during a time of war why is it so important for a president to have experienced war first hand or has dealt?
480811
because he would know what he was sending our sons and daughters into. he would know how awful it is to see a friend die in front of you. he would even be able to plan the war according to strategic knowledge gained from experience. he would understand that no matter the justification for the war, it is a terrible experience for anyone to go through. he would have insight as to the nature of cruelty and injustice. he would realize that torture is abominable. if he was ever wounded, he would know how a bullet tearing through flesh feels. if he had firsthand knowledge of these things, he would be more careful about starting wars and signing the orders to send young people to die, become wounded, or to kill. this would also be important. if he knew what it was like to end another person's life, a person he has never met, to look a person in the face and shoot them, then he might consider this before sending a young person to perform such a serious task.
20342
being a president is not easy, but i realy dont like him using war as a solution.war just mean death.Lots of...
1115533
War is a little more complicated than you imagine.\n\nIt almost seems funny to see movies depicting war during our Revolutionary period.  Men would stand in a line and wait their turn to fire a shot.  Opposing generals would have elegant lunches with one another and discuss the fine points of how the battle should be waged in a civilized manner, and at what time they should begin.\n\nWar has always had a military code of behavior.  For example, if you surrender, you are supposed to be guaranteed medical attention to treat your wounds, food, and treatment that befits a person of your rank in the army.  If you surrender, the enemy is bound by internationally recognized military codes of ethics.  They cannot say, "Oh, it's too much bother to imprison you.  We'll just shoot you now and get it over with".\n\nWhen Bill O'Reilly talks about insurgents killing women and children, he is talking about a severe breach in the rules of military engagement.  Soldiers are only supposed to fight one another.  Civilians are off limits.  Wars are fought to make it impossible for the enemy to continue fighting.  The general population of a country is not part of the fighting force.  As long as they do not fight, they cannot be charged with war crimes.\n\nIt may sound funny to you, but if there was no exercise of self-restraint in war, it would be complete chaos and barbarism.  If everyone participated in the fighting, how could one side offer a truce, or surrender?  How could one army lay down its arms if there was no assurance they would not be slaughtered once they gave up their weapons?\n\nDo you know why we can't negotiate with terrorists?  Because they do not owe their allegiance to any single government.  If we wanted to make a deal with the terrorists, who could enforce the terms of the deal?   Who would be authorized to speak on behalf of the terrorists?  It just doesn't work this way in the real world.\n\nBill O'Reilly has a great book for kids.  I hope you will read it, and I hope you continue your interest in politics.  The world needs young people as inquisitive and as interested in world events as you are.
1132707
First, I don't ever completely agree with any president and doubt that anyone does. But I do respect the Office of the President of the United States. To answer your question, I think it is because most people are against war and I can empathize. With the world being as it is today war seems to be the only language that our enemies respond to. I read posts here about Bush this, Bush that, when will he get blamed for someones hangover? It's absolutely astonishing to see how people think that he has to make perfect decisions like it is a perfect world. Too many think that he is to blame for things that are out of his control. I don't care about his family history, or what our alliance was to the Afghans in the 80's, I care about what he is doing TODAY with things as they are TODAY, with what he has TODAY. I'd rather be fighting the war on terrorism on some other country's turf instead of here. The people that accuse Mr. Bush are malcontented liberal idiots who won't be happy until our country gets ruined.
840900
I suppose so. President Bush joined the Texas National Air Guard in order to escape being drafted to Vietnam. He likes war, but is afraid of it, and has no idea how to manage it as president.
640090
Dear friend,\nAn American theory implies that the safty of our nation is completely depend on the safety of world. So Bush the president started a defence before the attack of Iraq to the safety of this area could be insure while there is lots of loss on this war for USA which are on surface and not deep. But u should know, after a war usually the winner should control the area to make the situation calm and cool. so the best way is to stay in and control.
1095221
Your question should really be addressed to your father.  He's a good man.\n\nI've been there.  We should be there.\n\nAsk any honest Iraqi.  (I did) They'll tell you how they lived in fear for their live from their government, their police, and their border countries.  Something you probably have never had to endure, so probably can't appreciate the weight of the fear or the dispair in their lives.  They're now realizing that they have a shot.\n\nWhile the war does serve American political interests, that's of secondary importance to me.  I'll fight any day of the week to stop the hell that the Iraqi's were going through.
977277
It does seem odd that not even one of the top three decision makers have been in combat and yet they make the decisions that seasoned military leaders have to follow. It would be different if they asked more input from the Generals but according to the latest reports, they didn't and they don't. There have been military men who made ho hum presidents because they didn't have a full grasp of running the country. But for Petes sake at least one of the top three should have military experience to provide input and act as liaison between the white house and chiefs of staff.\n\nCM  you dished out a hate filled rant about politics. The party was never mentioned in the question only the fact that none of the men sending troops into harms way had any combat experience. You come across as a brainwashed republican worshipper who would vote republican if the party decisions eliminated your job and you had to live in your car in a high crime area. For God's sake focus on the issue or are you unable to do that with all your hatred buzzing in your head?
62017
First it would depend on what job you sign up for. obviously if you sign up for administration you arent fighting wars. But then again he probably wants glory. If you have to take a human life in battle it is to save your own. Do you get mad at a police officer who shoots a drug dealer trying to kill you??? Do you know what prisoners of war face?
196639
Wars happen for two reasons.\n\n1. To expand power.\n2. To protect existing power.\n\nAny other reasons given are what we tell ourselves to make us feel better.
1185258
Whether or not there are children of politicians in the war does not matter.  We have a volunteer army, and if the absence of politician's children in the armed services says anything, it says it about their children.
776870
Given that so many wars have started, and continue because of religious beliefs, I would say religion is extremely important in society.  Anything that can evoke the kind of passion necessary to maintain the level of intensity needed to sustain a war is important.
1133208
You would be best served by reading a little history.  A year, day, moment does not define the "start" of a war.  War's are started due to a growing status of unresolved issues some dating ten to 100s of years old.  The "start" is really an historians reference point of declaration and is far less important than the issues leading to the "start" and the resulting consequences leading to the "surrender, truce and treaty".
468899
He was the first president, he also was a key general in the war for independence.
184479
It takes congress to officially declare war, but that doesn't seem to stop many presidents.  They send troops to an undeclared war whenever they feel like it.  My own feeling is that we should, as a government, stay out of foreign wars.  If individual American citizens feel strongly about a foreign war and want to go volunteer for service in a foreign army, they should have the right (assuming no war has been declared and they are on the other side).  But our own army should be purely defensive, and purely to defend our own country.  We have allies with whom we have made defense agreements, but I think that is ill-considered.  We should offer our allies material and technical help, and volunteers only.
387788
The vast majority of our presidents have never had 'combat' expierence.\n\nWhen I was in Iraq we talked it over and decided that what either canadite did during the Vietnam war was pretty much irrelevant to what kind of President he would make.\n\nAnd most soldiers do not use the term 'chickenhawk.'  This is only used by people pushing a political agenda.
687160
A war is a prolonged engagement between two military powers.  For example, I consider Vietnam a war because the US and the South Vietnamese militaries were fighting the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese militaries.  Same with the current Iraq War, two forces, prolonged engagement.  An example for a conflict is the Somalia incident back in 1991 (remember Blackhawk Down?)  Warlords over threw Somalia's government and the US and allies went in for humanitarian aid.  It was a reletively short engagement, making it a conflict.  Thats how I define wars from conflicts, but I suppose the official way is whether or not Congress declares war. (If they do, its a war.  if not, its a conflict)