oldwiseone

Recent comments by this user

Hillary Clinton Campaign Aides Buy HRC2012.com Domain Name

Someone should really take advantage of Google and inform me as to how many of the claims to be found there are true or not true beginning with her first job for the government. posted 07/19/2008 at 15:57:25

The Latest Media Blind Spot: Viewing All Criticism of Obama Through a Right/Left Prism

So what is so wise about this comment above? And what is wrong about adaptability and learning?
Seems to me a politician who is rigid in his thoughts isn't reflecting those who he represents.. Bush "stayed the course" so what is so admirable about that? To learn is to change. Without change there is no learning. It is hyypocracy, believing one thing and acting out another, that should be avoided, . If the beliefs and actions are the same this is learning. posted 07/19/2008 at 14:26:17

I'm rather new to the political scene, and rather old in life. But I have come to have certain ideas about the political scene.

A significant observation is that it seems to me that the so called "liberal" is a politician who is concerned bout the people while a conservative is concered about the business.
I am struck be the shift toward business in our country as if the people exist for the business. Wouldn't that make us slaves?

I am also aware of a concept called neo liberalism when the used in the europeon sense which is ooposite to the American sense, so really it is akin to neoconservatism. A google search reveals that the goal of neo conservatism is to reduce ALL ASPECTS of life to the business model. THis means that, for example, productivity will become the purpose of life. And the absurdity of this concept can be seen when health insurance, needed to maintain productivity, will not be allowed for the disabled, that ism the disabled will be regarded as a profit drain.

So I am wondering how in the F did this shift from of the prople for the people by the people turned to "business? And why? posted 07/19/2008 at 12:40:48

Sticking A Wrench In The Gearbox

The New YOurk Supreme Court ruled that a political party can choose its nominee by any means it deems appropriate whether it is by selection or election. THe only way Hillary could be said to have won is by breaking the rules. If McCain wins, this country will cease to be of the people by the people and for the people. It will become a giant corporation built on a house of stock cards. posted 07/12/2008 at 17:57:15

McCain Campaign Had Protestor Holding "Bush=McCain" Sign Removed From Event

YOu are a censored, you censored censored censored, If I was there I would censored your censored and censored up into little censored you atntiAmerican censored piece of censored, You eserve living with yourself posted 07/11/2008 at 23:48:58

The Week That Should Have Ended McCain's Presidential Hopes

I especially enjoyed the one where he sayd we will stop throwing borrowed money away and use the "savings" to pay off our debt. posted 07/11/2008 at 00:16:44

Kennedy's Return Compelled 9 Republicans To Switch Medicare Votes

Liberal is for people

Conservativism is for business

Liberal regulates business

Conservative regulates people posted 07/10/2008 at 17:09:56

Giuliani: Obama's Support Of Bilingualism Reinforces Anti-Americanism

Isn't this the guy who was captured on video telling them to "pull down" building seven on 911? Or was that just a coincidence that building seven fell as one piece because there was an office on fire... posted 07/10/2008 at 13:08:31

AFL-CIO Organizing Vets Against McCain In Battleground States

What I don't understand is how and why are our factories being traded to Nafta countries? I can understand removing tarrifs, but how can American Cororations get away with shipping the entire factory there thus avoiding income tax, social security payments, workman's comp and corporate taxes. If this line of reasoning is carried to the extreme there will be none of those payments being made by American Corporations. I think that is as unAmerican as it gets. posted 07/10/2008 at 13:15:47

Contradicting McCain, Another Iraqi Official Calls for Timetable For Withdrawal

It is going to be interesting to see how the replublicans spin this arround and use it against Obama. Does that withdrawal include the 14 permanant bases? And what about the immunity from Iraqi law that is being pushed on Iraqi? And the right to arrest and detain? Isn't this a police activity? And the right to dominate Iraqi airspace? . All of which is not to be found in other countries the US has troops in. posted 07/10/2008 at 10:21:18

Obama Donors Told Fundraising A Bit Slow, Urged To Help Clinton

What I don't understand is why don't the 18 million Clinton voters each contribute a single dollar? That would wipe out the debt. posted 07/10/2008 at 10:24:05

Jesse Jackson Disparages Barack Obama: Caught On Tape (VIDEO)

Oh Really. I suppose you are proud of the 4100 men we killed, the tens of thousand that were crippled, the hudreds of thousand children that died, the million Iraqi that have died, the three trillin dollar cost before we are done, and we dn't need a sermon? And what is this for goodness sake? What do you know about "goodness?" posted 07/09/2008 at 23:53:42

