Military experience can be adaptable to different scenarios. So having some experience could be a better start than none. But either way I don't think it is necessarily a huge advantage/disadvantage as far as what is required for the presidency.

Well for one, Millions died in WWII. The reconstruction went smoother because of the culture and there was actual national unity to build off of in those places.

Iraq has never really been a full scale war. Many mistakes were made after the initial removal of Saddam from power as well that delayed progress. Even if those mistakes hadn't been made, it would still have been difficult enough with the culture and lack of national unity among different ethnic groups.

I agree with you, I just don't understand why they don't divide Iraq up into three "states" at least and maybe keep a federal governing body in place for "Iraq" to make sure the oil revenues are fairly distributed or something like that to help ease ethnic tensions.

Except we're "imposing" democracy on Iraq. They actually have a say now in their government, certainly more than they had under Saddam, yet some of them are choosing violence. Although I agree a foreign force is not the ideal way for a democracy to form, it has to come from within to be truly successful. Hence that is the problem of Iraq.

As for the things you want, I wouldn't count on the government to help you achieve them, I think you're gonna have to help yourself, as well all do (although there's certainly nothing wrong w/ helping each other). Having said that, the government does need to get its act together in protecting citizens from abhorrent credit practices, etc...

From your comments I'm assuming you're in a relationship with a gay man serving in our military? I agree the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is pretty stupid. I have no problem with homosexuals openly serving in the military, nor do I understand why others would either, so long as that individual is fully capable and not interfering with the mission in some way, regardless of what their sexual orientation is.

As for your comments referring to regulating who you choose to love, I'm assuming that's referring to the gay marriage debate? Personally, I don't consider a couple of the same gender to be a marriage, simply because I view marriage as specifically a heterosexual relationship term as it is defined. However, I'm all in favor of providing homosexual couples with the legal recognition of civil unions (which yes, essentially would be like the legal recognition of marriage). I just hate seeing this used as a wedge issue each year when there are so many more important and pressing matters that need to be dealt with, as I'm sure you seem to agree. We just need to settle the issue, allow for civil union legal recognition of gay couples, and put it to rest, seriously. It's such a needless distraction which shouldn't be an issue.