which is why I said, Charlie's answer was not complete and "there's not one answer as it depends on what level of policy you are speaking, and what the specific policies are..." The answer to Charlie's question is not, "The Civilian Government sets policy. Not the Military. Not on any level." Under the authority granted by the United States government, the military does set policy for itself, depending on what the policy is.

I think Charlie was referring to the when and how the military is used, not the way it get's it's job done. When the civilian government gives the military its mission, it has policies/protocols (which might be better called procedures) that cover 'how it gets it done', but they don't determine 'if' it gets it done, or 'when' it will be used, etc ...

 

[isshinwhat]

In other words, "it depends on what level of policy you are speaking, and what the specific policies are..." At any rate, we've really derailed this thread...

 

[PetersKeys]

Ron Paul - yes. I wish more would vote that way...
That's where i would like to go. Except the vote would be like .001%.

And therefore we would be stuck with the leftovers.
I hate leftovers.

But seeing we have evil vs evil...
One who isnt equipped to lie to make us feel better...and so seems kinda doh. [McCain]
And one is as smooth as silk when he talks out of the side of his mouth. [Obama]

Nice choices.

I read enough about Obama's Method of Operation to know he is slick. He told ppl bold faced he would have voted on the born alive act if the wording was different. Bold faced lied...
Since the wording was HIS to begin with.

THats the problem with the lesser of 2 evils.

Dosen't the church condemn the lesser of 2 evils theory anyway? I remember (don't know if it was Pope or Bishop) saying that chosing the "lesser of 2 evils" has been the chief cause of some of the greatest evil in the world right now.

If people would simply not vote if the don't get the candidate they want we should see alot better presidents running our country. The election campaigns "live" off the people who "settle" pretty much.

 

[MikeK]

If people would simply not vote if the don't get the candidate they want we should see alot better presidents running our country. The election campaigns "live" off the people who "settle" pretty much.

Not quite. I don't think not voting at all changes anything - but voting for a 3rd party candidate who you agree with does. When a 3rd party gets say, 2% of the popular vote, that's an awful lot of votes, and the big two will do what they can to get those votes next time around. It's always seems to me that, with regards to abortion, the best thing we could do as pro-lifers would be to unite and vote for one truly pro-life from conception to natural death (not just anti Roe-V Wade decision) candidate, even if he has no chance of winning. 4 years later, one of the big parties would likely nominate a truly pro-life, candidate.

 

[Davidnic]

Not quite. I don't think not voting at all changes anything - but voting for a 3rd party candidate who you agree with does. When a 3rd party gets say, 2% of the popular vote, that's an awful lot of votes, and the big two will do what they can to get those votes next time around. It's always seems to me that, with regards to abortion, the best thing we could do as pro-lifers would be to unite and vote for one truly pro-life from conception to natural death (not just anti Roe-V Wade decision) candidate, even if he has no chance of winning. 4 years later, one of the big parties would likely nominate a truly pro-life, candidate.

I agree. I usually end up either writing someone in or finding someone in a third party who fits all of the Church's social teaching as best as possible. In that dynamic both major parties have fallen short for my entire life.

 

[JoabAnias]

I have been considering writing in Alan Keys for months. He didn't even run but if it looks like my vote might count for more that way then I just might. Still waiting to get down to the nitty gritty though.