Shouldn't it be a requirement of the Commander in Chief that they have

[helderheid]

fought in a war? If you can start one, shouldn't it be a requirement that you've already fought in one?

[MissWaverly]

1. No

I don't want our country to become a military junta, but we do have to be more discerning
about our leaders, I think that we have been through a difficult time here, and I definitely
think Bush and crew are on the wrong track.

[helderheid]

2. I'm a Quaker and I'd just assume we get rid of war altogether but

I hate that these rich white men who never saw combat are sending our kids to their early graves based on lies.

[aikoaiko]

What would a quaker do if we were invaded?

just curious.

[MissWaverly]

6. let's not attack people but ideas

[helderheid]

12. thanks - I really was just throwing this out there. Wanted to know what

fellow DUers thought.

[MissWaverly]

16. I understand, but I grew up in PA that was given to

William Penn as a Quaker so that he and his supporters would have a place to worship. Personal
attacks have become the divide and conquer strategy in this country and I want a better way.
I know Quakers who were friends with Tom Fox, the Quaker who was over in Iraq trying to help
when he was brutally kidnapped and murdered. They are more in tune with this war than many
watching it from their livingrooms. Let's deal with the idea that we went into a war with
a country that was not at war with us over a lie and we are still fighting 3 years later.
How do we develop a strategy so that the war machine is not the way to grow someone's political
party and campaign war chest.

[aikoaiko]

25. I didn't attack anyone -- I asked about an idea a person discussed.

[helderheid]

11. Good question. Did you know Nixon was a Quaker?

[aikoaiko]

23. is that your answer to my question?

[helderheid]

39. Yes, that is my answer. It's a good question. As an aside, did you know

Nixon was a Quaker? I found that facinating. I'm not being snarky. I certainly don't have the answers - that's why I'm asking questions.

[aikoaiko]

44. I see, when you said good question, you meant you don't know how to answer

I missunderstood.

Yep, I think I did hear that Nixon was a Quaker. That must explain why he got us out of vietnam. :)

[helderheid]

45. heheheh :)

Sorry - I should have been more clear. It's so easy to misunderstand with this communication medium. You got it - I haven't a clue and that was my answer! :)

[MissWaverly]

35. If it was a war

they would serve as conscientious objectors as medics to treat the wounded, during Katrina
they volunteered to go down to help the victims of the devastated area. Where were the
chickenhawks while New Orleans was "under attack" by Katrina, oh at fundraisers, on vacation, etc.

[MissWaverly]

5. I could see public service, though

like a stint in Vista, or the Peace Corps or the military or teaching; that would weed out the
greedy, con men. Could you imagine Cheney, Rummy, Karl, W, or Condi as peace corps volunteers?

[ShortnFiery]

10. I think rich frat boys who want to be President MUST COMPLETE

their service in the Air National Guard. Technically * went AWOL because he did NOT complete his required time in service. Shameful! IMO he's not qualified to be night manager at the neighborhood bowling alley, much less President of The United States of America.

I feel like we are in The Twilight Zone. * is, right before our eyes, mentally and emotionally de-compensating each and every day. :scared: :thumbsdown:

[Kutjara]

3. The only way you could really do that is if...

...the President was not also the Commander in Chief, effectively removing the Presidential power to declare war. In that case, he could not really be considered the head of state.

On the other hand, I'm not sure I'd want my choice of President limited to those who'd served in the military, in an actual war. That seems like an easy way to create a military junta to me.

[karynnj]

4. No

Consider the ramifications:

-Virtually all woman need not apply
-What if someone enlisted and there was no war - Do thye have to stay in the service until there is a war
- There are many excellent Presidents who didn't serve - I think Lincoln and FDR

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. Absolutely not.

I'd rather have Commander-in-Chiefs who've never fought in a war. Along with generals, colonels, majors, captains, lieutenants, sergeants, corporals and privates.

[sweetheart]

8. civilian control of the military...

is a good idea.

[Amonester]

9. What if one day, there's a new "People's Party" and there are...

(and were) no more wars in this world for a century (Utopia - I know, but I often consider myself a Dreamer like John, or this species of ours better find a way to avoid all wars in any other possible ways), so that requirement would need to be "dropped" for sure. But I agree: we're a long way home.

[meow2u3]

13. I'd disqualify chickenhawks

The only requirment for me would be consistency. If you haven't fought in a war, you have to be a dove.

