NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you think that it should be a requirement that people in high elected positions (U.S.) should have to serve in the military before they can be a candidate to become elected?

I think that it should be a requirement for anyone who wants to get elected to do a military tour. If they are given the power to wield such an awesome responsibility than they should have served in it before so they know how to use it, and wouldnt think about putting the lives of people they once served with in danger unless it was necessary.

What do you think?

Do you think that it should be a requirement that people in high elected positions (U.S.) should have to serve in the military before they can be a candidate to become elected?

I think that it should be a requirement for anyone who wants to get elected to do a military tour. If they are given the power to wield such an awesome responsibility than they should have served in it before so they know how to use it, and wouldnt think about putting the lives of people they once served with in danger unless it was necessary.

What do you think?Hell no, government is about so much more than the military. I could equally say that only Lawyers should be in charge of justice departments and teachers in charge of education. Since you can't expect those in the highest positions to be an expert in everything I don't think you should expect them to be an expert in just one thing before they can hold office.

mandatory service in any government department perhaps. don't want a bunch of shell shocked crazies running the most powerful country on earth.

No. I'm tempted to say that Presidents, as Commander-in-chief of the armed forces should have to serve in the military. But then I remind myself that former military men have been among the worst presidents in american history.

So I don't think that military experience is a good indicator of political leadership.

no

but i do consider past military service to be a plus on a candidates resume

No. I'm tempted to say that Presidents, as Commander-in-chief of the armed forces should have to serve in the military. But then I remind myself that former military men have been among the worst presidents in american history.

So I don't think that military experience is a good indicator of political leadership.

Some of our best presidents have also served in the military, in fact, I would say the more of our best presidents have seen real military service (not some ARNG bullshit that Bush claims) than those who have not.

Some of our best presidents have also served in the military, in fact, I would say the more of our best presidents have seen real military service (not some ARNG bullshit that Bush claims) than those who have not.

So?

http://www.venganza.org/images/spreadword/pchart1.jpg

no

but i do consider past military service to be a plus on a candidates resume

why is that?

Some of our best presidents have also served in the military, in fact, I would say the more of our best presidents have seen real military service (not some ARNG bullshit that Bush claims) than those who have not.

Who would those best be(in your opinion)? My opinion would include Grant, Jackson, Eisenhower and Bush Sr. as among the worst.

Who would those best be(in your opinion)? My opinion would include Grant, Jackson, Eisenhower and Bush Sr. as among the worst.

Grant and Jackson I can grant you. Eisenhower and Bush Sr? No. What about George Washington? He was perhaps one of the best.

So?

http://www.venganza.org/images/spreadword/pchart1.jpg

My main point was the if our elected officials, mainly the president, have the power to send our military to war, than they should have served in it before. This would prevent the kind of crap that happened in the beginning of Iraq where Bush thought that he knew better than his Generals, even though he had never really served.

So?

http://www.venganza.org/images/spreadword/pchart1.jpg

Perfection in post form

Whiskey Rebellion. :)

He did lead the troops from the front (as president no less) and squashed it.

What about George Washington? He was perhaps one of the best.

Whiskey Rebellion. :)

What do you think?
Great idea. While we're at it, I think all candidates should previously have been employed as bank tellers, as the experience of dealing with money will make them handle the economy more responsibly.

My main point was the if our elected officials, mainly the president, have the power to send our military to war, than they should have served in it before. This would prevent the kind of crap that happened in the beginning of Iraq where Bush thought that he knew better than his Generals, even though he had never really served.

Was not our great leader Bush "In the millitary"

Sure he did not go to war but being "in the military" does not guarantee actually being in a war

Sure he did not go to war but being "in the military" does not guarantee actually being in a war

I'm sure being in a war does not guarantee knowledge of the logistics of war going on in the background either

I'm sure being in a war does not guarantee knowledge of the logistics of war going on in the background either

Very true ...

Nope

No. Absolutely not. Service should not be mandatory.

Hell no. Any citizen above a certain age should be able to run for president, IMO.

Do you think that it should be a requirement that people in high elected positions (U.S.) should have to serve in the military before they can be a candidate to become elected?

I think that it should be a requirement for anyone who wants to get elected to do a military tour. If they are given the power to wield such an awesome responsibility than they should have served in it before so they know how to use it, and wouldnt think about putting the lives of people they once served with in danger unless it was necessary.

What do you think?

Absolutely not. The one and only requirement for people to run for office should be whether or not people will vote for you. Which means I also think we should get rid of term limits and the injunction against foreign-born citizens running for president.

