They have Five.
2007-12-18 06:27:32 · 11 answers · asked by O'Papa Smurf! 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Zero.
2007-12-18 06:30:30 · answer #1 · answered by Waas up 5 · 6⤊ 1⤋
i know, acceptable? whilst it comes right down to it i do no longer think he can quite get exhilaration from the U. S. as a political servant of it. this does not would desire to be a rustic run by ability of the over-privileged. through fact of this he went to France. i do no longer think he know's what paying debt is like. thank you for doing our united states's grimy artwork beforehand. I did pointless excursions in Iraq. i'm hoping it quite is going to supply up at some point. there's no longer something to concern yet loss of existence for a rustic searching for earnings the time of a conflict on the Taliban.
2016-10-08 21:10:52 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
How dose his children serving in the military have anything to do with him? It is a volunteer force. Did Bill or Hillary serve in the armed forces? No. Hillery didn't join and Bill dodged the draft.
Just a question... Did you serve? If so what branch?
Semper Fi!!!
2007-12-18 07:32:48 · answer #3 · answered by Lucius Vorenus 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
He answered this in an interview. I think it was with Sean Hannity.
He said that due to our military being an all volunteer military, he left the decision up to his sons. None of them chose to serve.
He then stated that their family does not look down on those that choose not to serve, and do support and applaud the heroism of those that choose to serve.
EDIT:
In reply to the comment about neo-con's not being in the military.
In 2004, Montana had the highest recruit/population ratio at 1.69. And again they had it in 2005, with a 1.57 ratio. And Montana is a predominatly conservative state.
And if you look at the chart at the following link, the majority of states that had high recruit/population ratios are Republican conservative states or states with high populations that are closely divided between conservatives and liberals.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda06-09.cfm
2007-12-18 06:32:38 · answer #4 · answered by Raising6Ducklings! 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Are you implying that a person can only run for President if they (or their children) have served in the military? If so, that would disqualify most of the people from being able to run.
2007-12-18 06:45:11 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
In this day and age, I would expect that every wealthy American would do everything to shelter his children from harm. As opposed to, say, passing on moral values, which appears to be off the radar screen entirely. BTW, Romney is worth at least a quarter of a billion dollars.
2007-12-18 06:48:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
None, but according to Mitt, since his sons are working on his Presidential campaign, that is somehow similiar to being in the military and serving their country.
Just remember "Mitt Happens!"
2007-12-18 06:32:23 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 5⤋
I don't think any have, but I don't think it matters. If there was a draft and they avoided it or something, then it might be an issue, but that is not the case here today.
2007-12-18 06:30:36 · answer #8 · answered by HokiePaul 6 · 6⤊ 2⤋
Very few of the current neo-con chickenhawks have had very little to with defending their country-ti goes for politicians as well as talk show hosts-
2007-12-18 06:32:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 5⤋
Since we have an all volunteer military, I don't see why it matters.
Vote for Rudy!
2007-12-18 06:30:32 · answer #10 · answered by Rick K 6 · 8⤊ 3⤋