2006-08-08 09:01:37 · 20 answers · asked by REPUBS_R_traitorous_garbage 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
No, because our military is VOLUNTEER.
2006-08-08 09:04:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Should they be forced to serve in the military? Wow...
If we were able to force them to have military experience, I'd
have a long list of other things that I'd say are more important.
They should certainly have spent some time overseas,
preferably in a country that is culturally not very close to us.
I'd like the person to be able to pass a reasonably easy
history test ...
I can see where the question comes with respect to the
particular situation we are now in, but there are so many other
constraints I'd want to see first.
2006-08-08 16:10:59 · answer #2 · answered by Elana 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is a very dangerous path you would select.The founding fathers were very careful to make sure the military did not control the government.Most objected to Washington for that reason.If you make it law that only the military can be president you will create a dictatorship in a few short elections.
Remember even ex-president Clinton was not in the military and would have been unable to run.
2006-08-08 16:05:11 · answer #3 · answered by Proud Republican 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most US presidents have not had any prior service. Also please consider 90% of Americans today have no military service as well. I can not think of one current female office holder in any Statewide or Federal office with any military backround... So your Idea would leave a rather small job pool to choose from. So where's your dog tag's???
2006-08-08 16:45:43 · answer #4 · answered by lana_sands 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You've just ruled out John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Franklin Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Abraham Lincoln.
Oh, and Billy Boy Clinton.
2006-08-08 16:06:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not only presidents but ALL citizens of the United States should perform 2 years madatory service to our country. Those that make policy should know first hand what it means to be in harm's way.
2006-08-08 16:08:49 · answer #6 · answered by bad1y2k 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
But there should be a rule about political advertising.
Say the candidates are John Jones and Sam Smith.
If it's a pro-Jones ad, it can only talk about Jones. If Smith, Smith's party, anyone other than Jones or his family or even if the word "opponent" is used in a Jones ad, then Jones' face has to be on the screen when he is talking about other people.
Bye-bye to those crock of crap "Swift Boat" ads, huh?
2006-08-08 16:07:34 · answer #7 · answered by wmp55 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No being in the military does not make them any better for office.
2006-08-08 16:06:12 · answer #8 · answered by jdfnv 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, there has never been a test like that.
If you create a military class with greater rights than others you are undermining the idea of civilian government.
2006-08-08 16:05:24 · answer #9 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that would be a wonderful idea....maybe it would make themsecond guess sending our troops over to fix something that inevitably is worse now than it was before we went over...and now we have lost way too many men in the process.
2006-08-08 16:07:33 · answer #10 · answered by lisa46151 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Uh, gee, let's see - you're suggesting that we have only former military officers for presidents and congressional representatives, right? Is that it?
Are you a moron, or what?
2006-08-08 16:07:37 · answer #11 · answered by Walter Ridgeley 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