Besides, it isn't "native born," it's "natural born" clearly it was intended as a ban on people born by C-section because the Founders feared the rise of another Ceaser. To run for president you're supposed to be born naturally, and a citizen. Wherever you were born.:D

Do you think that it should be a requirement that people in high elected positions (U.S.) should have to serve in the military before they can be a candidate to become elected?

I think that it should be a requirement for anyone who wants to get elected to do a military tour. If they are given the power to wield such an awesome responsibility than they should have served in it before so they know how to use it, and wouldnt think about putting the lives of people they once served with in danger unless it was necessary.

What do you think?


No.

I think it should be mandatory that they do a stint in the Peace Corp.

It's a Musharriffic idea!

They actually did this during the Roman Republic, I believe...

Of course, they also believed that cutting open small animals would give them hints to the future, so whether we should trust them or not, I don't know...

I hate how candidates trumpet their military record as if it is a good thing.
Nice job you killed people, now go run the country.

Military service? Not necessarily. But I think it would be a good thing if any presidential hopeful was required to have worked in a military hospital, where they could see first-hand the consequences of war, to give them some perspective on why it should be avoided whenever possible, and so that they will have had to have learned some measure of compassion for other people.

Mandatory Service for Elected Officials

Sure.

People don't start pointless wars when their neck is on the line.

Speaking as a veteran who often gets annoyed at the often asinine comments and policies of elected officials who haven't served, I still think it is a horrible idea. Although many presidents have been veterans, the framers of the constitution purposefully put a civilian as commander in chief. Although veterans are technically citizens, limiting federal office to these people pretty much guarantees that all presidents (and congressmen) are going to have a perspective that is slanted towards the military. Or, you're going to have people who have no interest in military service signing up just so that they have the option of one day running for federal office. Plus, the utter lack of diversity among our elected officials.

There is no way possible that a citizen (including an elected official) can be fully informed on every issue that arises. I am of the firm belief that elected representatives are not there to vote exactly how an uninformed populace would vote on every single issue. Instead, the populous picks somebody they trust to become informed on an issue and vote a certain philosophy or ideology. Limiting the pool of potential candidates would be a bad idea. Hell, we can't even get the system to work like that by allowing any non-felon over a certain age to run.

I believe the ancient Romans had such a requirement, but in the modern world there are too many powermongers too cowardly to risk themselves who'd complain about it

My main point was the if our elected officials, mainly the president, have the power to send our military to war, than they should have served in it before. This would prevent the kind of crap that happened in the beginning of Iraq where Bush thought that he knew better than his Generals, even though he had never really served.

Uhm. No. Hitler pretty much spent a big chunk of his early life in the trenches of WWI. He still ended up thinking he knew better than his Generals when invading Russia.

Being in the military should never be a requirement. I do find it a plus however you would be limiting who runs for office by doing this. I personally want to see the largest pool possible. I like the current requirements of being a native born citizen. That is about all that should be required. However you could make an argument for I.Q.

Uhm. No. Hitler pretty much spent a big chunk of his early life in the trenches of WWI. He still ended up thinking he knew better than his Generals when invading Russia.

Being insane usually creates the allusion that you know better then everyone else.

How about this for a better idea: have the president be required to have previously been a diplomat. That way maybe they'll have enough understanding of diplomacy to manage to avoid stupid wars in the first place!

Since when does military service imply understanding how to run the military?
For that matter, since when does having had employment at a some indeterminate level in ANY industy neccessarily make a person capable of running that industry? A private in the national guard (minimum requirement met) is capable of making strategic decisions on how best to oversee a major war? Uhhhh no. GW "met" this requirement. So.... how's his record?

Do you think that it should be a requirement that people in high elected positions (U.S.) should have to serve in the military before they can be a candidate to become elected?

I think that it should be a requirement for anyone who wants to get elected to do a military tour. If they are given the power to wield such an awesome responsibility than they should have served in it before so they know how to use it, and wouldnt think about putting the lives of people they once served with in danger unless it was necessary.

What do you think?

I have two alternative positions. As the military recruiting policy is now, I do not think that military service should be a prerequisite to government service. However, if just about everyone who wanted to serve was allowed to serve, then yes I would agree with you.

I was not allowed to serve our wonderful country in our wonderful war because of health reasons. I volunteered the day we started fighting. It has always been my desire to fight in a war in the Middle East because I am what folks call a neo-conservative. I believe that anywhere that human rights are being violated and people are being tortured and or imprisoned and or terrorized by the State for their religious or political views, we should be sending ourselves into harmsway to free our fellow human beings from such oppression. I am also a Jew and Saddam Hussein launched missles against Israel and supported the vile Palestinian terrorists. Unfortunately, my health was not good enough and is even worse now.

