Amazon.com Widgets

Should people wanting to run for political office be required to have served in the military?

  • Im bob jones im right

    Because if the president is going to send american troops over seas and put thousands of Americans lives at risk he/she should do the same so they know how bad and cruel people are in war. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

  • Im bob jones im right

    Because if the president is going to send american troops over seas and put thousands of Americans lives at risk he/she should do the same so they know how bad and cruel people are in war. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

  • Yes and No

    Personally, I believe it would be beneficial for those running for president to have military experience. With the tensions that continue in the Middle East, Russia, and now China, I believe it would suit them better as to how to handle the situation. Not to mention the weapons that could be used for and against us, it would make many people more comfortable for someone who has seen what the risk of sending our troops over seas could cause.

    No, because it doesn't take someone with military experience to see what war can and will cause. There is a reason our military is not forced upon the people like many countries. Of course we have the draft, but we have the choice and so do those who plan to have a political career.

  • Should be an amendment of the constitution

    Whether it's as an officer or enlisted, every representative, legislator or delegate should be required. All of the executive, legislative, and judiciary branches should serve a minimum of four years in the armed forces, regardless of age, gender, or color. The military instills leadership, honor, patriotism, respect, and commitment. Enough said.

  • Yes, yes, yes

    We are in changing times, with terrorism. All our prior military presidents have been good ones. I liked Ike. They should however be required to tell the truth, by what ever means that works, including torture, that's how vital the truth is! Of course national security shall remain classified information, with a need to know basis. The judges of the land need to be rotated often, to keep an element of surprise .To the enemies of the people.

  • Yes of course

    The president should have served in the army because they served in the army they know what to expect and do and they would know what to do in the situation that the army may or may not get themselves get into My case is rested thank you for your time.

  • President should have military experience.

    Because they would make better decisions about military efforts and countries that in war . L f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f ff

  • Pop po p

    Ii i ii i i i ii ii iiiiiii ii i i i i i i i i i i ii i ii i i ii i ii ii i i i i i i i ii i i i i i iii i i i i i i i i

  • Defiantly for president

    Their job is to lead the military, if they don't have any military experience then how are they going to know how to do their job of leading the military? Plus if they do have military experience that is one more person in the US that can help defend our country!

  • Defiantly for president

    Their job is to lead the military, if they don't have any military experience then how are they going to know how to do their job of leading the military? Plus if they do have military experience that is one more person in the US that can help defend our country!

  • Homogeneous opinions are poor ones

    If every politician, even just major ones, were or are still active in the military it would just turn into a measuring contest. "Oh he isn't a real military member, he just sat in the truck making sure it runs fine", "oh yeah I'm sure you got a front row seat from the Air Force watchtower". This would also be a disaster from a leadership standpoint, put simply the president can have military experience and be for the better because of it, but the president has his board of the military branches for a reason, they advise the president on what's happening, and I'm sure no president military or not wants to see his own countrymen die.

  • A candidate running for president should NOT need to have military experience.

    A candidate who has not served in the military may not have the experience, but that doesn't mean they can't be a good president. They could have great idea's such as improving education, jobs and building homes and schools. For the past 10 years, presidents such as Obama and Bush have not served in the military, and are still elected (Even though Obama has increased national debt heavily, he is still a good president in most democrats eyes). And in time of war, the president still has advisers that help him/her in times of war. Experienced leaders, such as the secretary of war and defense, can help the president if he/she is unsure of something.

  • Elites would just find a way around it, and it is an unconstitutional requirement

    Those who say that the president as commander in chief should have "military experience" - if it were made a requirement all that would happen is that anyone with political aspirations from a well-connected family would see that they served the time requirement, but that does not mean they would ever be on the front lines or anything other than essentially a desk job (although technically for the military.) We already have enough hawks in our government, this requirement would only lead us to being even more warlike and aggressive.

  • Military Service Not Required

    I believe that it is fine for people to be involved in the political system and run for offices that have not been part of the military. The military is a part of our government, but it should not be a pre-requisite for serving in the political arena. The military requires a certain type of person and not everyone wants to participate in that environment.

  • Unconstitutional but a novel concept.

    I would have answered yes to this question, but the way it is posed makes me unable to do so. The reason I cannot answer to the affirmative is that political office runs the gamut from local to federal. I think that anyone who has the power to declare war ought to have served in some sort of armed force so that they know firsthand the cost of sending people to war. If the question was rephrased to say "wanting to run for congress or President" then I would say yes.

    Posted by: pdrm
  • No, it limits American freedoms

    People running for political office should not be required to have served in the military. That is what makes America a great nation, and also contributes to our checks and balances, is that anyone has the opportunity to take part in our government. Also, you would be ruling out a large percentage of our population, along with many highly intelligent people who never served.

  • Military service for political office is unnecessary

    No, running for political office should not require prior military service. We need a person who will place the interests of the people at the forefront, which a person can do without being in the military. Opening up the idea that military service is a requirement leads us to the idea that engineers, doctors, teachers, and their like should also be required. Where does the line stop?


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.