This is a very astute, mature and wise comment and it has improved my opinion of the Jewish people in a significant way. I too hate it when the Zionists claim "antisemitism" as if no one can have any criticisms of the Zionists.which, as my understanding has it, are more like a political party rather than a Jewish aspect of the people. I work with a whole lot of brown skinned people, and I have noticed recently that almost all of them have become friendly. Like they are treating me as an equal. And what I mean by that is the people who I do not know are friendly, of course those that I do know have always been friendly, but to run ito someone on the street, well, I can remember when they wouldn't even look at me. I love asking them if they are a typical black person. They always laugh and each has a different answer. So I have yet to meet a typical black person yet. posted 07/09/2008 at 22:12:07

McCain Freezing Out Press On Campaign Trail

War hero? How come the other soldiers who broke under pressure were given dishonorable discharges? posted 07/09/2008 at 15:23:55

Obama's Stadium Acceptance At Convention Squeezes Networks

Let's see, they gained hundreds of millions of dollars from the candidates, but won't broadcast the major speech of the primary contest. Obviously they are worried mmore about money then they are if informing the public. Clearly they are run by conservatives, Fine. See ya.... posted 07/08/2008 at 22:19:11

Surge Amnesia: The Media's Newest Affliction

We saved ten thousand lives over a period of ten years at the cost of one million lives. Let's see, math problem. Wow I can't figure this one out. We are proud of saving all those lives at a cost of one hundred times? We saved a penny and spent a dollar to do it. There's something wrong here. posted 07/12/2008 at 22:07:53

McCain's 'Deficit Reduction' Plan Would Cost Trillions

Let';s see if I understand this right, McCane will cut costs by not spending as much, is that right? And then the savings gained will go toward paying off the debt...Boy, that a terrifc plan. If we don't spend anything then we will have paid off the entire deficit. Wait a minute, isn't that called magic?

The replublicans must think we are as smart as they are... posted 07/07/2008 at 18:22:44

Obama Plane Forced To Make Unscheduled Landing

fu ck you posted 07/07/2008 at 18:26:38

Joe Lieberman, No Model of Consistency, Wonders 'Which Obama Will Govern'

In the words of my real African friend "Obama is a good man." He will always do the good thing,
like it or not. I don't know if lieberman can relate to that. posted 07/06/2008 at 17:27:25

Ted Koppel Reinforces 'False Flip-Flop' Meme, Equates Endless War With 'Toughness'

Obama is smarter than most of us. But most important of all he is for people. Conservatives are, as we all know or should know, conservatives are for business. Of course we need business but the question is that of priority. The Europeon "neoliberalism" is working to replace all people orientated notions with profit driven concepts. Business ought to be to support the people, not the other way around. THe other way around is to have the people of the world support a very few who are wealthy. America is not here to support a very few wealthy, this was decided in the Civil War. It is time for the people to take our country back from the corporations. The problem with corporations is that a certain percentage of people are corrupt, and to remove regulation of business as the neocons would have it would expose business to excess corruption. We know what corruption by deregulating can do with the mortgage crisis. Deregulating business allowed brokers to give mortgages to anyone whether or not they could afford it, collect their commission, and walk away. People first, then business, not the other way around posted 07/06/2008 at 16:43:28

Pro-War Vet Group Helps McCain With Battleground State Ads

Why do they always say the surge worked when actually sadr called a ceasefire? posted 07/06/2008 at 18:08:59

As Gas Prices Soar, Elderly Face Cuts In Aid

Liberals are for people, conservatives are for business. Obviously it was a business decision to cut back on meals. Carry the philosophy out to the ligical ending, the elderly will be allowed to die because it is more profitable that way. Sound loony? Google neoliberalism and look for yourself. posted 07/05/2008 at 13:45:02

Obama Tries and Fails to Put Out the FISA Fire in His Own House

You know what? I don't care what anyone else thinks, I think Obama will becme a great president. But first he has to get elected. I think he is thinking of what does he have to do today to get elected. Once he gets elected the whole ballgame changes. Then he will thik about what he has to do on that day . Besides he is smarter than most of us. posted 07/06/2008 at 00:56:36

Bush Heckled During 4th Of July Speech At Monticello (VIDEO)

Rude? posted 07/04/2008 at 20:13:33

Analysis: Obama's centrist emphasis gives GOP ammo

The neocons have conned everyone into thinking they are for family values, etc. But they are for business, for corporations, for capitalism. Liberals are for people, that which familys are made of. Capitalism is not the sole purpose of America, Americal is for the people, of the people and by the people. Conservatives would have us believe they support people, but they support smaller government of business, and bigger government of people. Look at what is going down, deregulation is happeniong all over, while regulation of people is increasing. What sense does it make to allow millions to die so that a thousand will not die? Have we become that arrogant that their families do not matter as long as our families are, what, safe? We are safe because we are locked up. posted 07/04/2008 at 23:50:10

