Do u agree or disagree with me? presidents should be required to have military experience.?

Taveren

Yes. I believe they should be out there overlooking the major battles. It wouldn't hurt to have an intellectual president who also possessed military skills. Through war comes peace, not vice versa.

Peace is something we can enjoy only because we have the most powerful country in the world. Believe me people, many countries would like to annhilate the USA, but not while we're superior. First thing is first...drop America's guard by putting in the Nancy Pelosi's of the world. Let Iran's president, Hugo Chavez, hell why not Kim Jong Ill be honored guests?

meatpoet

Why?

George Bush Jr. had served in the national guard and drove the country into the worst economic disaster ever.

Clinton was a draft dodging ******** addict and economically speaking, the US economy was never better.

I can't see how military service is going to make an idiot smart or a genius bookworm more worldly.

Will F

I disagree. This is why we have generals and advisors.

Edit: Casey, what kind of dumb **** left field liberal are you?

oldguy

just because they were a good soldier dosn't mean they're a good diplomat of politician

Vor

That has got to be the most retarded thing Ive ever heard...I think we should have a smart president rather then someone who went half insane in some war! Thos people probably have short tempers and would rather drop a nuke then talk things out peacefully.

EDIT: Also don't get me wrong i do respect soldiers they are what makes are country strong but who the hell doesn't go insane after they just killed someone in cold blood? Or half there team gets wipe out by a grenade think about it!

TinyButUgly

Nope, i disagree with you
A president must have a solid education, intelligence, maturity, diplomacy and sound judgment. He must have those qualities that enable him to resolve a crisis peacefully, without dragging us into unnecessary wars. We are not choosing presidents for war, we are choosing them for peace. Going to war should be the last solution, after ALL the diplomatic peaceful ways to solve the problem have failed.

Foreign Minister

The job of commander-in-chief is just one line in the entire US Constitution. It should not be used to define the entire presidency. So, my answer is no. By your logic, should we also require that all presidents serve as ambassadors, economists, and lawyers?

Gotta have more explosions!

How would it help them exactly?

George Bush was an undeployed National Guardsman. Al Gore was a military journalist. Even those who have held commands would be unqualified to make important decisions regarding the military on their own - hence the advisors.

By your logic, a shower curtain repairman in the Army Reserve would be a more suitable candidate than say... an excellent public speaker with extensive education, honors and experience in law and political science.

Your candidate lost. Too bad, too late, better luck next time.

annawannawhat

Disagree.

Should they have financial industry experience, because they will have to deal with budgets, etc.? Should they have managerial experience, because they will take on the role of supervisor to a large swath of advisers and other employees? Should they have experience in employment, education, health care, etc. because they will deal with all of these and more? Should the president have a public relations background, because he is going to be addressing the press often?

No, the way that the presidency is set up, presidents have all kinds of advisers -- his cabinet -- who are experts on these issues. Commander-in-chief is only on of many roles that the president plays. It would be very difficult to find one person qualified in all of these areas. The only basic requirements are that he is 35 years of age and a U.S.-born citizen. Beyond that, it is up to the will of the people. If the voting public think that the president should have military experience, it is up to them to only vote for those candidates with that type of experience.

brainstorm

disagree

Pocarose

I don't agree. Presidents are not jack of all trades. They are chosen because of their leadership and judgement. Most importantly, a Heart for the people. Otherwise what is the role of Military Advisers?

desertviking_00

Disagree. Woodrow Wilson led us through World War One. Franklin Delano Roosevelt through World War Two. Neither served one day in uniform. In fact, had either man tried to enlist, they both would have been physically disqualified. Wilson for the history of a stroke he suffered in 1905 that forced him to become left-handed. Roosevelt had polio which confined him to a wheel chair.

sdiverjw

I disagree with you a president should be required to have military experience. FDR had none and he turned out to be one of our great presidents who served in War. And Lincoln had little experience and he was able to lead this country though the civil war. I believe he is the last American President to actually lead troops in the field, but it was more of a visit under hostile fire type thing.

teepetlhw

I don't think it should be a requirement, but I definitely think that it's something that should be taken into account when one is voting for president.

bittermeds

No, as that would imply the necessity of a war in order to train our future leaders. However, some previous experience prior to initiating such an event would be appreciated.

Betty S

What kind of military experience? As a POW for 5 years, abused & tortured into a frenzy & left with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder that impairs one's judgment? Also a hair-trigger temper that should not be allowed near a hot button at 3am? And that affects one's demeanor during an election campaign, esp. debates?

