I can't give examples because I don't know. I do like your question though and would like to say that if we sent our presidents to foreign nations to fight with the leaders of the nations we had issues with, then we would save ourselves billions of dollars and thousands of lives. The battles would be over and done with quickly. Too bad it doesn't work like that.
2007-02-22 04:23:21
·
answer #1
·
answered by Chimichanga to go please!! 6
·
3⤊
1⤋
Congressman Duncan Hunter has a son that's been in Iraq.
The other side to the coin is that only 9% of Americans bother to serve at all. Most Americans are too selfish to even consider the sacrifice of military service.
Historically, however, most leaders either got their kids off the hook or paid someone else to take their place. Wars are traditionally fought for the benefit of those who are in power not the people on the battlefield.
Most Americans are so utterly clueless about who runs this country that it's well past pathetic. Why do Democrats still support the private ownership of the Federal Reserve? Why do liberals seem to be so obtusely unaware that the "party of the people" supports the most profitable monopoly in the entire world? Do they they really think the "party of the little guy" raises all those huge campaign funds from bums on the street?
For more information on this topic you can go to http://www.freedomtofascism.com and order a copy of the Freedom To Fascism movie.
Then go to http://www.ronpaulexplore.com and urge Congressman Paul to enter the Presidential race so we the people have a choice worth voting for besides those candidates (McCain, Guilianni, Clinton and Obama among others) who have been handpicked by the owners of the Federal Reserve for us to choose among.
2007-02-22 04:38:38
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Since 1900, the only Presidents or Ex Presidents to have a son serve in combat are :
Teddy Roosevelt has 3 sons serve in WWl, one was killed, the other two wounded.
Franklin Roosevelt had one son serve in WWll as a Marine.
2007-02-22 05:15:42
·
answer #3
·
answered by sandy_32541 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Back in the day they used to give up their cabinet posts or senate seats to join the war.
Teddy Roosevelt was assistant secretary of the navy during the Spanish American war. He gave up his position to lead the rough riders up San Juan Hill.
Henry Stimson had been the Secretary of War for president Taft. He served as a lieutenant colonel in France during World War I. Imagine, a former secretary of war serving the armed forces in uniform!
More recently, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge resigned on February 3, 1944, to go on active duty during the Second World War in the United States Army, the first United States Senator since the Civil War to leave the Senate in order to go to war.
Now, we wind up with girly men like dick Cheney (small d), who had better things to do than join the military. I suppose driving while intoxicated was one of those better things he had in mind.
2007-02-22 04:49:46
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Any of them that were in the service at the time of war, were or could be sent. Remember we have a volunteer military, since VietNam. Besides, what does that have to do with anything? How many people on Yahoo Answers, that have been whining about the war or the Legistlators kids, been to war? My guess is very very few
A saying from the VietNam War: " If you weren't there.....Shut the **** up!!"
2007-02-22 04:24:40
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
3⤋
I am not sure but I do know that based on percentages the children of politicians do join the military more than those of other citizens.
2007-02-22 04:23:02
·
answer #6
·
answered by joevette 6
·
2⤊
3⤋