2006-12-17 05:31:30 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I don't wonder at all. They are college graduates who chose not to enlist in the US Military. We DO have an all-volunteer force... of 2.6 Million.
LMJ25 - President F.D. Roosevelt's son James served during World War II. He was second-in-command of the 2nd Raider Battalion of the Marine Raiders, an early US Marine commando unit organized and trained to conduct guerrilla-style attacks behind enemy lines. Eventually he retired at the rank of Brigadier General, winning the Navy Cross and Silver Star in combat. James suffered from having flat feet, so while soldiers were required to wear boots, he was allowed to wear sneakers.
Sharmel - Thank you for pointing out that there are MANY among the MILLIONS of US Citizens who aren't currently serving than the "First Daughters".
The 2000 Census list the US population at about 281.4 million and the total US Military is 2.68 million. That means that LESS than ONE percent of the US population is serving in the US Military.
I couldn't find full data on the US population of the correct AGE, education, and health to serve in the military... but even IF we were to say that those between 18 and 42 years of age is a third of the total population. THEN only 3 percent of those ELIGIBLE to serve ARE serving.
Stop singling out others. Have YOU served ?
2006-12-17 06:26:48 · answer #1 · answered by mariner31 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why do you single out the Bush Girls? Why not Paris Hilton, or Brittney Spears, or Rosie O'Donnel? Not only that, what man OR woman, from any walk of life at all, is over there fighting in Iraq by force? Every single solitary member of the Armed Forces voluntarily signed up. When you do that, you might or might not HOPE to ever have to go to war. But you know darn well going in that it could happen and you could be so assigned.
I happen to be somebody in the "older category" who is alive today, sitting here, in a great deal of comfort, because many years ago, British and American forces alike, along with soldiers of other denominations, put their lives on the line against a horrendous foe, and individuals whom I would never know, died in order that I could remain alive and grow up in freedom. I can't fight for this country today, myself, because for one thing I am too old, and for another, because I probably would never have passed the evaluation for service for a number of reasons. But I consider myself a "civilian warrior" in that I wholeheartedly applaud and support those valient young men and women who are over there, and in other foreign territory, defending US at a distance, to make damn sure the enemy never gets HERE. I doubt if you even know this, but there was a time in the past where it was not recognised that some people just do not have the proper mental disposition to make effective warriors on the battlefield. It had nothing to do with cowardice, or selfishness, or self-preservation. They just lacked the certain mental and emotional disposition to be able to handle it. You don't know one thing about the Bush Girls, only that they ARE the daughters of George Bush. That, however, was neither their choice nor their "fault". What they DO have is the exact same right that you have yourself.... the right to not join the military. Evidently they made the same decision that you did.
2006-12-17 13:51:16 · answer #2 · answered by sharmel 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
You probably know the answer to your question, but here goes anyway. The sad fact is that rich people usually don't serve even when there's a draft. This is true despite the evidence that the rich profit more than the rest of us do as a result of war. Some rich kids will serve as officers, but most won't serve at all. In the case of the twins, it's probably even worse given their father's military history.
2006-12-17 13:41:15 · answer #3 · answered by Scott K 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There are some good responses here, but something else to consider. Do you think they could perfrom their duties with a Secret Service detail with them everywhere? Also, and more importantly, any presidents family is a high value target to the world that would intend harm on them, and thusly a security risk.
2006-12-17 17:49:27 · answer #4 · answered by Shawn M 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Come on the real reason the Bush girls can't serve in the military is the fact they couldn't survive being deployed to a muslim nation that does not allow alcohol.
2006-12-17 14:01:33 · answer #5 · answered by larry m 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
President Bush despite what many pople think is an aristocrat and comes from an aristocratic background
(the lower end of the aristocracy at that). Don't blieve me? Look up his family history and wealth, they are the distant cousins of the english royal family (the current windsors, who are german and had their last name changed to distance themslves from germany and the nazis).
Throughout history it has been poor people who fightwars, not the rich and wealthy, thus that is why his daughters are not in Iraq.
2006-12-17 13:45:03 · answer #6 · answered by ? 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
We have an all volunteer military and they have chosen not to volunteer. What did you want a draft that just drafted them and no one else? Are you in the military? If not, why not? Do you not love your freedom of speech?
2006-12-17 13:35:19 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
It would be because they haven't enlisted in the military....why aren't you fighting in Iraq?
2006-12-17 15:31:55 · answer #8 · answered by mahree 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because they didn't join. Understand? You have to join first. It's a volunteer thing.
2006-12-17 23:23:08 · answer #9 · answered by Yak Rider 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Uh, because they never enlisted in the military. Did you not know that the U.S. has an all volunteer force???
2006-12-17 13:34:12 · answer #10 · answered by CraigRC 2 · 6⤊ 0⤋