FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Does the President need to have a military background?





HDirtwater
I realize many posters around here are not yet old enough to vote, but I always thought this subject was interesting.

With major conflicts (mostly) a thing of the past, is it necessary for the President of the United States to be a veteran? The last two presidents are hardly veterans. When I started voting (1988 was the first election) I believed that the president must have military experience, but now, I'm not so sure. Does anyone think any Gulf War vets are going to run for president some day?

Curious....
S3nd K3ys
HDirtwater wrote:
Does the President need to have a military background?


No.
ocalhoun
No, being a veteran is not a requirement for the presedency, but it does help gain popularity, expecialy amoung the military. If you're going to be commander-in-chief, then it's good to have some military experience.
Why shouldn't gulf war vets run for president?
Scorpio
No.

PS: This is not spam, there is no need to elaborate on my point
otiscom
Yes!

That is if you are the type who wants war!

It would be better though if an honest person would get in.
S3nd K3ys
otiscom wrote:
Yes!

That is if you are the type who wants war!

It would be better though if an honest person would get in.


.
.


a) Bush is not a vet.

b) That will never happen Wink
Tiger
The most important quality for a president (of any country) should be care for the people, rather than self-interest. I would like to point out however, that a man with military experience would probably be more popular, have more self-discipline and be more ready to take action when required, while trying to prevent when when not absolutely necessary.

Eisenhower was a famous veteran and a good leader (General). It is essential that any veteran who becomes President, be a good leader too.
Having said that, a leader who truly cares for the common man will be the most successful with the people. The problem is that most modern politicians are in it for themselves.
lyndonray
no he/she should need military experience to become prez. h/e I think the secretary of defense should have some military experience. i know that ideally that post should be occupied by a civillian. but look at the stellar job the civillian incumbent has done so far! some one who has been in the military will be smarter when it comes to making decisions of life and death, as opposed to some dude whose war experience is limited to his collectors edition of Saving Private Ryan. a vet will know the implications and true cost of war.
prongs_386
There is a reason for a political party, not just a leader. The president is the head of the party who should have an ideology to help improve the lives of people in the country. The president should not be biased in too many ways i feel, that is what ministers and advisors are for. They advise the president and he makes decisions on what to do according to advise.
No the president should not have veteranary experience. But the ministor for defence should.
BruceTheDauber
Maybe if the US had fewer ex-military presidents, it could have stayed out of more unnecessary wars.
HDirtwater
BruceTheDauber wrote:
Maybe if the US had fewer ex-military presidents, it could have stayed out of more unnecessary wars.


Yeah, that WWII sure was a waste of time......

Rolling Eyes
independentgov
No we need a President that can make money out of peace.
S3nd K3ys
HDirtwater wrote:
BruceTheDauber wrote:
Maybe if the US had fewer ex-military presidents, it could have stayed out of more unnecessary wars.


Yeah, that WWII sure was a waste of time......

Rolling Eyes


LMAO!

Game, Set, Match. Wink
BruceTheDauber
S3nd K3ys wrote:
HDirtwater wrote:
BruceTheDauber wrote:
Maybe if the US had fewer ex-military presidents, it could have stayed out of more unnecessary wars.


Yeah, that WWII sure was a waste of time......

:roll:


LMAO!

Game, Set, Match. :wink:


Maybe US involvement in WWII was necessary once it started, but that doesn't change the fact that most wars are unnecessary. Maybe if the German Chancellor had not been an ex-soldier, WWII wouldn't have happened, either!
pcdeity
Why is it that we still talk about the President as a "he"? Just one of those things that irks me

A good leader does not need to be an expert on every subject. I rarely hear people asking if they need to be a good economist to balance the budget, legislative skills to handle signing bills into laws, so why is military experience such a benchmark for handling geopolitical conflict?

Lets face it in every path of life that we all take we will run into numerous conflicts what we do with them defines our ability to handle them nothing more. Being a veteran gives you a diferent perspective and a different skill set, but not necessarily a true advantage. military experience like in the case of Eisenhower is an exception not a rule.