I am a supporter of Obama. I acknowledge that Obama is much smarter than I am. I trust Obama, the first time in a long time I could trust any politician. i realize that Obama started out having certain beliefs the details of which were not important to me. What was important was that he is honest and sincere and he is for the people and not business. I also realize that life is constant change, a life that does not change is not truly alive. I do not believe that my representatives are in the government to promote their own personal beliefs, but the beliefs of those whom he or she represents. It does not bother me in the least that Obama has changed his beliefs, that indicates to me that he can adapt. America was once known for the adaptability of its people. That is a characteristic that made us once great. To hold to a belief can be dangerous, withness how the present administration maintained its direction even when the evidence did not justify a movement in that direction. It suggests to me that their motive are not up front, that there are hidden agendas. To learn is to change. To change is to live. To change is to learn, to learn is to change. There is no learning without change. Where there is no change, there is no learning. Even rats learn. Only lemming don't change. posted 07/04/2008 at 23:44:05

What "principles" have changed? To learn is to change. It is a rigid mind that does not adapt and change. Adults, compared to kids are like that. posted 07/04/2008 at 20:52:09

I am a supporter of Obama. I acknowledge that Obama is much smarter than I am. I trust Obama, the first time in a long time I could trust any politician. i realize that Obama stated out having certain beliefs the details of which were not important to me. What was important was that he is honest and sincere and he is for the people and not business. I also realize that life is constant change, a life that does not change is not alive. I do not believe that my representatives are in the government to promote their own personal beliefs, but the beliefs of those whom he or she represents. It does not bother me in the least that Obama has changed his beliefs, that indicates to me that he can adapt. America was once known for the adaptability of its people. That is a characteristic that made us once great. To hold to a belief can be dangerous, withness how the present administration maintained its direction even when the evidence did not justify a movement in that direction. It suggests to me that the motive are not up front, that there are hidden agendas. To learn is to change. To change is to live posted 07/04/2008 at 20:46:05

A Modest Proposal for the 4th: Take Back Old Glory

Obama was picked by destiny because he is living proof of the AMerican dream and an example of the Americah meting pot that we USED TO be proud of. posted 07/04/2008 at 21:46:37

My Position On FISA

I feel the same way. I trust Obama, and it brings tears to my eyes because it has been so long of a time, so long since I was proud of my wonderful and beautiful country, so long of a time since I felt that pride and trust. posted 07/03/2008 at 18:14:44

Rush Limbaugh On His New Deal: "I'm Not Retiring Until Every American Agrees With Me"

Now we know what vomit sounds like posted 07/03/2008 at 10:41:04

Washington Post Publishes Specious Story On Obama Home Loan

Interesting, Obama is accused of doing what piliticians have been doing and suddenly he is a crook. uhhhh posted 07/02/2008 at 14:31:11

Living Limbaugh: $400 Million Contract, Gulfstream, Scented Candles, And The "Business" Of Hating Liberals

I can believe that there are 20 million people in America who love to hate others, but really, any psychologist would tell you they do that becaiuse they hate temselves. So by all accounts Limbaugh is projecting his hatred of himself onto others. Well, 300-20 = 280 million who never heard him or hate him right back. He realy is proud of what he has done to America, but the history books will write about the dark ages of America, assuming that it survives. posted 07/02/2008 at 14:56:10

Vanity Fair's Christopher Hitchens Undergoes Waterboarding

First time I saw this rather obvious "what goes around comes around" realization,
like if all countries adopted American values, an American Tourist traveling abroad could easily disappear and not be heard from forever. Lawfully. Like these guys never heard of Karma? posted 07/02/2008 at 14:34:47

French President Nicolas Sarkozy Yells At Staff Before TV Appearance (VIDEO)

What's wrong with moving to the left? The left is about people, the right is about business. Correct me if I am wrong. So what is wrong about being a nation of the people, by the people and for the people? I'm waiting.... posted 07/05/2008 at 12:32:56

Judge Tells Feds They Can Ask For Secret Swiss Banking Info

Money is like blood, need by all the organs for nourishment. But if the blood is pooled by just a few organs, then the extreme\ities suffer, become painful and eventually die off. posted 07/01/2008 at 21:25:09

Bill Gates' Misguided Capitalism

You see, it is a matter of purpose. Is America of business by biusiness for business? Or is it of people, by people and for people? Does the corporation exist for the people or does thepeople exist for the corporation? THe answer is easy. If we are guaranteed equality by our constitution, then existence of the many for the few is unconstitutional. posted 07/01/2008 at 21:18:51

