is it necessary for a president to be a combat veteran . . .

in this day and age? . . . I ask not because I necessarily believe it, but because of what an acquaintance said to me a few days ago . . . somehow the conversation came around to Iraq, and he was livid . . . this guy is a Vietnam vet (who voted for Bush), and he went on and on about how people who have never seen the horrors of war can so cavalierly send young men and women off to die . . . particulary in a war based entirely on lies, deceptions, and oil . . . "Have any of these guys seen a soldier get his head blown off? Have they ever had to try stuffing their buddy's guts back into his body? Have they ever seen rows of body bags, each containing the remains of someone they knew? Who ARE these people? What gives them the right to send others to war when they have NO IDEA what war is REALLY all about?" . . . I think he makes a good point, which is why I'm asking the question . . . can a president who's never seen the horror or war up close be qualified to send American's sons and daughters off to possibly die in a foreign land? . ..

Lincoln wasn't, nor FDR ...

"Indian Wars" here in Northern Illinois. in fact Jefferson Davis and Lincoln were in the same unit and the local history books have stories of them during this time. we have a statue of Lincoln portraying him as a young soldier.

but If I recall he never actually ran into a confrontation. If I also recall correctly he lead his group.

you don't have to have seen the horrors of war firsthand to understand that war is literally HORRIBLE.

Just like you don't have to starve to want to end hunger.

These chickenhawks lack empathy & that's a BIG thing that I want to see in a leader.

except when you have a "War President" running for re-up the rules change. Combat vet is a plus.

...I would add that while you don't have to have seen war to understand it's horrible, if you have seen war as a combat vet, you are practically guaranteed to understand its horror.

In the same way that you & I can in some measure comprehend the unbearable horror your soldier friend experienced through witnessing his testimony & believing, with him, with absolute conviction, in the abhorrent nature of war, so can a president comprehend the magnitude of his decision to send troops into harm's way. Too bad we really don't have this kind of president right now-- it really has nothing essential to do with whether he was in combat or not-- Bush's failure has more to do with his sociopathic shallowness of emotional response to ANYTHING that happens as a result of his decisions. He simply doesn't know HOW to care, he hasn't the ABILITY to care, though he might really, really think he should.

While I have respect for all vets, it's not a job requirement, nor should it be.

administration. then they should be called on their avoiding serving in a war when their time had come. it's not just about whether one supports the war or not, but it's about this administration attacking those who disagree with them as supporting the enemy or being cowards. the bush supporters try to say bush is tough because he "went to war". by that they mean he send others to war. as if that makes one tough. and they attack clinton, kerry etc for being cowards for being reluctant and struggling with decisions of sending others to war. i think one should struggle when it comes to sending others to war. there is nothing tough about bush just because it's easy for him to send others to war. how does that make one tough ?

The last 2 presidents were not. Kerry has seen the horrors of war and does not seem to want to pull out of Iraq.

Politicians don't seem to care anything about politics. The people do not seem to care about anything they don't see on the 24/7 propaganda channels.

YUP YUP YUP :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

I don't think having combat experience should be a prerequisite for serving as President. We have a lot of good strong leaders in this country that would be eliminated from consideration if that were a requirement. I am much more interested in whether a candidate empathizes with the citizens of this country. A candidate who has shown through his/her collective life experience the ability to recognize injustice and the horrors of war would get my vote over someone who had combat experience but was cavalier about sending others off to war. Do I think being in the military disqualifies a candidate? Again, I would say no. It sounds simple but it really boils down to what is inside that person that counts for me.

I like your "kick Ass" avatar

.

And other high level defense people.