All these recent U.S. presidents and presidential candidates dodged, one way or the other, combat service in Vietnam: President George W. Bush, President Bill Clinton, Vice-President Al Gore, Vice-President Dick Cheney, Senator Joe Lieberman. And most of the men and women who will be running for president in 20 years will be persons who chose not to serve in the military in the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
2006-10-17 14:52:00 · 15 answers · asked by Dr. SC1ence 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Military warmongers should only be voted for if the reason is right for military action by the US.
2006-10-17 14:54:05 · answer #1 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's not right to accuse these people of being draft-dodgers. Very few people are eager for combat duty or even non-combat
military service if they can avoid it, particularly if they have any good reason to stay in civilian life (like a good job and a family depending on them). Most of us try to do what we are best at, or what we like best, and that isn't going to war. The military forces have a lot of decent people who volunteered because it looked like a good opportunity to earn education and advancement, and they never hoped or expected to go to war..
It just doesn't make a lot of sense for people with the potential to become U.S. Presidents and Vice-Presidents to go charging off with a helmet and a rifle, not even Teddy Roosevelt (the dorky, near-sighted kid who wanted to prove his manhood and actually did pretty well as a soldier and a big game hunter).
It is far better to vote for the people who are best qualified to serve as our civilian leaders, whether or not they served in the military. General Ulysses S. Grant was a great general, but one of our poorer Presidents.
2006-10-17 15:31:10 · answer #2 · answered by senior citizen 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do any new Presidential candidates or their family's serve in war ?? I think Michel Moore pointed out that only 2 members of congress have family serving in Iraq . Not that I trust everything that comes from Moore but some of his facts are true and indisputable
This is one perks of having money... Not serving isn't the issue no one is forced today Draft dodging in the past is the issue. When everyone is obligated to go and your not because your rich or come from a powerful family.. That's unethical behaviour.. Bush is a draft Dodger.. His father served with distinction. He was shot down during WW2 but JR is a dodger
2006-10-17 15:12:16 · answer #3 · answered by Shawn S 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I feel if someone leaves the country to avoid the armed services, they have no right to have the power to rule. It would seem to me they would only want the good and run from the bad. Can we depend on them to protect us when the going gets tough. Will they give away everything we have worked for over the last 100 years or more just for the sake of peace? Will we be able to walk down our streets and feel safe? Peace will come in due time and not by any human power.
2006-10-17 16:39:35 · answer #4 · answered by lollylou 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
enable me start up via i'm no longer a vet. i do no longer think of that being a vet is a standards to make a solid president. Bush is merely an asshole. I additionally think of that being a vet might make a foul president, I merely sense that there are a number of different situations that could desire to be met, like does the president have a concepts or is he a coke snorting, alcoholic without morals.
2016-12-13 10:16:50 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
America, by design, has a civilian led military. I don't think that is a problem. Our nation hasn't had a standing army for its entire history and so there have been many Presidents that did not serve in the military.
2006-10-17 14:56:30 · answer #6 · answered by imnogeniusbutt 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
First: A war and an invasion are two different things. If you are saying that invasion dodgers should be president, then Hell, Yes! They avoid killing and that's what America needs first.
2006-10-17 14:54:57 · answer #7 · answered by Reba K 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
we need warrior presidents. guys that know what it is to send boys/girls to war. someone that has been to other lands and appreciates the culture of other people. all Americans should serve two years in the military at the age of 21.
2006-10-17 14:55:51 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
It's only OK if they are democrats. If a Republican didn't go to war and is running, democrats use the double standard rule and get the media involved in trashing them for not fighting, even though they, democrats, are anti-war. That's really strange isn't it?
2006-10-17 14:55:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
What if they're the only ones on the ballot - should we all just not vote for anyone? Who would be in charge then? Hmmmm....
2006-10-17 14:57:57 · answer #10 · answered by fearslady 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