Campaign AdWatch: Colombian Broadcast System

Or have we run out of factories to moce to other countries free of income tax, social sercurity tax, etc.? posted 07/01/2008 at 18:09:03

So what factories are we planning on moving there? posted 07/01/2008 at 18:06:44

Webb: McCain Should "Calm Down" on Military Service

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/democracy/dmpaper12.htm
While a written constitution specifying the proper division of power between military and political leaders is an excellent first step, the challenge is convincing the military that its role is a subservient one. The primary obstacle to civilian control of the military is often a culture that has glorified the military. Changing that culture is a difficult, but necessary, task if the military is to be brought under civilian control. This will take time and education. Old leaders who distrust civilian leaders must be replaced by new ones willing to work with and for the civilian leadership. Obviously, if the civilian leadership is popularly elected, its legitimacy in the eyes of the people helps it control the military. This task is a difficult one but no more difficult than the task of building a sound, democratic government. It must be made clear that a military that sees itself as but one element of a democratic society will be stronger, not weaker, as a result, as its actions are more likely to reflect the sovereign will of the people it serves. posted 07/01/2008 at 14:13:24

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/democracy/dmpaper12.htm

As the United States moves into the 21st century, military leaders are not asked when and where to wage war. They are asked a far more restricted question: How can the military be most effectively used at a particular time and for a given strategic purpose? In 1983, Ronald Reagan did not ask the military whether the U.S. armed forces should enter Grenada and stabilize a threatening situation, but how to accomplish the mission. Nor did Presidents Bush or Clinton ask military commanders whether to evict Iraq from Kuwait, or protect Kosovar Albanians from the Serbians. They asked only how to accomplish those objectives quickly and with minimal casualties. So, custom, tradition, and legality have combined to firmly establish civilian control of the military in American politics and society. posted 07/01/2008 at 14:10:12

For McCain A Candidate's Military Pedigree Hasn't Always Mattered

Obama On Sebelius For VP: "I Love Kathleen"

How come no one has asked that question let alone answered it. Could it be because the US was responsible for 1.5 million Iraqi deaths after the first Gulf war? Could it be because Cheney took a doctored photo to Saudi Arabia to gain access to their airspace? Could it be because Bush Sr told Iraq they could take their land back from kuwait? posted 07/01/2008 at 15:08:05

Stephen Baldwin On Fox News: If Obama Wins, I'll Leave The Country

Promise? posted 07/01/2008 at 13:32:43

Poll: Joe Lieberman Sinking At Home As He Campaigns For McCain

Sounds like he has inside infomation posted 07/01/2008 at 17:51:46

McCain Heads To Colombia, Already Tied To Country By Lobbyists

It is not the media, it is who owns the media posted 07/01/2008 at 13:29:03

NRA Gathering Ammo Against Obama

The NRA should set up a program to teach sixteen year old gang bangers how to shoot straight posted 07/01/2008 at 00:40:18

Wesley Clark Stands By McCain Criticism

Having experience as a miltary authorian is not the kind of experience the president of a democratic country should have. posted 07/01/2008 at 09:35:07

It is tradition if not cnstitutional law that the president be a civilian. There are reasons for this. Therefore there is no requirement that a presidential candidate have military experience, nor can it be said that military experience prepares a president for his role. Experience in combat does not qualify one to be the president of a peaceful nation. Experience in authoritarian rule does not qualify one to be president of a democratic country. The constitution clearly states that the congress alone has the power to declare war, and that the civilian president is commander in chief. We have seen what happens when a former military person becomes president, we do not need to find out again. posted 07/01/2008 at 09:09:12

The limits of military advice
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/democracy/dmpaper12.htm
As the United States enters a new century, the most likely problem is not that the professional military would ignore or in any way oppose civilian control. Rather, the issue is that civilian leaders may not have the technical expertise by background and experience to deal with the complex and dangerous problems of the 21st century. The challenge is for the civilian leadership to work effectively with military professionals to ensure that the president and his staff have access to necessary technical expertise and information that is required for effective decision-making.