After all if the military men are honorable they can't be politicians
ashenwrest
pcdeity wrote:


After all if the military men are honorable they can't be politicians


And the award for stupidest most assinine thing ever said on a message board goes to: PCDEITY

That has to be the most idiotic comment I have ever heard. John McCain is a politician and he is also a veteran. He was imprisoned in the Hanoi Hilton for seven years and never broke, that is honor. He is also a good politician who truly cares about people and getting things done right. So for you to say something as completely stupid as that is not only offensive to veterans like myself but also to every single soldier, sailor, airman and Marine who has ever put their lives on the line for you.

Think before you speak it saves you the embarrasment and shame you should be feeling right now.

And yes, any President that is going to order me or any of my brothers or sisters into battle should have willingly done so themselves beforehand.
BruceTheDauber
ashenwrest wrote:
pcdeity wrote:


After all if the military men are honorable they can't be politicians


And the award for stupidest most assinine thing ever said on a message board goes to: PCDEITY


It's not such a stupid thing to say. Military people know there's a conflict between being loyal to military values and being a politician. Maybe some soldiers can resolve that conflict but many believe it is best for them to stay out of politics.
ashenwrest
BruceTheDauber wrote:
ashenwrest wrote:
pcdeity wrote:


After all if the military men are honorable they can't be politicians


And the award for stupidest most assinine thing ever said on a message board goes to: PCDEITY


It's not such a stupid thing to say. Military people know there's a conflict between being loyal to military values and being a politician. Maybe some soldiers can resolve that conflict but many believe it is best for them to stay out of politics.


Bruse it is an entirely stupid thing to say. PCDEITY said it as an absolute "Id the military men are honorable they can't be politicians" therefore any military man that is a politician is not honorable. Which is a stupid thing to say and completely idiotic.
HoboPelican
ashenwrest wrote:
......

Bruse it is an entirely stupid thing to say. PCDEITY said it as an absolute "Id the military men are honorable they can't be politicians" therefore any military man that is a politician is not honorable. Which is a stupid thing to say and completely idiotic.


You are pretty much a no grey kinda guy, aren't you Ashen? Personally, I think attacking someone like you're doing instead of having a conversation with him is a pretty stupid thing to do. But that's just me Very Happy

From my slight experience, I have yet to find a politician above the state level who hasn't sacrificed at least asome of what I call honor to get into office.
But then again, honor means different things to differnet people, no?
ashenwrest
HoboPelican wrote:
ashenwrest wrote:
......

Bruse it is an entirely stupid thing to say. PCDEITY said it as an absolute "Id the military men are honorable they can't be politicians" therefore any military man that is a politician is not honorable. Which is a stupid thing to say and completely idiotic.


You are pretty much a no grey kinda guy, aren't you Ashen? Personally, I think attacking someone like you're doing instead of having a conversation with him is a pretty stupid thing to do. But that's just me Very Happy

From my slight experience, I have yet to find a politician above the state level who hasn't sacrificed at least asome of what I call honor to get into office.
But then again, honor means different things to differnet people, no?


Hobo, it isn't a matter of black/white or grey. PC said that a military man would have to be dishonorable to be a politician. Nobody is attacking him/her, I am only pointing out that the original comment is completely idiotic. If you feel that it is attacking someone to call their comment idiotic or assinine they maybe they shouldn't make the comment.

The point it that his comment was unfair, untrue and uncalled for. It was indeed assinine and idiotic, that is not an attack it is a statment. You have the right to feel however you want, we don't have to agree, that is what makes the world so great.

I feel that his/her comment was a certain way, you may feel another. I know for a fact that it is a false statement, as do you I would expect. All I was suggesting was that he/she should think about what they write before they type it.
HoboPelican
ashenwrest wrote:

Hobo, it isn't a matter of black/white or grey. PC said that a military man would have to be dishonorable to be a politician. Nobody is attacking him/her, I am only pointing out that the original comment is completely idiotic. If you feel that it is attacking someone to call their comment idiotic or assinine they maybe they shouldn't make the comment.

The point it that his comment was unfair, untrue and uncalled for. It was indeed assinine and idiotic, that is not an attack it is a statment. You have the right to feel however you want, we don't have to agree, that is what makes the world so great.

I feel that his/her comment was a certain way, you may feel another. I know for a fact that it is a false statement, as do you I would expect. All I was suggesting was that he/she should think about what they write before they type it.


