Do you think it would benifit them to be a part of the military before being the leader of it?
Do you think the amount of wars would decrease?
2006-12-23 15:31:02 · 21 answers · asked by ur a Dee Dee Dee 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Tonyroma6- thaks, yes it is pretty accurate, except I don't wear blue eye shadow
2006-12-23 16:00:09 · update #1
I agree with some of the others, in that it would not necessarily be "better," but overall I think I would have more respect for someone that has served - esp. in a war-time situation. I think they might relate to the issues affecting the military personnel and thus, be a little more careful about making decisions.
I would like someone who has earned their way up in life and feel it would bring a down-to-earth element badly needed.
Obviously, we need to look out for the interests of our country first. Also, we should not tolerate flippancy, idiocy or greed in our government officials. After all, they are here to serve us - not to be kings.
Thank YOU so much for your service and my best to you and all of our military men & women that work so hard and sacrifice so much to carry on their careers with honor.
2006-12-23 16:49:12 · answer #1 · answered by Lake Lover 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Every post-World War II President other than Clinton served in the military (Reagan was a Hollywood-warrior and also the Commander in Chief of the California National Guard) . I think it is very important to have solid knowledge of the military, but I wouldn't DARE to suggest that it should be required.
Do I think that would decrease conflict ? NO. Despite the whiners here... Iraq goaded us into this war.
2006-12-24 00:21:39 · answer #2 · answered by mariner31 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it won't decrease the amount of wars, because a leader's military experience (or lack of it) doesn't stop other countries from being belligerent and attacking us.
However, the Commander in Chief of our armed forces has a difficult time relating to them and understanding how the military works if he has never experienced it firsthand. He also has difficulty gaining their respect.
President Clinton is an example of a President who made decisions and used the armed forces without having served in the military.
2006-12-23 23:52:58 · answer #3 · answered by Mmerobin 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. Bush (Jr) "served". But that didn't stop him. Institute a draft, where every ones in the appropriate age range can be drafted! Men & Women. Most of the time, the wealth can keeps their kids out of harms way.
By the war, I served and I can tell you that war is just an extension of diplomacy. There will always be war, there will never be world peace. It's human nature.
2006-12-23 23:39:34 · answer #4 · answered by Henry H 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It wouldn't hurt but it's certainly not required. Don't forget that the President surrounds himself with his Cabinet and top advisers to assist in decision making. Our top military leaders are included in that group. He relies heavily on their experience, just the same as a corporate executive relies on the board or directors for advice.
The number of military actions won't diminish until there is a greater level of trust and peace in the world ... which probably won't ever happen. It's human nature to exploit the weak and our military helps to defend those who can't defend themselves.
2006-12-23 23:43:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't know if war would decrease.
I do think that if you are going to be the Commander in Chief you should have first hand experience and knowledge of how it all works.
So many politicians call for the patriotism of the American public by joining the military and asking them to be all they can be... but how many of them are willing to let their children serve? But they will take everyone elses.
Seems a little unbalanced.
2006-12-23 23:41:16 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Not a bad idea. But it would not be a cure for all. Would you have them do research in medicine before they can make laws on stem cell research ? Would you have them work with human rights/philosophy/ethics before they can take on abortion issue ?
If there is a way to guarantee the prospective candidate has common sense, it would help a lot.
2006-12-23 23:39:19 · answer #7 · answered by ramshi 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We have had very few Presidents that have not served in the military. How's that worked out so far? Considering the cult of personality that it takes to become President in the first place, do we really need to limit the field any more than it already is?
2006-12-23 23:36:44 · answer #8 · answered by normobrian 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I don't think that it would change amount of wars, there would still be greed and power at play, also being in the military alone is not enough to change their opinion on civillian lives in other countries
2006-12-23 23:40:02 · answer #9 · answered by Kristen L 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think that would be a great idea actually. Just so they know exactly what the servicemembers do. I don't know the amount of wars would decrease...but it might be a great look into the lives of our soldiers. Not a bad idea at all.
2006-12-23 23:56:48 · answer #10 · answered by misty n justin 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