Not really. He’s also big on the idea that Biden “can’t tell the difference between a battalion and a brigade. (Here’s a hint: it’s about 6,000-7,000 people, and a lot more weaponry.)” Of course, according to Wikipedia, US Army brigade strength is 3,000-5,000 soldiers, and a battalion is 300-1,000 soldiers …let’s see …. 5,000 minus 1,000 equals 7,000, and 3,000 minus 300 equals 6,000 …. yeah, that’s about right.

Jay Tea, you incomparable nincompoop: if you’re going to flame Biden for his “lack” of military knowledge, you should at least get your numbers straight. Or, you could move to Elbonia, where you’d fit right in.

Sorry, but your stupid burns stronger than usual in this thread. Go try and troll another one.

And Bush II has time and again proved his staggering intellect. Need I remind you of the understated praise given him by Hinderaker, lo these many years ago? (In case you’re unfamiliar with this particular statement, you can read it here:
http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2008/03/02/it-must-be-very-strange-to-be-john-hinderaker/ )

So, please, leave Jay Tea ALO-O-O-O-ONE!

And his Mommy doesn’t bring him PBnJ, you moonbat! She brings him fresh bags of Cheetos! (And, now that Palin’s on the scene, fresh boxes of Kleenex.)

Only problem: he graduated in 1979 and entered college. The draft registration wasn’t reinstated until the summer of 1980, after he completed his first year of college. So his story about being a fresh high school graduate and looking at registering for the draft is complete and utter bullshit.

Jaim: Ever since the draft ended, all anyone has to say is that they didn’t think a military career was right for them. Lord knows it wasn’t for me. (Health issues.)

Also, Rumsfeld was Ford’s SecDef. Ford wasn’t president until the latter half of 1974, and Rumsfeld took office in late November of 1975. Are you saying things were going just swimmingly up until that point, and it was Rumsfeld’s fault alone that we lost?

What was that about “game/set/match?” I think you just managed to geld yourself and your own arguments — with a rusty chainsaw.

I’d suggest putting some rubbing alcohol on those cuts.

J.

As for this: Rumsfeld “had previously been Ford’s Secretary of Defense.”

No shit Sherlock. We didn’t win in Vietnam thanks to him, and we’ve already lost in Iraq. We’re definitely losing in Afghanistan unless Obama takes charge and sets things right.

Game. Set. Match. Take yr meds, get yr mom to bring you a PBnJ without the crusts you moronic troll.

As for “knowledge,” Obama has degrees from two Ivies (granted, so does Bush II). You can argue against his policies, but you can’t argue against his intelligence. Unless you have degrees from The Sorbonne and Stanford, just give it a rest.

But that’s a diversion. I didn’t say that military SERVICE was essential, but military KNOWLEDGE. That would be what I meant when I referred to FDR and Richard Nixon (although Lyndon Johnson would be an even better comparison). Experience can often give the knowledge, but it’s not necessary.

Obama was willing to make up a bullshit story about considering a career in the military (kind of like Hillary Clinton joining the Marines). That says, to me, that he doesn’t take it seriously.

J.

But further proof that military service doesn’t make for unimpeachable expertise on military matters. Not that it hurts either, IMO, but there’s a reason why US presidents were suits and ties, not military outfits like third-world dictators.

(Unless your name is Chimpy McFlightsuit and you’re trying to pull of a campaign speech on an aircraft carrier.)

Maybe because you’re a dimwit in love with the sound of your own voice (so to speak)? Or because you like playing the I’m-not-going-to-stoop-to-name-calling-like-those-assholes card?

… but here is the challenge in intervening in Darfur:

You know, it took me all of two minutes (because I’m a slo-o-o-o-w reader) to read through your Clausewitzian-in-their-brilliance list of tactics (or as McCain would call them, “strategy”). If I weren’t part Preussich, I would never have understood the subtleties like:

1) Determine the desired outcome on the scene.

7) Keep the force supplied with sufficient materiel (including food, water, weapons, ammunition, and reinforcements, just to name a few of the requirements for sustained operations).
.
.
.
That’s just the bare-bones, off the top of my head, kind of details that Obama will need explained to him once he becomes Commander In Chief.