Good to know how you really meant your comments, but a flat out declaration of something being the stupidest thing ever on a board really comes across as an attack. I hope you can see that. And the point I'm making is that it is NOT a completely invalid point. Yes, it was an absolute statement that was most likely wrong as an absolute, much like your statement about it being the stupidest thing ever on a board, but is there a grain of truth in the statement? Does success in politics require compromise that an honorable man would have trouble with. I think there is a valid point there.

And I'll say it again, Honor can mean differnent things to different people.
TeenZine
Yes he should definently especcialy bush *Bush* Mean: A pain in the A** the worst president in usa Hate him with me today.
selim06
i don't think...That's the reason why choosed democracy and we like it...Every one could deserve it and can do it correctly...
alkady
In my opinion, No. As long as he is qualified and capable of running a country isnt that enough?
bearso14
yes, because how is he supposed to lead us if he doesn't have any military background
Zampano
bearso14 wrote:
yes, because how is he supposed to lead us if he doesn't have any military background

Very simply . . . who needs to know how to wield a weapon to wield a nation?
arranf
Experience, Yes
Driven by the experiences, No

Presidents need to know when it is acceptable to go to war because by not you could be saving or killing thousands of people but being driven by those experienceds could lead to very, very clouded thinking and even more than that... But in my opinion it doesn't really matter about what they have done.
Moonspider
arranf wrote:
Experience, Yes
Driven by the experiences, No

Presidents need to know when it is acceptable to go to war because by not you could be saving or killing thousands of people but being driven by those experienceds could lead to very, very clouded thinking and even more than that... But in my opinion it doesn't really matter about what they have done.


Just a legal technicality, president's can't start wars. Only congress has that power per the Constitution and as amplified in the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

Respectfully,
M
Jinx
Every person's wartime experience if different.
Some vets might make good leaders, having seen the hell that is war they might be the sort of people who would look for other solutions first. Of course there is a time for war, and someone pushing too hard away from war might miss the correct time for action and make a situation worse.

Then, there are soldier's soldiers. There are men who love going into a combat zone, and who think action is a solution to every problem. As a leader, this sort of person might be so willing to strike out that they would miss a peaceful solution.

There is a time for talking, and a time for action, and military experience doesn't necessarily make a man or woman wise enough to recognize which is which.

I would think that being a father or mother would be better required experience for a leader.
seinteligente
I think yes, because the person who was a "honest" militar was a honest man and a honest member of that country.
rheanna
I would rather see and vote for a president a with an outstanding background in the military so this way he know wtf he's doing in a situation of war..

*You have bush...and look where that got us.. Guys doesn't know jack and how he passed Harvard is beyond me. Man, I would like to see him go on that TV show.. *Are you smarter then a 5th grader* because my bets are on those 5th graders out answering Bush. lol But that's a far cry in H#ll. Laughing

Really , I mean you have a dodge drafter and one runs away in time of war (presidents) but will punish those who have done the same. Not saying one is better then the other but I don't see how it's fair and how they can punish thous who did the same thing they did. Rolling Eyes
catscratches
need to have ... no
but understand the REAL consequences of war, civilians killed, getting nowhere, terrorism is getting worse, YES!
jsk02a
Food for thought...


How many military President's have we had? Eisenhower is the only modern President I can think of that has had extensive military experience....sure...running for Congress from a State or District that has strong military ties will help, but in no way shape or form does the military really help any political platforms.
spider
No, presidents dont have to have military backround,,, but maybe it should... military is a good place to learn dicipline, and while spending time in the field, maybe wont be so anxious to through our good men and women onto the front line,,,,
Im too old now,, but I would die for my country,,,, would the president?
Related topics
NY Times: A perfect example of lieberals spreading...
Justification for War in Iraq
SEARCHING FOR MR. GOOD-WAR
Why is the USA in Iraq?
Does anyone believe that the U.S. is a corrupt government?
any infomation on astronauts
The Middle East Conflict
Swearing
Most interesting war
Red Arrows are banned from appearing at the 2012 olympics!
Local Lingo/Sayings and such...
IE again.... :(
RUBIKS CUBE
Wartime sex slaves were necessary to maintain discipline,
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.