Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Should we add this requirement to the list for Presidential qualifications?

Most candidates who have served in the military use their service record as one of their personal qualifications. Given the role of the U.S. military in the geopolitical conflicts of the 20th century, should we require a candidate for the office to have served at least 4 years of active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces ?

Update:

Please bare in mind that U.S. personel serving overseas are the primary embasadores that most people will meet (other than the "rude American" tourist types).

6 Answers

Relevance
  • yetti
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    I don't think so.....There is a lot more to that job that just commander and chief. Our military is all volunteer..that is what make it great and not every one can do that....military is not for everyone, that is why I respect the guys who have been there so much....However you don't have to serve to be a good leader. In fact most pres. have so many advisors anyway they really don't command anything....The pres. is not the only man making decisions for the military....in fact I really don't think they do anything without the counsel and advise of the cabinit and high ranking military people anyway. All the pres. has to be willing to do is listen to them. And I don't think that serving will have any sway in sending our soldiers to war....there are many other reasons for that...many of which we will never know....

  • 1 decade ago

    I'd have to disagree.

    What your saying is very true, and I DO believe that having spent a decent amount of time (4 years is enough) in the military would give someone a better understanding of a soldier's life on the personal level -- making for a more understanding Commander in Chief, but this should not be a limiting factor here.

    The point is that the American people should be able to chose who they want to go to office. While military service is a recurring trait of US Presidents, what if the American people really wanted a president who presented himself as more a diplomat. While I don't think this is what the American people want now, it may have a good basis behind this somewhere in our future. I do not necessarily think that Military service is a MUST for a leader.

  • 1 decade ago

    I'm sorry, but the ability to arise at 5 am. to be screamed at by people with tiny brains does not figure into presidential qualifications.

    It is hard to believe but there are actually people serving in our military who are even dumber than George W. Bush. Do you want a president even dumber than the current one?

  • 1 decade ago

    I'd settle for requiring candidates to read the Constitution out loud in the presence of witnesses before being allowed to run for any federal office.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • T S
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    Yes. A man who has been on the receiving end of gunfire is less likely to put other men in that predicament for his own personal financial or political gain.

  • enord
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    iq test might be more appropriate.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.