Jim Breen <jimbreen@gmail.com> wrote:
> mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> > Jim Breen <jimbreen@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> >>>Actually, I've always thought that military service  should have been a
> >>>requirement to be elected to Congress or the Presidency/ After all, if
> >>>one makes decisions about people going to war, one should have some
> >>>experience with the organization leading the war.
> > 
> >>Of course. And it would make it clear that nothing is as important to
> >>Congress or the presidency as war. Experience in work, parenthood,
> >>illness, administration, business, etc. etc. are meaningless and
> >>irrelevent - it's the war experience alone that would count.
> > 
> > Oddly, I believe most members of Congress have experience in work,
> > illness, parenting, etc. 

> But it's not compulsory. 

No, but it doesn't generally involve marching people's children off to
die and kill other people's children on occassion.

> You'd accept Congresspersons without such
> experience, but you'd mandate "some experience with the organization
> leading the war"?

Not sure how many different ways I need to say "yes"...

> > Just as oddly, most members of Congress
> > have no experience in the military, beyond watching movies.

> Not odd at all, when you consider the relatively small per-capita
> involment in wars during the relevant periods of the lives of the
> current crop in Congress.

Sorry for being subtle, but I believe the "small per-capita involvment"
of Congress/politicians with the military is what I'm describing as an
issue with which I take exception.

>As I said, you'd need regular wars, otherwise

Why do you continue with this "you'd need regular wars"; at this point
you're arguing with yourself.

> > Sorry, where did I say they needed to serve in a war?

> Where did I saying anything about serving in a war? I said "war
> experience", which is in line with your "military service" and
> "some experience with the organization leading the war".

> > Hmm, perhaps you'd better re-read that, Mr Breen.

> I did. Did you reread your reply? 

Yes, hence the objection.

> "warmakers" as meaning "serve in a war". You don't have to serve
> in any military force to be a "warmaker". That's been amply
> demonstrated in recent years.

See response immediately above.

Mike