All of the above describe John McCain's behavior, & explain why he lost. Thank Goddess!

Nort

I don't agree. A person who has been in the military can only see thru his or her own eyes and that does not prepare a President to know and understand war.
Although John McCain was in the military, but seeing it from a POW camp does not help much.
I have been in the military and do not have a clue on how to command.
I also don't believe they have to be Gov, Senators or Lawyers.
Let's just have one requirement along with the age requirement. Make it honesty

Grela LaTuc

I disagree. We need a President who will realize that he/she doesn't know the answers for everything, but does have the knowledge to appoint people who have the needed experience and can advise him/her on those matters. We just have to hope that the President will listen to that advice before acting.

I'm For 'That One'

Absolutely disagree. Like many here have pointed out, the president has many advisors in many different stations. These are the real experts and who the president leans on for sound advice. I want my president to have the judgment and wisdom to pick the cream of the crop and not just cronies and 'yes men'. I would prefer my president knew about how the world in general worked, as well as home (Obama majored in political science with a specialization in international relations, in addition to constitutional law).

If you think putting boots on the ground is the way to win the 'war on terrorism' you are mistaken also. That's akin to your own statement "Please dont ram planes into our buildings anymore. We would really appreciate it if u didnt do that". But instead we are saying, "Hey terrorists! Here we are!" This way we get every anti-american nutjob in the world going after them too. I want my president to know the difference that terrorists are underground and that's where we need to go also. That the war won't be won by putting our troops in the line of fire and in harms way, but by covertly infiltrating the dirtbags wishing to do us harm.

Jolies pal

They have big powerful people to tell them anything they want to know.

Hollie

I understand what you are saying but no I don't think military experience should necessarily be a requirement. The main reason i don't believe this is because there are advisers that do have the military experience. I also don't believe they should have to be a lawyer or a senator. The president should be someone that shows great leadership qualities. To me this means someone that can listen to good advice and take it when he doesn't have the experience or the knowledge to make a good decision on his own. He should not be egotistical and think he knows best no matter what anyone else says. Unfortunately when we are trying to decide who to vote for when it comes to choosing a president we don't get the information we need to make a smart decision. All we have to go on is the issues they find important. And no i'm not happy with the choice of president but nothing i can do about it so I'll have to live with america's choice and hope and pray it doesn't turn out as bad as I fear.

BeefyStoner

military tactics are done by generals, not presidents. All the president does is authorize the generals orders. A general will always want a war to be fought if it is right or wrong just because he loves war, the president will decide upon wether it is right. A war is not always decided upon wether it is moraly right or wrong but on profit, greed, the publics oppinions whether for good or bad, etc. Besides there are more important things at hand then military tactics like fixing your country.

Dan d

Honestly, I don't think being in the military is any qualification for presidency.

ABCXYZ

definitely disagree.

airhead

Absolutely, positively, I agree. But he should have served in a war zone then he knows what he is doing when he sends military people off in harms way. When we are attacked on our own soil and we lose thousands of civilians then somebody doesn't like us very well and when it is done as their religious belief that makes it ten times worse. Our mistake was not going after the persons that was responsible. All, we did is drive them out of Afghanistan in to Iraq. Now, we have drove most of them back in to Afghanistan but you can't negotiate with people that are driven by a hatred that all Americans are Infidels and deserve to die. The Holy wars are the worst kind because you can't change how people have believed since they were able to first speak. this is hatred that is taught to children. Not, only to hate us but any other tribes in their territorial boundaries that don't believe as they do.

THRIÏŸÏŸE

No i agree but the only reason it came that way was because our first president George Washington was a general so it just kinda carried on.

J B

AGREE!!! They should have progression (experience) in the political history as well!!!! It's like someone who has no knowledge on teaching, and putting them in front of a class...let's "see" if they can do it, if not, it's only 4 years right??!!
I asked if experience was a factor....obviously not!!!

Drugs: You can't expect a President to not have done drugs in the 70's...WHO DIDN'T, they didn't know it was bad...I hate to say it, but it's true.

REMEMBER: The President is COMMANDER AND CHIEF, he should have experience so he knows what he's putting people into when he sends them to war. Go and put someone in a kitchen with no experience, and have them tell their sou chefs how to make a meal...Yea...That works!

Bubuh

They should also be drug free in past. I don't think we need someone who used to get high.

attagirl

Yes!!!! I totally agree that they should have military experience! Most jobs in this country require experience to get hired..

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: