I think so. Doesn't matter which branch (Army, Marines, Navy, Airforce).
Should the Commander in Chief have to have served in the US military?
- Thread starter Bloodshot Scott
- Start date
I don't think it hurts if they did. However, I don't think it should be a requirement. It is a civilian office.
Sam Fisher
Banned
I agree.
It's an unwritten rule that if you have a background in the military you have more authority. I still can't believe not one of Mitt's five sons has served in any form. I cringed when his wife said that on the View last week.
Only if he is a real hero (like McCain) it could be a good thing : I guess the boys would have more faith in a Commander who served, faced the enemy, has been injured, ******** and received decorations for his heroic acts.
Otherwise, I don't think having served or not is a big deal : the president takes advices from the very best generals so I don't think having served would be very usefull.
Otherwise, I don't think having served or not is a big deal : the president takes advices from the very best generals so I don't think having served would be very usefull.
QFT:thumbsup:
McCain (IMO) is a bad example. Yes, he was in the Hanoi Hilton for four years. Yes, we understand his horror. But at the same time it seems he has tried to use it to hi political advantage.
I'm just talking about service in general; not necessarily combat (could be intelligence) but at least having served the country in some form.
Don't see it as necessary but again it doesn't hurt. It was quite laughable when a person like Bush Jr. Who in all honesty was not in the military in any functional way tried to dirty up his rivals military career to take the spotlight off his own lack of participation.
Will E Worm
Conspiracy...
It would be nice to see or at least a strong supporter of the troops. But not, the military industrial complex. :nono:
bobjustbob
Proud member of FreeOnes Hall Of Fame. Retired to
Serving in the military is always a good thing on your resume unless you screwed up there. No need to have serevice to do the job either. At the top you have the whole team there to give you the best advice but it is about decisions being made by you. The pen is in your hand to sign off or not.
There was a time that it was all volunteer and registration was not required. If you were born between March 29, 1957 and December 31, 1959, you were completely exempt from selective service registration. I know because I fell into that window.
There was a time that it was all volunteer and registration was not required. If you were born between March 29, 1957 and December 31, 1959, you were completely exempt from selective service registration. I know because I fell into that window.
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
I don't think it matters. American history is chocked full of examples of great Presidents who did not serve in the military and awful Presidents who did - as well as great ones who did and awful ones who did not. IMO, it's inconsequential.
This isn't ancient Rome, where one had to prove himself in combat before being seen as qualified for the big chair. I don't think it really helps or hurts. It just doesn't matter...
This isn't ancient Rome, where one had to prove himself in combat before being seen as qualified for the big chair. I don't think it really helps or hurts. It just doesn't matter...
It would be nice to see or at least a strong supporter of the troops. But not, the military industrial complex. :nono:
A full thought and a good one..... who is this and is Worm injured??
Neither did Mitt. Hell, he avoided the draft at all costs.
Yes, I have a problem with that.
I'm already steadfast in Gary Johnson though, baby!
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
Seconded.
Similar threads
