Mandatory military service with an honorable discharge, possibly limiting it even more to those that are VFW's. The best Presidents are those who truly know the enemy and how best to fight them. Leave the politics to the politicians, the Commander of our Military should have prior military background. I'm talking the President people. We have 100 people in the Senate and 435 in the House that can handle making the laws. We should have at least one that knows how best to defeat an enemy, and that is who should lead our country. Who agrees? Respectful criticism is also welcome.
2006-12-07 15:25:55 · 9 answers · asked by 19K Army 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Good, lets get rid of both parties and get some leaders that put citizens first.
2006-12-07 15:32:27 · update #1
yupchagee, you are right, they were great presidents, but they could have always been better, and this law could have done just that. Of course it could have the opposite effect but the way I see it the country can recover its economy a lot faster than it could rebuild after fighting a war, so I would rather have that military experience in office just in case.
2006-12-07 15:35:27 · update #2
hunterentertainment, I think the Soviets and Castro would have tried the same thing regardless of Eisenhowers involvement. Good criticism though.
2006-12-07 15:37:06 · update #3
In many countries military service is mandatory for all citizens. Here in the US one of our great rights is the right to disagree with the government, and requiring military service would abrogate that right. Requiring military service for leaders would mean that (1) pacifists could not serve as leaders, and (2) those who opposed the presiding government when they were of age to serve in the military could not become leaders. In addition, if you required that they be veterans of foreign wars, or that they have seen combat, then you would exclude (3) women and (4) people with disabilities.
Women are still not allowed positions that are considered to be combat positions, and as such have none of those benfits, though in practice they do see fighting in support roles. People with disabilities can also add a lot to our military, in support and non-commissioned officer roles, but as they cannot go into combat they would be ineligible according to your suggestion.
2006-12-07 15:49:45 · answer #1 · answered by zandyandi 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think it should be a mandatory requirement, after all being the president is a very important and significant position, and what we need for a president is someone who is able and competent to perform the job. I would most certainly prefer someone who knows how politics works rather than someone who has a better military career than political. Another point is that war can change a person's personality, and I think we need a president as human as possible. People who are in the military are trained to kill people, whereas regular Joes aren't, and that may be an important factor when the government is going to war or performing covert operations. I don't think we need a president who doesn't care about the lives of others if he does not see the value in human life and may approve any type of such operations. I believe in specialization, we don't need people who are good at everything to perform a certain task, which is why we don't ask janitors or elementary school teachers to perform brain surgery or build rockets. What we need is someone who knows how to the job well.
2006-12-07 15:39:45 · answer #2 · answered by bloop87 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
NO
First I do not want to change the constitution.
Next with no draft the overwhelming majority of Americans have no real connection with military. Less than 1% of America serves in the Military.
Correcting the un American factor could start with a 100% draft then after 20 or 30 years people would be back to where we were in the 60's.
Go big Red Go
2006-12-07 16:11:04 · answer #3 · answered by 43 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I do like the ideal of our leaders having gone through the sacrifices and discipline of military service, but I'm not certain we want to limit anyone from the Presidency other than the limitations currently in place (natural born citizen, etc. )
2006-12-07 15:39:05 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Although not practical, I do like this idea.
My reasons are not like yours though.. not to know your enemy. Enemies do change through time and that is sort of a non-diplomatic attitude to take office with.
I would say that you can't be president of the USA unless you have first served your country in the military... that simple.
2006-12-07 16:01:16 · answer #5 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes I have always felt that the president should be a member or former member of our great military.
2006-12-07 15:28:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I agree...
I have always said that.....
It is only the people that have demonstrated the willingness to lay down their life for their country literally that deserve to then lead it later on in life.
2006-12-07 15:30:09 · answer #7 · answered by wolf560 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Obviously you are to young to remember Dwight D Eisenhower.
He was a General. He was also one of the worst Presidents.
The only thing he managed to do in 8 years was tick off Fidel
Castro. He created the situation that J.F.K. had to end.
2006-12-07 15:31:37 · answer #8 · answered by hunterentertainment 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
That would have disqualified FDR, Wilson, Taft, both Adams, Jefferson among others. You may want to rethink this a bit.
2006-12-07 15:28:59 · answer #9 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