I think that like in Israel, pretty much everyone should be allowed if not required to serve in the military. Until that is the US policy I do not think that military service should be a prerequiste.

How about this for a better idea: have the president be required to have previously been a diplomat. That way maybe they'll have enough understanding of diplomacy to manage to avoid stupid wars in the first place!

Since when does military service imply understanding how to run the military?
For that matter, since when does having had employment at a some indeterminate level in ANY industy neccessarily make a person capable of running that industry? A private in the national guard (minimum requirement met) is capable of making strategic decisions on how best to oversee a major war? Uhhhh no. GW "met" this requirement. So.... how's his record?

The President is briefed daily by hopefully very bright military advisors. I think even a man who was a private can know enough to let his generals handle the war instead of getting actively involved.

Why do you think that GWB is doing that bad of a job? We are killing lots of bad guys and not losing many of our own.

I don't think military experience in any way would make them better leaders. I hardly believe any of them would serve in a real combat capacity; they'd all use their connections to effectively get out of any real duty just like they always have.

The fortunate sons would remain the fortunate sons.

Considering the entire military expertise of the country's armed forces is already at the president's fingertips, personal military experience isn't necessary. I'm not sure what a president could conceivably gain from being in the military in the first place that would help him in office, besides popular appeal for elections, anyway.

No

Service gurantees citizenship...

Uhm. No. Hitler pretty much spent a big chunk of his early life in the trenches of WWI. He still ended up thinking he knew better than his Generals when invading Russia.

My personal experience is people tend to be WORSE at listening on average if they are discussing with someone a topic they are supposed to be "in the know" on

Example bar non people who work in the IT field are among the worst clients I have, they THINK they know when in fact they may have been out of the thick of comp repair for a few years but still think they know everything there is to know . Just enough knowledge to get them selfs in trouble and too much pride to listen to someone younger then them

Service gurantees citizenship...

This statement could have been taken two ways, not really sure which one you meant (and I'm too lazy to read through all the posts to pick out the context).

You do not have to be a citizen to serve in the US armed forces. But you do have the option of becoming a citizen one you've served. (So if you meant that service guarantees a person the right to become a citizen, you're right. If you meant that having served guarantees that a person is a citizen, it's not necessarily true).

This statement could have been taken two ways, not really sure which one you meant (and I'm too lazy to read through all the posts to pick out the context).

You do not have to be a citizen to serve in the US armed forces. But you do have the option of becoming a citizen one you've served. (So if you meant that service guarantees a person the right to become a citizen, you're right. If you meant that having served guarantees that a person is a citizen, it's not necessarily true).

Or the third way a humorous pointed reference to Star Ship troopers

The President is briefed daily by hopefully very bright military advisors. I think even a man who was a private can know enough to let his generals handle the war instead of getting actively involved.

So, right off the bat this seems to support my notion. If it is preferable to let the experts handle the war then the President's service (or lack therof) is irrelevant.


Why do you think that GWB is doing that bad of a job? We are killing lots of bad guys and not losing many of our own.

I judge the Presidency on more than just the war. Which is also why requiring minimal experience in one small facet of the job seems like a dumb-assed limitation on the available pool of possible candidates.

I judge the Presidency on more than just the war. Which is also why requiring minimal experience in one small facet of the job seems like a dumb-assed limitation on the available pool of possible candidates.

I agree with you. I also think that but for the war which I 100% support our President is an awful president.

Do you think that it should be a requirement that people in high elected positions (U.S.) should have to serve in the military before they can be a candidate to become elected?

I think that it should be a requirement for anyone who wants to get elected to do a military tour. If they are given the power to wield such an awesome responsibility than they should have served in it before so they know how to use it, and wouldnt think about putting the lives of people they once served with in danger unless it was necessary.

What do you think?

Read Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein. He postulates that national service should be a requirement not only for people who want to run for office, but for those who wish to vote. This is not because he thinks that they are mentally superior or more moral than the rest, but because they have a proven track record of putting others before themselves.

Read Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein. He postulates that national service should be a requirement not only for people who want to run for office, but for those who wish to vote. This is not because he thinks that they are mentally superior or more moral than the rest, but because they have a proven track record of putting others before themselves.

Though in the end with a reward system (as evident in many of the characters in the military with Rico ) they really are not "putting others" before them they are doing a job seeking a reward