what are you talking about? The military is voluntary there is no draft. Therefore no one is "exempt" they choose not to go which is there own business.
2007-09-17 02:36:48
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
8⤊
2⤋
I do not know of any exemption for children of peole in government office to be in the military or sent into a combat zone. Since the military is all volunteer an exemption to miltary service would be unnecessary. The brutal honest truth is that the all volunteer military has been and is primarily made up of middle class and lower social/economic groups. One "strength" of the draft after the college exemption was done away with was it did made the military more of a mix in the economics of those serving. This also led almost immediately to the anti-war movement on college campuses so I have always thought the two might be connected. Another question to answer yours is "How many millionaire's children are serving in the military and/or Iraq?"; the numbers would not be much different especially since Congress (members of both parties) is on average and median much better off financially then the country as a whole. The military for years has consisted of minorities (black and Latino), lower economic classes, rural and southern groups at a higher percentage then the general population; now people start to notice it and it is a bad thing because the wealthy and politically connected are not sacrificing. Simply put these are the people that can use the military to better their lives and position after serving by using the benefits available; the wealthy don't need those benefits. The answer to the question is I don't know and it is immaterial. If you would force those people into the military then make it fair and reinstate the draft with no college exemption and then do a human resources type survey and draft those socio-economic, racial and regional groups which are under represented in the military as a whole. Do wealthy people use influence to try to protect their children? Yes they do and most of people would also given the opportunity and means; is it right no but neither is joining ROTC until your draft number was low so you had little chance of being drafted then quitting because you suddenly don't believe in the war and organizing/engaging in anti-war protest in foreign countries.
2007-09-17 10:29:55
·
answer #2
·
answered by GunnyC 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
They aren't extempt.
But you have to realize, the average age of representatives is 57 years old.
And the average age of senators is 62 years old.
Their children are a little old to be joining the military now.
Most congressmen's children came of military age, long before their fathers or mothers became congressmen.
The average child of a congressmen, would have turned 18 arounf 1990.
And there is no data, on how many of their children enlisted way back then and served a tour of duty and then left the military.
But it is kind of silly to ask a 35 year old, with a family, to quit his job and enlist as a private, just because their parent, is a member of congress who voted for a war.
Could you exist on the pay a private gets ??
I couldn't., Not now anyway.
2007-09-17 10:53:41
·
answer #3
·
answered by jeeper_peeper321 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
It does pose an interesting dilemna. Say one of GW's daughters enlists and by the luck of the draw (needs of the military) ends up being sent to Iraq. As a front line commander, do I take into consideration the politics of what would happen should she be kidnapped? She'd be a hellova bargaining chip. Do I play favors and protect her.
Historically, Teddy Roosevelt's grandson served in WW II -- died of a heart attack during the war. Adm. Zumwalt's son was exposed to Agent Orange and died. Chesty Puller's son and Gen. Dolittle's son both committed suicide. Neither felt they were living up to their father's expectation or high reputation. And Gen. Patton's son (a general himself) George III, hates his old man. Still, it IS an all volunteer force.
As a parent, I want my children to have it better than me. In my ability to work myself into a position of being upper echilon, barring a sense of duty or in keeping a family tradition, it would seem a step backwards for my children to take a position that pays considerably less than a starting point I can provide.
Joe Kennedy had his two oldest boys gain commissions in both the Army Air Corps and the Navy. Joe Jr. died in combat and the other became president. It was all a matter of grooming. And, no other Kennedy's have since served -- a cousin or two has done jail time, but that's serving a totally different beast.
2007-09-17 09:59:35
·
answer #4
·
answered by Doc 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
I think those who want to serve should. There is no draft and I don't think there ever will be again. I certainly wouldn't want to fight beside someone who didn't come in voluntarily.
I do however believe that in order to fill a post related to the military, you should have had to serve. You should never be able to be The President of the US if you've never served on ACTIVE DUTY let alone fled the country during a draft. How could one ever be the Commander of something he/she's never been a part of?
2007-09-17 10:01:20
·
answer #5
·
answered by MadMaxx 5
·
3⤊
1⤋
We live in a free society were people have the choice to join the military, why do you want to take that away from them? How are children of people in government different than your child? There have been many examples of high ranking Congressmen and even Presidents who's children have severed in the military. Sounds to me like you are just trying to start trouble.
2007-09-17 09:37:49
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
7⤊
2⤋
I think they should be the first to be drafted, but without a draft it should be voluntary, though they should be encouraged to serve.
I respect John Mccain because he has 2 children in the military (one enlisted in the Marines) but still supports staying in Iraq, to me that shows he's got balls.
2007-09-17 10:16:41
·
answer #7
·
answered by Jon 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
I think part of a requirement to be a gov. official is that have to have been in the military and that if their kids are gonna follow parents footsteps they have to serve as well. Whatever bill they pass or don't pass should affect them directly as well or else is doesn't go into affect.
2007-09-17 11:14:09
·
answer #8
·
answered by luvmyhubby 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
Children of elected officials serve at the same rate as the country in general.
2007-09-17 09:36:07
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
10⤊
3⤋
Everyone who serves do so because they exercised their right to choose to serve.
This argument that politicians' children should be forced to serve is merely another clear example of the totalitarian-like mindset of many Leftwing liberals or “progressives”. Force their views on other people or force other people to do what they “feel” they should do.
‘IT’S NOT FAIR!’ is the battle cry of the Left.
2007-09-17 09:39:13
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
8⤊
2⤋
You cheated. You asked more than one question and only gave up five points.
Your question has been asked hundreds of times. In the US the military is all voluntary, which means, you volunteer and if selected you get in. You don't volunteer and you don't get in.
Duncan Hunter from CA has a son in the Army.
2007-09-17 09:38:09
·
answer #11
·
answered by regerugged 7
·
8⤊
3⤋