Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Should prior military service be a prereq 4 Prez?

Fred181 · 08-05-2004, 03:56 AM

For only one small reason do I believe that military service should not be required: as seretogis pointed out, it would exclude people. I don't think, however that it would exclude as many as you might think. There is only a small proportion of our society that would be denied entry into the military, yet would be able to serve effectively as president: Those with specific medical problems such as asthma and a few others.

On another note, I think people are reading too much into the idea of military service. John Kerry served as a 1st Lieutenant in the Navy, I find it hard to believe that a guy who rose to the rank of lieutenant (not that high) 20 years ago is going to have enough power remaining in the military to form up a coup, or enough of a military mindset to form a military state...

Also on the idea that the military could somehow control the presidency if service were required: The question was not, "Must a life of military service be required", or "Should a person have to be a General in the military" it was, must a person serve. Enlisted, Officer 4 years or 20. Many of those presidents Sun Tzu mentioned served for only 5 years or so. Many of them did not serve for more than one term, or only for one war. This does not mean that they are running around with some kind of warrior mentality or something.

In regards to the military producing some kind of pro-military super president; as a Senior Airman in the military, there are very few ways that my commanders, or superiors, could somehow influence my career enough that I could no longer become president in a way that my civilian employer could not do. And the idea that the military might be able to “groom” a specific person towards the presidency is trumped by the fact that the people ELECT the president, the military doesn’t appoint them.

Bill O'Rights mentioned that it is not feasible for the president to also have a background in education or the environment although it would be nice and VTBrien said that the president is our chief ambassador so maybe he/she should have been an ambassador. This is true, it is not feasible for these to be true, however many people (myself included) feel that military service is not just about learning about the military, or seeing what goes on in war. It is about SERVICE to one's country. It is about saying, "I am going to spend 4, 6, 12 years, or even a lifetime, SERVING my country. They do this not to get rich, not for the recognition, but because it is in SERVICE to one's nation. It is about EARNING some of the freedoms and liberties that we enjoy.

This is somewhat of a lost ideal in today’s society. During WWII more of a cross section of the nation served in the military. They did it just like Reagan, Kennedy and Bush sr.; for 6 years or so and then went on to other things. Today only a few members of the upper and middle class choose to serve their country. People are content to do things for themselves and let the poor and the underprivileged go off to war for them,

SORRY, I HAVE DERAILED… I’ll stop now.

Before I get flamed too badly, I do not believe that the military is the only way in which to serve one's country, there are other options like the Peace Corps (which I will admit, is probably even more valiant than more military), etc.

08-05-2004, 03:56 AM	#29 (permalink)
Fred181 Crazy Location: Frigid North	For only one small reason do I believe that military service should not be required: as seretogis pointed out, it would exclude people. I don't think, however that it would exclude as many as you might think. There is only a small proportion of our society that would be denied entry into the military, yet would be able to serve effectively as president: Those with specific medical problems such as asthma and a few others. On another note, I think people are reading too much into the idea of military service. John Kerry served as a 1st Lieutenant in the Navy, I find it hard to believe that a guy who rose to the rank of lieutenant (not that high) 20 years ago is going to have enough power remaining in the military to form up a coup, or enough of a military mindset to form a military state... Also on the idea that the military could somehow control the presidency if service were required: The question was not, "Must a life of military service be required", or "Should a person have to be a General in the military" it was, must a person serve. Enlisted, Officer 4 years or 20. Many of those presidents Sun Tzu mentioned served for only 5 years or so. Many of them did not serve for more than one term, or only for one war. This does not mean that they are running around with some kind of warrior mentality or something. In regards to the military producing some kind of pro-military super president; as a Senior Airman in the military, there are very few ways that my commanders, or superiors, could somehow influence my career enough that I could no longer become president in a way that my civilian employer could not do. And the idea that the military might be able to “groom” a specific person towards the presidency is trumped by the fact that the people ELECT the president, the military doesn’t appoint them. Bill O'Rights mentioned that it is not feasible for the president to also have a background in education or the environment although it would be nice and VTBrien said that the president is our chief ambassador so maybe he/she should have been an ambassador. This is true, it is not feasible for these to be true, however many people (myself included) feel that military service is not just about learning about the military, or seeing what goes on in war. It is about SERVICE to one's country. It is about saying, "I am going to spend 4, 6, 12 years, or even a lifetime, SERVING my country. They do this not to get rich, not for the recognition, but because it is in SERVICE to one's nation. It is about EARNING some of the freedoms and liberties that we enjoy. This is somewhat of a lost ideal in today’s society. During WWII more of a cross section of the nation served in the military. They did it just like Reagan, Kennedy and Bush sr.; for 6 years or so and then went on to other things. Today only a few members of the upper and middle class choose to serve their country. People are content to do things for themselves and let the poor and the underprivileged go off to war for them, SORRY, I HAVE DERAILED… I’ll stop now. Before I get flamed too badly, I do not believe that the military is the only way in which to serve one's country, there are other options like the Peace Corps (which I will admit, is probably even more valiant than more military), etc. __________________ My heart will be restless until it finds its final rest. Then they can weigh it...