Most candidates who have served in the military use their service record as one of their personal qualifications. Given the role of the U.S. military in the geopolitical conflicts of the 20th century, should we require a candidate for the office to have served at least 4 years of active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces ?
2006-10-02 03:39:11 · 6 answers · asked by S.A.M. Gunner 7212 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Please bare in mind that U.S. personel serving overseas are the primary embasadores that most people will meet (other than the "rude American" tourist types).
2006-10-02 04:05:46 · update #1
I don't think so.....There is a lot more to that job that just commander and chief. Our military is all volunteer..that is what make it great and not every one can do that....military is not for everyone, that is why I respect the guys who have been there so much....However you don't have to serve to be a good leader. In fact most pres. have so many advisors anyway they really don't command anything....The pres. is not the only man making decisions for the military....in fact I really don't think they do anything without the counsel and advise of the cabinit and high ranking military people anyway. All the pres. has to be willing to do is listen to them. And I don't think that serving will have any sway in sending our soldiers to war....there are many other reasons for that...many of which we will never know....
2006-10-02 04:14:23 · answer #1 · answered by yetti 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'd have to disagree.
What your saying is very true, and I DO believe that having spent a decent amount of time (4 years is enough) in the military would give someone a better understanding of a soldier's life on the personal level -- making for a more understanding Commander in Chief, but this should not be a limiting factor here.
The point is that the American people should be able to chose who they want to go to office. While military service is a recurring trait of US Presidents, what if the American people really wanted a president who presented himself as more a diplomat. While I don't think this is what the American people want now, it may have a good basis behind this somewhere in our future. I do not necessarily think that Military service is a MUST for a leader.
2006-10-02 10:51:18 · answer #2 · answered by Tonx 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm sorry, but the ability to arise at 5 am. to be screamed at by people with tiny brains does not figure into presidential qualifications.
It is hard to believe but there are actually people serving in our military who are even dumber than George W. Bush. Do you want a president even dumber than the current one?
2006-10-02 14:41:28 · answer #3 · answered by marianddoc 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I'd settle for requiring candidates to read the Constitution out loud in the presence of witnesses before being allowed to run for any federal office.
2006-10-02 14:10:40 · answer #4 · answered by open4one 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes. A man who has been on the receiving end of gunfire is less likely to put other men in that predicament for his own personal financial or political gain.
2006-10-02 10:52:57 · answer #5 · answered by T S 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
iq test might be more appropriate.
2006-10-02 11:56:46 · answer #6 · answered by enord 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