[helderheid]

14. I like that. ;)

[fishwax]

15. FDR and Lincoln didn't fight in wars

Many good presidents never fought in wars or served in the military, where some less than stellar have (particularly if you count w's military "service" :rofl:)

[Hekate]

37. Nor did Bill Clinton. What's needed is honor, which * lacks. nt

[Amonester]

17. There should be means to disqualify AWOL$ like the little lord

pi$$ypant$ and draft dodgers like dick cheney, and all the re$t of the war-profiteering chickenhawk neocon$, though.

[Sadie5]

18. Those who have fought in wars

are not usually that quick to start one. They know the consequences of war and the human sacrifice. Unless you have a bush boot licker or two.

[MissWaverly]

19. yes, but look at the swift boat liars

there are always the unscrupulous

[zulchzulu]

20. No...but if you start an unnecessary war based on lies and greed, you...

...should be impeached.

[MissWaverly]

22. Yes, yes, you are 1000% correct

[helderheid]

40. Yes, a thousand times, yes!

[Innocent Smith]

21. no way

Absolutely not.

[MissWaverly]

24. question here

Okay, I am 53 and thinking about this, in my life, we have had 2 wars which the country did not
want and they just kept grinding on and on. Vietnam and Iraq. Now the question that Helderheid had is valid, which is how do we have more responsibility regarding war making
decisions by our presidents and if we can't do this, then where's the off button, how do we get
past the leader is the decider. How do we get more involvement of our leaders in this process
and not just the president.

[lumpy]

26. The requirement should be a literacy test. at least

Amazing that a dolt like GWB, who couldn't even pass a highschool entrance exam or a psychological test, can rise to the leadership of the US.

[ComerPerro]

27. Every Republican I know insisted that during the 90s

supposedly that's why "the military hated Clinton" so much...

[ComerPerro]

28. but, but, Bush was a fighter pilot in Vietnam

I have seen people say this with a straight face

[madokie]

31. The fact of the matter is bush* is AWOL

[SammyWinstonJack]

33. LOL! He's raised twins and he's been to war, He'd rather go to war.

:eyes: Phony chicken hawk chicken shit coward! He'd shit his pants if he ever had to actually put his boots on the ground in battle.

[ComerPerro]

34. I'd rather go to war than do a lot of things, if I can "go to war"

like he did

[madokie]

29. yes I do, I think if you are going to lead an army into battle at least

you should have some idea of what it is you are doing, only through experience do you have that knowledge, it's not that you can learn it by reading.

[Marr]

30. We're supposed to fight a war every few years just to have candidates?

Sounds a little too Roman to me.

[helderheid]

41. Ok, now I feel just plain dumb.

:blush:

[bklyncowgirl]

32. FDR was not a veteran.

He did a pretty good job of running a war.

Now if you say that it should be a requirement that the Commander in Chief submit to a psychological and intelligence test I might agree with you.

[MissWaverly]

36. I think that's a good idea

maybe even earlier in the process, like in the primaries, it's too late to do that after
the nomination. Don't athletes have to take mandatory drug tests.

[bklyncowgirl]

46. That too. I mean the president has the key to the nukes for Christsake

I mean if you think about it I'm pretty sure that the military gives anyone who gets anywhere near a nuclear weapon a whole battery of psychological tests, medical tests and drug tests--you name it.

They guy who gets the launch codes only gets vetted as far as the party establishments and the mainstream media care to vet them. In Bush's case that wasn't a whole hell of a lot.

[MissWaverly]

47. but it should be done early in the selection process

it doesn't have to be shouted from the roof tops but I think it's a good idea. After all we
require that people demonstrate minimum skills to drive safely why not some sort of real
screening process for the oval office. Cheney should never have been vp, his health is too
precarious.

[BattyDem]

38. A better requirement -- the Commander in Chief must have an IQ over 120

Intelligent people don't need "hands on" war experience to know that war should only be used as a last resort!

[Booster]

42. Not necessarily, but an IQ test would be nice, or better yet, a

mental test - I'm thinking of Bush and also when Pat Robertson ran.

[seabeyond]

43. they triedto give that to clinton. i dont think itis a good idea n/t

[MissWaverly]

48. this could be part of the initial selection process &

be handled by the candidate's personal physician to maintain confidentiality and not give
a government agency leverage like the FBI or CIA, like say a senator did not "qualify" then
he could not be blackmailed with the info.