What are they doing writing books and living the good life while the country is at war? Shouldn't they join the military ?
A second question: Why is it the sons and daughters of world leaders from both 'good' and 'bad' countries don't join the military? Saddam's sons weren't soldiers. Suharto's kids were soldiers. The Burmese juntas kids aren't solders.
Leaders both respected and not respected seem to support the idea that the military and the wars they create are too good for their own kids.
2007-10-04 20:46:31 · 20 answers · asked by Beertha 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
The army does not accept alkies or drug abusers.
2007-10-04 22:40:25 · answer #1 · answered by Y!A-FOOL 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Dumb Yahoo! lib thought process.... First off, it's a volunteer military. I don't happen to see you wearing any dog tags ( I've already served, 1st Gulf war)? The girls have chosen there own career path separate from the policies or 8 year term of their father. Being a teacher is as worthy as being a soldier. In fact you would have to go all the back to TR's son commanding at Utah beach on d-day to find a president or ex presidents kid in the breach.
As to the second question: To prove what? Two more in the scheme of things make no difference. Unless your the British Royal family, It's just not a big deal...
Basing military or foreign policy on whether on not you have family involved is stupid.....
2007-10-04 22:38:06 · answer #2 · answered by lana_sands 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I was a Captain in the Army. THERE IS NO WAY I WOULD WISH THAT ON MY WORST ENEMY. That is the nightmare of any commander, having a president's kid. A congressmans kid is bad enough, but a presidents would be the worst. Not that they are spoiled. Imagen this, a president's kid is in the army. One day during training the food is cold or bad, training is running behind schedule, and they get back in late. It is nobody's fault, stuff just happens. Now imagen that kid talking with his dad or mom, who is the President, later that night. The President then makes a off hand comment to one of his generals about the bad training going bad in the kids unit, not really meaning anything by it. Next thing that commander knows he is going before the Corp Commanding General trying to explain it and has the IG going over the unit top to bottom.
Do not think it would happen. We had a congressman's son how complained to his dad that the barracks we had where overcrowed and bad. He was not telling him to have him do something, he was just talking about work like anyone does. A few days later Division Commander is inspecting our barracks, and only our barracks. They meet all Army standards, but we cancelled training for the next three days to clean and paint them. The battalion commander got chewed out on how bad they were, but they had past all inspections. Nothing happened to the congressman's son, but he still felt bad about it.
I would never want a congressman or a president's son or daughter. That is just an a** kicking waiting to happen.
2007-10-05 00:26:59 · answer #3 · answered by Chris 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They evidently decided there were different and possibly more comfortable ways of supporting their father's foreign policies than enlisting in an all-volunteer military.
To their credit, at least they've found very productive ways of keeping busy. Teaching is as respectable a job as any. I don't resent either of them in the least.
Sometimes the children of leaders (and ceremonial figureheads like Royalty) serve as military officers. It's an unfortunate conception that such people are too good to serve as foot soldiers, and they're often given cushy commissions to give them the benefits of a military life while sparing them the indignities of risk, lower pay and sometimes rougher treatment.
2007-10-04 23:37:00 · answer #4 · answered by Gotta have more explosions! 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The USA is a Democracy without Conscription (the Draft), therefore ALL Servicemembers are VOLUNTEERS.
No one can be forced against their free will into the service currently. The Bush Daughters are over 18 so their Father has no legal ability to order them into service. If you look historically, the last Prseidential Children to have served in the military since WW2 were Ens. Jack Carter & Lt. George W. Bush. The last Presidential child to die in combat was Quentin Roosevelt in 1917, his brother Theodore jr. died at Normandy in 1944 of a heart attack.
2007-10-04 23:28:59 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
As America is a democracy, there is no law requiring the serving Presidents family to serve in the military.
It was fashionable for dictators like Saddam Insane who put his sons into uniform to enable them to do what they wanted without question.
Also by having a serving leaders children in the military would make them ideal targets of propaganda if captured in time of conflict.
With regards G.B. dodging service in Vietnam, he could only go where his unit was deployed, I believe if you look at the records for the Air National Guard Unit he was in, his particular group or squadron were never posted overseas.
With regards: musicbabe42 post; wishing harm on somebody else children makes you little better than the person you are attempting to criticize, military personnel who volunteer to serve, all know that someday they might be asked to lay their lives on the line, they trust their leaders to have just cause to send them off to war.
2007-10-04 20:55:01 · answer #6 · answered by conranger1 7 · 7⤊ 1⤋
Leaders don't want their sons and daughters in wars because they would become major targets like prince harry I think it was wanted to go to Iraq. there was a bounty for his head amongst insurgents. I doesn't change whether they are related to a leader if you new that people were out to kill your son or daughter would you let them go to war?
2007-10-04 21:19:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It is a voluntary military. They must not feel that they have the skills needed to be successful or perhaps they wish to serve their country in other ways. You liberals really need to get another talking point this one is ridiculous to the oint of being mind numbing.
2007-10-04 21:04:59 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
if you were president would you send your son or daughter into hell..and even if you did look at the risk you subject the to .every nut with a gun woud zero in on finding and holding for ranson or worst public trail and then beheading..
2007-10-04 21:05:58 · answer #9 · answered by jtogto 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Why didn;t Chelsea join the service?
2007-10-04 23:48:14 · answer #10 · answered by spag 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The Bush family hardly lead by example.......but as you pointed out not all leaders do ... it's fine just to send other people's children to risk their lives on a battle field.
remember this song ... it's a pity there hasn't been a re-write :
Some folks are born
made to wave the flag,
Ooh, they're red, white and blue.
And when the band plays "Hail to the chief",
they point the cannon right at you.
It ain't me,
it ain't me.
I ain't no senator's son.
It ain't me,
it ain't me.
I ain't no fortunate one.
Some folks are born
silver spoon in hand,
Lord don't they help themselves.
But when the tax man comes to the door,
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale.
It ain't me,
it ain't me.
I ain't no millionaire's son.
It ain't me,
it ain't me.
I ain't no fortunate one.
Some folks inherit
star spangled eyes,
Ooh, they send you down to war.
And when you ask them,
"How much should we give?"
They only answer "More! More! More!"
It ain't me,
it ain't me.
I ain't no military son.
It ain't me,
it ain't me.
I ain't no fortunate one.
It ain't me,
it ain't me.
I ain't no Fortunate Son
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1BGZ0gAw9M&mode=related&search=
2007-10-04 21:57:34 · answer #11 · answered by ll_jenny_ll here AND I'M BAC 7 · 5⤊ 3⤋