The nature and extent of military influence in American foreign and defense policy has waxed and waned over American history. The military's influence depends on a number of factors, including the public's perception of threats and military structures and roles established in law and tradition. The American military itself is far from monolithic in character, but by now the best way to describe the role of military leaders in American democracy is as expert advisors. As General Matthew Ridgway, top military commander during World War II and the Korean War, explained,

The military advisor should give his competent professional advice based on the military aspects of the programs referred to him, based on his fearless, honest, objective estimate of the national interest, and regardless of administration policy at any particular time. He should confine his advice to the essential military aspects. posted 07/01/2008 at 09:01:11

The American experience may provide valuable lessons to countries struggling with the challenges of an emerging democracy. Perhaps the most obvious of these challenges is the threat of military commanders seizing power. There are two important principles that can reinforce civilian control. First, a newly emerging democracy would do well to establish solid constitutional foundations as the basis for civilian control of the military. Despite some ambiguities, the U.S. Constitution divides military power between the legislature and the executive, a division aimed to preventing abuses of power. Also, the Constitution clearly establishes the president, a popularly elected civilian leader, as commander in chief of the armed forces. The crucial element here is that the president's powers are defined and limited as a whole, and that Congress, the U.S. courts, and the electorate, have substantial power. Thus, the president's command of the military does not lead to command of other sectors. The president's primarily civilian status has been borne out through the country's history. Only four presidents -- Washington, Jackson, Grant, and Eisenhower -- had significant careers in the military prior to becoming president. Each of them understood the need to keep military and political functions separate and distinct. General Dwight Eisenhower carried this principle so far while he was commanding Allied forces in Europe during World War II that he did not vote. posted 07/01/2008 at 09:00:08

The professional officer, in short, should be an expert in making judgments about how force can be used most effectively. In other matters, he defers to civilians. Thus, the U.S. Constitution and American tradition have restricted the military to administrative and instrumental roles in the policy process.

As the United States moves into the 21st century, military leaders are not asked when and where to wage war. They are asked a far more restricted question: How can the military be most effectively used at a particular time and for a given strategic purpose? In 1983, Ronald Reagan did not ask the military whether the U.S. armed forces should enter Grenada and stabilize a threatening situation, but how to accomplish the mission. Nor did Presidents Bush or Clinton ask military commanders whether to evict Iraq from Kuwait, or protect Kosovar Albanians from the Serbians. They asked only how to accomplish those objectives quickly and with minimal casualties. So, custom, tradition, and legality have combined to firmly establish civilian control of the military in American politics and society. posted 07/01/2008 at 08:59:49

The second key principle requires that the military serve in an administrative, not a policy-making, role. Eisenhower's refusal to vote while in the army is representative of his belief that military decisions must not be clouded by political decisions. Generals should not be involved in the political decision-making process. Instead, they should proffer advice regarding the use of the military in achieving policy-makers' goals, and as to the probable success of the military outcome. It should be left to the political leaders to decide if the military option should be pursued. posted 07/01/2008 at 08:58:11

This second principle is much more difficult to accomplish than constitutional protections. While a written constitution specifying the proper division of power between military and political leaders is an excellent first step, the challenge is convincing the military that its role is a subservient one. The primary obstacle to civilian control of the military is often a culture that has glorified the military. Changing that culture is a difficult, but necessary, task if the military is to be brought under civilian control. This will take time and education. Old leaders who distrust civilian leaders must be replaced by new ones willing to work with and for the civilian leadership. Obviously, if the civilian leadership is popularly elected, its legitimacy in the eyes of the people helps it control the military. This task is a difficult one but no more difficult than the task of building a sound, democratic government. It must be made clear that a military that sees itself as but one element of a democratic society will be stronger, not weaker, as a result, as its actions are more likely to reflect the sovereign will of the people it serves.

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/democracy/dmpaper12.htm posted 07/01/2008 at 08:57:16

Taken from wikipedia posted 07/01/2008 at 08:56:31

Methods of asserting civilian control

An immensely popular hero of World War II, General Douglas MacArthur's public insistence on the need to expand the Korean War, over the objections of President Harry Truman, led to the termination of his command.Civilian leaders cannot usually hope to challenge their militaries by means of force, and thus must guard against any potential usurpation of powers through a combination of policies, laws, and the inculcation of the values of civilian control in their armed services. The presence of a distinct civilian police force, militia, or other paramilitary group may mitigate to an extent the disproportionate strength that a country's military possesses; civilian gun ownership has also been justified on the grounds that it prevents potential abuses of power by authorities (military or otherwise). Opponents of gun control have cited the need for a balance of power in order to enforce the civilian control of the military. posted 07/01/2008 at 08:48:57

Advocates of civilian control generally take a Clausewitzian view of war, emphasizing its political character.[citation needed] The words of Georges Clemenceau, "War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men" (also frequently rendered as "War is too important to be left to the generals"), wryly reflect this view. Given that broad strategic decisions, such as the decision to declare a war, start an invasion, or end a conflict, have a major impact on the citizens of the country, they are seen by civilian control advocates as best guided by the will of the people (as expressed by their political representatives), rather than left solely to an elite group of tactical experts. The military serves as a special government agency, which is supposed to implement, rather than formulate, policies that require the use of certain types of physical force. Kohn succinctly summarizes this view when he writes that

[t]he point of civilian control is to make security subordinate to the larger purposes of a nation, rather than the other way around. The purpose of the military is to defend society, not to define it [4]. posted 07/01/2008 at 08:47:27

A strong assertion of the principle of civilian control was considered the best means of maintaining the "watchful eye", and informed military policy in the United States for much of its early history. The Posse Comitatus Act, passed in 1878, prohibits federal military personnel from engaging in domestic law enforcement activities (with certain exceptions, typically involving states of emergency, domestic unrest, and natural disasters).