It is truly amazing that you believe that Obama couldn’t pick this up in about 30 seconds. I realize you probably studied for years to be able to come up with such an exhaustive list, etc., etc.

But if the best you got is that Biden doesn’t know the size difference between a brigade and a battalion (or a platoon and a company or a phalanx and a kumquat), then you got jack shit.

Maybe he’ll suddenly develop an interest and be a remarkably fast learner. Could happen. But I’m not taking that chance with my vote.
Good point. Much better to give your vote to someone who finished 5th from the bottom of his class at Annapolis; who doesn’t know the difference between Sunni and Shia, or between financial and fiscal; who gave aid and comfort to the enemy while a POW in the “Hanoi Hilton”; who was a member in good standing of the Keating Five (until he decided he couldn’t play the “I’ve learned from my mistake and will now be a Reformer” role any longer); who is trying to get a government corruption investigation of his running mate squashed.

Oh, how I long for the days of Floyd Alvis Cooper. Even Kaye Grogan showed more intellectual rigor than you, Jay Tea. I think it’s time for you to go back on your meds.

Um, this is exactly what George Bush (with his awesome experience in the Texas National Guard) tried to do in Iraq, and he failed miserably.

Not sure what you’re driving at Jay. First, you’re claiming that Obama fancies himself a wizened military leader, something that he’s never done. Calm, confident, intelligent, and capable? Well, most Americans think he’s all of these things and would remain cool in an emergency or crisis. McCain? The man’s a time bomb and doesn’t have the character of a president. Military experience? Of course. He crashed four different jets and helped us lose the Vietnam War.

Second, if actual military experience is really the most important qualification for being POTUS, then answer me these two questions: 1) Why didn’t you vote for John Kerry in 2004 and 2) Why did you think non-vets like Rumsfeld and Cheney could ever possibly pull off a succesful round of nation-building in Iraq?

(You do remember the phrase “nation building,” don’t you? That scary, wasteful thing big bad Bill Clinton did when he sent a relatively small number of US troops in the former Yugoslavia and Somalia? But all of a sudden, under a Republican president, nation building became “spreading democracy”? Yeesh. I get the impression that you honestly fancy yourself a “student of history” or something like that, when the fact is you’re a feebleminded simpleton who tries to bluster his way through these arguments and simply isn’t equipped for them. And so people point out that you’re full of shit, and you respond with the time-tested WALL OF TEXT tactic. Thanks for the laughs, yet again.)

1) Determine the desired outcome on the scene.

2) Calculate the force needed (size and mix) to achieve that goal.

3) Assemble that force.

4) Find a route that will get that force to the scene without intervening conflict.

4A) If an uncontested route cannot be found, add to the force enough elements to secure the route without so many casualties as to diminish the force beyond what it needs to achieve goal 1.

5) Begin transporting the force to the destination, making certain that the initial force is strong enough to secure the arrival point from an immediate attack.

6) Have the force establish its base (not necessarily the arrival point) and bring in the rest of the force.

7) Keep the force supplied with sufficient materiel (including food, water, weapons, ammunition, and reinforcements, just to name a few of the requirements for sustained operations).

That’s just the bare-bones, off the top of my head, kind of details that Obama will need explained to him once he becomes Commander In Chief. Bringing about “change” in a foreign nation engaging in genocide against its own people is a smidgen more complicated than throwing a few hundred thousand dollars at community organizers like ACORN and having them fake an assload of voter registration forms in preparation for massive voter fraud.

