[DeepIron]

Military service has long been seen as an indication of a candidates committment to the nation.

Unless you have some verifiable resource to back up your "statement" then it's just your "opinion". And in this case, your opinion appears to be questionable in this issue...

A resource listing all Presidents from 1789 to 1992, both who did and did not serve in the military: http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD...milsvc_T2.html
http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD...milsvc_T1.html

Few of the men either elected or running for the highest political position in the land, even if veterans, could have met military experience or training requirements of any consequence, if such had been established under the Constitution. Of the forty-one individuals who have held the office of President of the United States to date, either by election or accession from their Vice Presidential positions, over one-third -- sixteen in number, or thirty-nine percent -- had no direct experience at all, even fleeting, of life as a soldier or sailor, commissioned or enlisted, before assuming their weighty constitutional responsibilities. These sixteen Presidents gained the status of supreme military commander through their presentation to the electorate of entirely civilian virtues, qualifications, and experience. The other twenty-five men who became President and assumed command of the armed forces could claim service as a soldier or sailor, even though only briefly or unsubstantially in some instances.

It would appear that military service had little or nothing to do with getting most of these men elected.

From an article in the Albuquerque Tribune: http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2007/apr...itary-service/

Since at least the 1992 election, being a war hero hasn't been a ticket to the White House.
Former President Clinton, who never served in the armed forces, defeated two World War II combat veterans - former President George H.W. Bush in 1992 and former Sen. Bob Dole in 1996.
President George W. Bush served as a fighter pilot in the Texas Air Nation Guard during the Vietnam era, but never saw combat. Yet he defeated three men who did serve in Vietnam - McCain in the 2000 GOP primaries, Democrat Al Gore in the 2000 election and Democrat John Kerry in 2004.
Of the current Democratic front-runners, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, 45, was too young to have been drafted during the Vietnam War. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, 53, had a draft number that was never called. And, Sen. Hillary Clinton, 59, like most women her age, would not have been expected to serve. Women weren't subject to the draft.
Among the leading Republican candidates, only McCain, 70, has a military record. The Arizona senator spent more than 20 years in the Navy, almost a quarter of it in a Vietnamese prisoner of war camp.
Draft deferments kept Giuliani, 62, of out Vietnam while he attended law school. In 1968, as the Vietnam War was escalating, he was classified 1-A, or draft eligible. After going to work for a federal judge, he received an occupational deferment. He was classified 1-A again in 1970, but had a high lottery number.

And the same trend continues to the present day...

You're hedging. A president not committed to the defense and welfare of their country versus a president who IS committed is an obvious choice to make in my book.

Hedging? No, I gave you an honest answer. I have my own convictions you have yours. You are happy with choosing a candidate who conveys an image concerning national security that coincides more with your own convictions.

Well what do you care how we Americans weight our presidential qualifications anyways? I mean didn't you say you were intending to leave this country soon for sunny Canada or do i have you mixed up with Stealth Hunter?

Well dude, whether you like it or not I'm still an American citizen and I will vote so I'm included in the "we".