Maoist military-political theories of "people's war" and democratic centralism also support the subordination of military forces to the directives of the communist party (although the guerrilla experience of many early leading Communist Party of China figures may make their status as civilians somewhat ambiguous). In a 1929 essay On Correcting Mistaken Ideas in the Party, Mao explicitly refuted "comrades [who] regard military affairs and politics as opposed to each other and [who] refuse to recognize that military affairs are only one means of accomplishing political tasks", prescribing increased scrutiny of the People's Liberation Army by the Party and greater political training of officers and enlistees as a means of reducing military autonomy [7]. In Mao's theory, the military " which serves both as a symbol of the revolution and an instrument of the dictatorship of the proletariat " is not merely expected to defer to the direction of the ruling non-uniformed Party members (who today exercise control in the People's Republic of China through the Central Military Commission), but also to actively participate in the revolutionary political campaigns of the Maoist era. posted 07/01/2008 at 08:47:06

A state's effective monopoly of force is an issue of great concern for all national leaders, who must rely on the military to supply this aspect of their authority. The danger of granting military leaders full autonomy or sovereignty is that they may ignore or supplant the democratic decision-making process, and use physical force, or the threat of physical force, to achieve their preferred outcomes; in the worse cases, this may lead to a coup or military dictatorship. A related danger is the use of the military to crush domestic political opposition through intimidation or sheer physical force, interfering with the ability to have free and fair elections, a key part of the democratic process. Many of the Founding Fathers of the United States subscribed to this suspicious assessment of the virtues of standing militaries; as Samuel Adams wrote in 1768, "Even when there is a necessity of the military power, within a land, a wise and prudent people will always have a watchful and jealous eye over it" [5]. Even more forceful are the words of Elbridge Gerry, a delegate to the American Constitutional Convention, who stated that

[s]tanding armies in time of peace are inconsistent with the principles of republican Governments, dangerous to the liberties of a free people, and generally converted into destructive engines for establishing despotism [6]. posted 07/01/2008 at 08:46:25

Civilian control of the military is a doctrine in military and political science that places ultimate responsibility for a country's strategic decision-making in the hands of the civilian political leadership, rather than professional military officers. One author, paraphrasing Samuel P. Huntington's writings in The Soldier and the State, has summarized the civilian control ideal as "the proper subordination of a competent, professional military to the ends of policy as determined by civilian authority" [1].

Civilian control is often seen as a prerequisite feature of a stable, liberal democracy; use of the term in scholarly analyses tends to take place in the context of a Western democracy governed by elected officials, though the subordination of the military to political control is not unique to these societies: One example is the People's Republic of China. Mao Zedong stated that "Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party," reflecting the primacy of the Communist Party of China (and communist parties in general) as decision-makers in Marxist-Leninist and Maoist theories of democratic centralism.[2]

As posted 07/01/2008 at 08:45:20

As noted by University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill professor Richard H. Kohn, "civilian control is not a fact but a process" [3]. Affirmations of respect for the values of civilian control notwithstanding, the actual level of control sought or achieved by the civilian leadership may vary greatly in practice, from a statement of broad policy goals that military commanders are expected to translate into operational plans, to the direct selection of specific targets for attack on the part of governing politicians. Leaders with limited experience in military matters often have little choice but to rely on the advice of professional military commanders trained in the art and science of warfare to inform the limits of policy; in such cases, the military establishment may enter the bureaucratic arena to advocate for or contest against a particular course of action, shaping the policy-making process and blurring any clear-cut lines of civilian control. posted 07/01/2008 at 08:44:52

The president is supposed to be a civilian,,, posted 07/01/2008 at 08:44:36

The president of the United States cannot be a military person. I think it is in the constitution posted 06/30/2008 at 23:13:00

The patriot "Act" of course, the truth always gets out. posted 06/30/2008 at 23:12:03

Please allow me to remind all of you that it is a nineteen year kid that is protecting the national security of this country. That experience killing people does not qualify one to be president of America, that authoritarian experience does not qualify one to be president of a democracy. That there are generals and chief of staff that make the decisions. That the president is supposed to be a civilian, that it can be argued that a military man cannot serve as president. That annointing the civilian president as commander in chief is to purposely isolate the governance from the military. Am I the only one who knows this? posted 06/30/2008 at 23:08:05

