MikePA
Super Moderator
<font color="blue"> everybody should have to serve active duty then maybe in the future when the military is called upon to defend our freedom again there will be people out there who understand what it is all about </font>
In other words, if the person has not served, they are not qualified to send people into battle and just because they have served, they are? /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif Define 'active duty'. Does it mean they have to have been on the front lines or would active duty in a staff position count? What about active duty in a support area, does that count? Since when is being more or less reluctant to send people into battle good or bad? What if Lincoln had been less reluctant to send men into battle and the Civil War had not been fought or if FDR had been less reluctant and WWII had not been fought?
I'd rather have someone who is wise enough to see the need, decisive enough to act, dedicated to see it through and smart enough to leave the fighting to the professionals.
In other words, if the person has not served, they are not qualified to send people into battle and just because they have served, they are? /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif Define 'active duty'. Does it mean they have to have been on the front lines or would active duty in a staff position count? What about active duty in a support area, does that count? Since when is being more or less reluctant to send people into battle good or bad? What if Lincoln had been less reluctant to send men into battle and the Civil War had not been fought or if FDR had been less reluctant and WWII had not been fought?
I'd rather have someone who is wise enough to see the need, decisive enough to act, dedicated to see it through and smart enough to leave the fighting to the professionals.