Changes

::::::So you disagree? If so, then please, I enjoy these sort of discussions, though not when the other participant gives the equivalent of a throwing-their-hands-in-the-air response.[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 19:32, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::So you disagree? If so, then please, I enjoy these sort of discussions, though not when the other participant gives the equivalent of a throwing-their-hands-in-the-air response.[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 19:32, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

==Depends==

==Depends==

I think the relevancy of the military record of a candidate depends on his role in the war. If the person was a regular soldier (I am not familiar with rank so excuse the layman's language, I believe it is the rank of Private, but am not sure) then honestly, no I don't think it does. I am not in anyway trying to lessen the sacrifice that privates make in battle; I respect them 100% for the sacrifices they make. These sacrifices, however, do not necessarily translate into superior ability to be commander in chief. A private in the military makes no strategical decisions in the larger picture, that is the job of majors, generals etc. A commander in chief is chiefly concerned with overall strategy. Thus a private really has no greater advantage in this situation. If the candidate, however, was a a major or general or some other strategical position, then yes, in the context of commander in chief, it does matter. That record as a strategy decider, however, cannot be the only attribute that makes a candidate successful. Being commander in chief is only one of the many responsibilities of a president. In a way, it is almost of slightly lesser importance (before you all scream, hear me out). As commander in chief, the president (once in a declared war in congress) has the ultimate authority on strategy. Thus he can listen to his advisors and generals and such, make a decision, and have it enacted. Domestic and foreign policy, however, must go through congress. A president needs tremendous political skill to work a plan through congress (vis a vis FDR). In policy decisions, the president must work with congress and satisfy congress. In military strategy, the president has practically free reign. My 2 cents --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 19:28, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

I think the relevancy of the military record of a candidate depends on his role in the war. If the person was a regular soldier (I am not familiar with rank so excuse the layman's language, I believe it is the rank of Private, but am not sure) then honestly, no I don't think it does. I am not in anyway trying to lessen the sacrifice that privates make in battle; I respect them 100% for the sacrifices they make. These sacrifices, however, do not necessarily translate into superior ability to be commander in chief. A private in the military makes no strategical decisions in the larger picture, that is the job of majors, generals etc. A commander in chief is chiefly concerned with overall strategy. Thus a private really has no greater advantage in this situation. If the candidate, however, was a a major or general or some other strategical position, then yes, in the context of commander in chief, it does matter. That record as a strategy decider, however, cannot be the only attribute that makes a candidate successful. Being commander in chief is only one of the many responsibilities of a president. In a way, it is almost of slightly lesser importance (before you all scream, hear me out). As commander in chief, the president (once in a declared war in congress) has the ultimate authority on strategy. Thus he can listen to his advisors and generals and such, make a decision, and have it enacted. Domestic and foreign policy, however, must go through congress. A president needs tremendous political skill to work a plan through congress (vis a vis FDR). In policy decisions, the president must work with congress and satisfy congress. In military strategy, the president has practically free reign. My 2 cents --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 19:28, 8 September 2008 (EDT)