Defending Wes Clark

Civilian control of the military
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Advocates of civilian control generally take a Clausewitzian view of war, emphasizing its political character.[citation needed] The words of Georges Clemenceau, "War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men" (also frequently rendered as "War is too important to be left to the generals"), wryly reflect this view. Given that broad strategic decisions, such as the decision to declare a war, start an invasion, or end a conflict, have a major impact on the citizens of the country, they are seen by civilian control advocates as best guided by the will of the people (as expressed by their political representatives), rather than left solely to an elite group of tactical experts. The military serves as a special government agency, which is supposed to implement, rather than formulate, policies that require the use of certain types of physical force. Kohn succinctly summarizes this view when he writes that

[t]he point of civilian control is to make security subordinate to the larger purposes of a nation, rather than the other way around. The purpose of the military is to defend society, not to define it [4]. posted 07/01/2008 at 00:23:12

Amazing, this the first time I heard this - that "experience" led us into this major mess posted 06/30/2008 at 23:33:55

I believe it is the constitution that decrees that the president must be a civilian for a reason.
It can be argued that McCain's military experience disqualifies him for the presidency... posted 06/30/2008 at 23:19:47

How The Media Completely Distorted Wesley Clark

On October 27, 1967, four days after being shot down, McCain called for a North Vietnamese guard. He told the officer, "O.K., I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital." -U.S. News and World Report, May 14, 1973 article written by former POW John McCain

McCain was taken to Gai Lam military hospital. "Demands for military information were accompanied by threats to terminate my medical treatment if I [McCain] did not cooperate. Eventually, I gave them my ship's name and squadron number, and confirmed that my target had been the power plant." Page 193-194, Faith of My Fathers by John McCain

On Nov. 9, 1967, Hanoi press began quoting the seriously injured McCain giving specific military information.

One report dated read, "To a question of the correspondent, McCain answered: 'My assignment to the Oriskany, I told myself, was due to serious losses in pilots, which were sustained by this aircraft carrier (due to its raids on the North Vietnam territory - VNA) and which necessitated replacements.

"'From 10 to 12 pilots were transferred like me from the Forrestal to the Oriskany.

"'Before I was shot down, we had made several sorties. Altogether, I made about 23 flights over North Vietnam.'"

In that report, McCain was quoted describing the number of aircraft in his flight, information about rescue ships, and the order of which his attack was supposed to take place.

http://www.usvetdsp.com/mcainmdl.htm posted 06/30/2008 at 21:35:55

by all measures, the more qualified as a militarian the less qualified as president. posted 06/30/2008 at 21:26:04

To the extreme that it is unconstitutional for a military person to serve as president? posted 06/30/2008 at 21:25:32

How does military experience serve as qualification for a civilian president? posted 06/30/2008 at 21:24:59

How does experience as an authoritarian serve as qualification to serve as president of a democratic country? posted 06/30/2008 at 21:23:53

How does experience killing people serve as a qualification to run a country? posted 06/30/2008 at 21:22:29

Obama Rebukes MoveOn In Patriotism Speech

Why does everyone think that if Obama criticizes someone he is throwing them under the bus? THe phrase has become meaningless. How can a leader lead if he doesn't lead? To lead means to go in a direction, and if someone gets out of line, sic the sheepdog on him.
It's a bunch of crap, Obama didn't throw his grandmother under the bus, he simply said the truth, is that throwing someone under the bus? Is Obama throwing me under the bus when he asks me to be nice? Why even have a language if words can mean anything to anyone?
Besides, "throwing under the bus" is stupid, what if the bus isn't even moving? Why not use the correct and proper language, reject, renounce, disagree, criticize, agree, disapprove, ignore. This throwing under the bus should be renounced, rejected, eliminated from the language. I think a replublican coined that word knowing that all it does is confuse. posted 06/30/2008 at 22:42:39

McCain Uses Swift Boat Vet Bud Day To Rebut Wesley Clark

Seems to me, insofar as the president must be a civilian, McCains is disqualified by his military experience. At the very least, military experience is not a prerequisite for the presidency posted 06/30/2008 at 17:59:10

Clark: McCain A Hero, But Lacks Command Experience

Apparenly Obama is becoming very experienced so why do they complain? posted 06/30/2008 at 15:08:42

Why are people surprised that a politician running for president acts lke a politician? What do they expect? When in Rome do as the Romans do duhhhh posted 06/30/2008 at 15:07:48

neither is caving in and confessing to the enemy qualification to be president..

