Bronson

Since 1992, it seems that both parties (the Republicans started it) they seem to make a lot to do whether a Presidential candidate served in the military. Do you guys are when voting. The Republicans were clearly hypocrites on this issue since many such as Gingrich, Dornan, and others did not serve. But how do you come on this issue?

Milt Palacio

It's not an issue for me.

But it was an issue this past election when the Rethugs accused John Kerry of shooting himself and being a war traitor, when their candidate deserted the National Guard and used his family connections to get out of various duties and requirement.

But overall, I don't care whether a candidate has served or not.

SuperDeluxe

How are they hypocrites, when Gingrich and Dornan never we're presdential canidates? Some liberals just take shots when ever they can.

I think its important, if there is some service in the armed services, since the president is also the commander in chief.

UnsilentMajorty

Truth be told... As long as the person who is rightfully elected CAN DO THEIR JOB WELL WHILE IN OFFICE... Like Clinton... It doesn't matter to me if they have served or not.

However, the other part of me believes that a person whom wants to be "Commander and Chief of the United States Armed Forces" should also have military service behind them -- preferably, front line combat experience -- Because I think it puts the choice to send American troops into harms way much more REAL and therefore, gives that decision the proper importance it should have.

SIDE NOTE: It doesn't matter if it is a Republican, or Democrat who is president. They just have to do the job well and have the interests of ALL Americans and the world as their top priority and not just the few, rich wealthy corprations and possibly religious constituents like the present administration does.

UnsilentMajorty

Semantics... Which is what I would expect from someone like you.

There is a list that compares the Republican party as a whole to the Democratic party all the way back to the Revolutionary War (before they were even Repubs; Democrats) and the Democrats have by far the largest number of men who have actually served in various combat situations such as WWI, WWII, Vietnam, etc.

I don't have time right now, but if someone could find the list -- Someone posted it during the election just as a reference on this very issue -- I'd appreciate it as it proves what I am saying.

LittleMilkJug

This is probably because a man who has actually seen armed combat, and its results in the flesh, not a carefully crafted news item, will think twice about supporting armed conflict.
My father and Uncle have both seen first hand the 'glory' of war. They are both against it.

Bronson

The reason I mentioned them was that they harrassed Clinton on the issue of his draft status when they themselves never served. That was my point.

*Circe*

I'm very much of UM's opinion on the whole issue. On the one hand all that matters is that the president is fair and does well, on the other hand, perhaps with real military service he'd be less likely to be all gung ho about war.

Also, I do think it is very important that the president can speak other languages besides English, as well as traveled a bit before becoming president.



I know this has nothing to do with anything, but its just one of those things I got asked a lot in Europe.



~Belle

- annuscka -

Yes, the language abilities and abroad experience should be important, IMO. I think that was a big reason why Europe was Kerry-supportive.

Anyway, I don't think it should matter if the president has been in the military, especially since it's not mandatory for US men right - but if he starts a war, he should have been there. Had Bush started no wars I couldn't have cared less what he did in his 20s, now I'd find it rather... pathetic if he actually never served.

SuperDeluxe

My grandpa and my dad we're both against War. But they also realized that sometimes War is necessary, and they serve their country.

In Fair Verona

I really don't care. It doesn't really make a difference at all, and it can either be used as a positive thing or a negative one.

JW77

Hehe...hearing about how great Clinton did his job always makes me laugh. And I liked the guy.

Anyway, nah, it doesn't really mean much to me. I mean, I guess it's great if you have experience like that, but I don't really think it's a big deal either way.

LaraCroft01

I didn't know they said that about Kerry (the shooting himself part). Man talk about hypocrites. The nerve of some people never fails to amaze me.

UnsilentMajorty

Why?

Because the country was actually doing well economically, socially and it was respected in the world?

That's my point. He didn't serve in the military (that I am aware of), yet he was a pretty good president in my opinion. Bush, on the other hand, also didn't serve -- Outside of the National Guard that didn't see any combat -- And look what's happening to this country. Trillion dollar debit, war, America has almost zero credibilty, etc, etc.

This is what I meant when I said it doesn't matter if the person served or not, just if they are a good president while in office.

Milt Palacio

Yep, the Rethugs said Kerry shot himself in the leg so he could get his purple heart. Pretty disgusting accusations.