Obama, despite his brief flirtation with a military career (September 7, 2008 — George Stephanopoulos asks him if he ever considered a military career: “You know, I actually did. I had to sign up for Selective Service [a means of conscription in case of war] when I graduated from high school. And I was growing up in Hawaii. And I have friends whose parents were in the military. There are a lot of Army, military bases there. And I actually always thought of the military as an ennobling and, you know, honourable option. But keep in mind that I graduated in 1979. The Vietnam War had come to an end. We weren’t engaged in an active military conflict at that point. And so, it’s not an option that I ever decided to pursue.” Of course, this does fly in the face of reality — he graduated in 1979, registration for the draft didn’t come back until late summer 1980, so he wouldn’t have had to register and could not have registered until after his first year of college), has never shown the slightest interest in things military. And his running mate can’t tell the difference between a battalion and a brigade. (Here’s a hint: it’s about 6,000-7,000 people, and a lot more weaponry.)

Maybe he’ll suddenly develop an interest and be a remarkably fast learner. Could happen. But I’m not taking that chance with my vote.

J.

fafaroo -
With my previous comment, I am hoping to wrest that title from him.

Unlike McCain, of course, who knows all about the military because he was a POW, and because his Daddy and Grampaw were Admirals.

And McCain’s sorta like George W. Bush, who knows all about how to run an oil company (or two) and a country because his Poppy and Grampy did that stuff (more or less).

What EXACTLY do you want your “SOMEONE” to know? That the Greeks won at Marathon/Salamis? That the cheese-eating surrender monkeys lost at Agincourt? That something happened at/on the Plains of Abraham? That, according to Vizzini, you should “never get involved in a land war in Asia”? That a General outranks a Colonel?

Or should the “SOMEONE” just be able to tell the difference between when his generals (etc.) know what they’re doing, and when they’re feeding him a line? And perhaps the “SOMEONE” should know how to make a rational decision? Or maybe that the “SOMEONE” knows how much he/she doesn’t know, and takes steps to gain the required knowledge?

But I guess I see your point, because of a striking parallel from the business world: Lou Gerstner knew jack shit about running a computer company before he became IBM’s CEO – that became obvious fairly quickly, since IBM went out of business shortly after he took over, didn’t it?

Or am I being too subtle, Ess Eff Bee?

[Oliver, can you implement some kind of minimum-intelligence-test that commenters must pass before commenting? I realize Jay Tea would doubtless ace it, while I would doubtless fail miserably, but at least it would keep down SOME of the noise.]

“The problem with intervening militarily on a humanitarian basis is almost always logistics — and that is where Obama’s lack of military experience and utter disinterest in learning about things military combine in a lethally naive fashion.”

I’m not the military expert you are but I’ll bet that the problem with intervening militarily on ANY basis is almost always logistics. Just a wild guess. Or in your vast understanding of military history is logistics only something that poses a problem when the goal is humanitarian? Jesus.

This is the kind of classic right wing asshattery that just makes me howl.

I bet you thought you were really off to a great start with that one. So reasonable, so learned, so smart. Why that sentence is just packed with serious words, McCain-like words: “military,” “intervention,” “logistics.” Who could argue with such a seriously considered and rendered statement? Why no one of course, because it’s so completely, totally and patently obvious.

But not for Obama. Nope. Why Obama is so inexperienced I’ll bet he never in a million years would have thought that logistics are “almost always” a problem when it comes to military interventions, especially not humanitarian ones! Why I’ll bet he’s never even heard of those serious, McCain-like words — and he’s too much of an egomaniac to ask what they mean or even look them up. And if he did ask someone, he’d probably ask Bill Ayers.

Jay Tea, you must be the biggest blowhard on the internets.

Jay Tea, why didn’t you start with Rumsfeld and Iraq? Now THERE’S your classic example of both a president and a defense secretary who had no clue what they were doing and refused to listen to those that did.

For example: witness the ways Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Richard Nixon employed the military. Then remember that Nixon was a Navy vet from World War II.

To paraphrase Oliver, it would be nice if occasionally liberals would learn from history instead of rewriting it.

J.

Eichmann offered to trade 1 million Hungarian Jews for 10,000 trucks filled with soap.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/jewsfortrucks.html

There were all types of options that were not explored and because the camps remained open, the Nazis were able to maintain there killings in secret. The death marches occurred during the KAOS at the end and may not have been acceptable Axis occupied population.

That’s part of the reason that we are still debating this today. It’s one of the eternal “What if?” of history.