2007-07-20 10:22:31 · 17 answers · asked by ThatOneDude 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I'm referring to any president and any future presidents, not any one in particular.
2007-07-20 10:24:43 · update #1
I'm referring to any president and any future presidents, not any one in particular.
2007-07-20 10:24:51 · update #2
No FDR was a great President , Just so long as he is not a Draft Dodger and didn't protest against the U.S. while he was in a forign country going to school Humm did I say that about Clinton
2007-07-21 02:59:20 · answer #1 · answered by trinslycan 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No problem at all, even though every one of the seven Presidents I served under had served in the military. The first one had even reached the rank of General of the Armies (5-star general). Four of them had been Navy officers as I was when I retired from the Navy.
But, since less than 15% of American males (between the age of 17 to 26) these days cannot even meet the standards for enlistment, the chances are that future presidents will come from the non-veteran ranks. Less than 20% of the current members of the House of Representatives are veterans. About the same for the Senate.
The problem I do have is with a President who is a veteran and despises those who serve today and denigrates their efforts. BTW, that was the sixth guy I served under.
2007-07-21 00:35:30 · answer #2 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Not at all. In fact, it's going to get much harder to find them in the future. Since the draft ended in almost 35 years ago, and most future politicians not opting to be military volunteers, the only way you're likely to get a military veteran as President in the future is by electing a former General.
2007-07-20 17:28:32 · answer #3 · answered by Mitchell . 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not particularly. Reagan didn't serve. Neither did Clinton. Being AWOL from the Texas or Alabama National Guard does not qualify as military service. Being president does not require a knowledge of military strategy. However, if I didn't serve, I wouldn't bring up my opponent's military record.
2007-07-20 17:33:21 · answer #4 · answered by jack of all trades 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I know there are folks who say that a President shouldn't send men into harm's way, unless he's been there.
However, I don't have a problem if said president is sending men and women to war (without being in the military himself) and he's doing it judiciously and under advice.
2007-07-20 17:30:14 · answer #5 · answered by Nurse Annie 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't have a problem when a President who hasn't served, but I do have a problem with a President who invades other countries without fully understanding the mechanics of an occupation style war.
2007-07-20 21:35:29 · answer #6 · answered by Treebeard 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. We have had good presidents who were not in the military. We have had some generals who were not good presidents.
2007-07-20 17:26:21 · answer #7 · answered by regerugged 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
i do cuz like leaders back in the day like kings and stuff, all the really good ones used to fight in war.
only the best were the kings really when ya think about it. so if a presidant is going to be willing to send people to war he should be willing to fight himself(and also im not talking about anyone imparticular, i am not a bush hater, i dont mind him so much)
2007-07-20 17:31:33 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush...went AWOL....but reguardless of whether or not the Presiden has served in the US Military or not, does not effect me in any way possible.
I just think that he/she should have no juristiction of what the military does if he/she has not served because they have no actual military experience and they don't know what we go through in times of war.
2007-07-20 17:36:42 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
no i don't have problem with it. i see know where that i can find that military service is prerequisite for election to the office of president.
2007-07-20 17:50:08 · answer #10 · answered by darrell m 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