Have people forgot that a civilian president is a constitutional requirement? posted 06/30/2008 at 15:05:48

Lieberman Predicts Attack Will Come Early In Next Presidency

who do you know that has snake eyes? posted 06/30/2008 at 15:49:35

Why would the terrorists attack if Obama is the president? Why wouldn't they attack if McCain were the president? posted 06/30/2008 at 15:12:54

The neocons should warn us what will happen when the price of oil goes to $200 and more after Iran stops selling it. Somehow I think that the enemy would laugh as our transportation system shuts down. This is crazy posted 06/30/2008 at 13:57:53

Perhaps the replublicans might inform us about what more they would do in case of a future attack?
Maybe ship th evidence to Chine before we find out who actually did it?

The replublicans are certain an attack is coming, I wonder why...

Maybe they think the terrorists are as smart as they are? posted 06/30/2008 at 12:48:21

Obama Network Organizes and Revolts Over Spying

Obama seems to me to be smarter than most, so I have to assume he knows what he is doing. He does have to get elected first and if the problem is minor, as it appears to be from these posts, then it would be a mistake to create trouble now.

While I am at it, Obama is in a tight spot with this gun thing, but like he says big difference between father and son hunting in Montana and sixteen year olds shooting at each other on a busy city street,

Seems to me that a federal law deeming any crime committed with a gun would bring 25 years imrisonment would make some think twice. A murder with a gun should be life imprisonment, A federal crime would mean the FBI gets involved.

After all, using a gun in a crime violates our constutional equality rights, right???

The alternative is for the NRA ot conduct shooting lessons for gang members because the problem is not gang menbers killing eachother but missing and killing a six year old in her bedroom. posted 06/30/2008 at 12:42:11

Frank Rich: If Terrorists Rock The Vote In 2008

The terroists would be stupid if they attacked before the elections. If they attack after Obama is elected then they are the evil ones. posted 06/29/2008 at 20:44:47

It occured two days after the Unied States walked out of the African International Conference on race relations posted 06/29/2008 at 20:40:28

It certainly looks like the republicans are practicing in Florida, getting ready for that big one. Are they capable of doing that? Certainly they have experience. And they certainly have a good motive. And they certainly are capable of doing that. I don't think they are smart enough to get away with it though, and if they get caught...and they will be caught, good by replublicans. posted 06/29/2008 at 20:36:43

Anti-Obama Vandalism: City Vehicles Spray Painted With Racial Attacks

So how did they come by all the cards? posted 06/29/2008 at 21:57:04

Seymour Hersh Exposes New US Covert Operations In Iran (VIDEO)

Doesn't Iran have the largest oil reserves? And what would happen if they stopped selling oil? For example to our trucking industry, airlines, ups, the stock market? They wouldn't have to lift a finger. Well, one finger on the delete key of a computer posted 06/29/2008 at 20:32:32

Let's see, our soldiers, your sons, went into Iran who now considers them enemy combantants, and if captured will disappear with no record and subsequently tortured in much the same manner we do to them. How come no one thought of this before??? posted 06/29/2008 at 20:26:55

You are kidding us, right? posted 06/29/2008 at 20:21:44

Obama Undercuts His Brand

It really depends on who he is listening to. I never could understand how and why a politician would not adapt to circumstances, like he represents me, I don't care what he wants.. posted 06/28/2008 at 13:56:35

Obama is smart. He knows all about the here and now. The here and now is to get elected, life is about change and adaptation. posted 06/28/2008 at 13:51:47

NRA Promises To Do "Everything" It Can To Hit Obama On Guns

another four years of the same posted 06/28/2008 at 14:00:44

Perhaps the greatest thing NRA can do is teach sixteen year old gang bangers how to hit their target instead of killing six year old children. posted 06/28/2008 at 13:58:48

McCain Takes Credit For GI Bill He Opposed At Town Hall Event (VIDEO)

They must think we are as smart as they are posted 06/28/2008 at 18:17:09

After watching the replublicans and especially McCain, I am now convinced that they believe we are as dumb as they are. posted 06/28/2008 at 18:16:22

Memo to the Candidates

Reading this took me by surprise. Apparently not all replublicans, well I was going to thank the replubicans for showing us what they are made of and especially for choosing John McCain as their nominee. Yes, it is true that replublican does not automatically mean evil. But the seeking for riches is certainly misleading, especially for a politician. For, example, since when is Social Security an entitlement program? And when the citizens pay the taxes, why is giving sme of it back entitlment?
There is one thing that Hegel does not mention but is probably the root cause of our present problems - corruption. What level of corrupotion is tolerable? What level of corruption leads to bankrupcy? If a store makes a ten percent profit on an item, and someone steals on of those iteems, the store will have to sell ten of the items just to break even. posted 06/27/2008 at 22:53:41