Should President Bush actually lead ,as President George Washington did, the American forces into Battle? I think it would be a Boost to our soldiers and marines to see George Bush actually doing what he is being paid to do. Do you want to see the troops leave Iraq. Pass this law and they will be home before Airforce one can be refueled. George is NOT going to GO to Iraq and fight.
2006-06-23 08:05:54 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
You people are too serious. I was trying to show that we have commander in chiefwho has NO experience leading anything espexially a military action. Howcan he be qualified to start a war. This war is political and started for political reasons. Let the politicians fight it. Our young people are dying...They will be dead forever. Politicians sacrafice them for no reason. ( military reason) Saddam could not threaten this country.
2006-06-24 02:07:39 · update #1
Well, using your logic, that would mean tins in the supermarket labeled 'Cat Food' would be made from cats.
2006-06-23 08:09:00 · answer #1 · answered by Superdog 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It would be nice, if it wasn't that other than the first few presidents, very few actually led (front line leading) any type of military action. Just as warfare has been for hundreds if not thousands of years, the commanders sit back a safe distance and command, which is what his title is "Commander in Chief".
I think the soldiers understand what they are doing there and whether he is there or not they'll do their job. They also understand he has other responsibilities BESIDES leading a military action. I do want to see the military leave Iraq, when the job is done. Until the job is done, I want to see them doing their job, just like any business, finish the job you start.
2006-06-23 08:10:04 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not. George Washington was a general when he lead troops not the president. Once he became president he lead by orders and through his subordinate Officers. Even Generals are not actively engaged in fighting. They are leading from the rear and directing the battle much like a game of strategy!!
:)
2006-06-23 08:11:03 · answer #3 · answered by SolidSnake21 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
President Washington did not lead our troops into battle. General Washington did. No sitting president has ever led the troops to battle. He became president after the revolution. With that said, I do beleive the president should have served in the armed forces. Basic leadership principles say that you should never ask something of the people that you lead, that you would not be willing to do yourself.
2006-06-23 08:11:21 · answer #4 · answered by Bill S 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only if it's made mandatory for terrorist leaders to lead suicide attacks.
I don't know about you. But I'd rather be following a Marine Gunny into battle than George Bush Or Nancy Pelosi!
2006-06-23 08:48:30 · answer #5 · answered by namsaev 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the middle of the bill is there. newborn screening is serious for early detection and lengthy time period viability of little ones born with inborn blunders in metabolism and different detectable genetic ailments. So increasing this technique is exceedingly a lot a good element. even if, i'd trust Dr. Paul in that any records received from software pick to be accumulated anonymously and that the privateness rights and affected human being records of any infant that comes up effective for a genetic affliction pick to be secure and may in no way be released w/o the figure's consent. good question. the problem comes into play in that refusing the infant screening is such as refusing lifesaving remedy on your infant. in the journey that your infant occurs to have a metabolic affliction that would properly be picked up with a $5 genetic try that you refuse, your infant ought to wade through irreparable mind harm from that affliction or finally ends up demise. and because the infant won't be able to settle for or deny remedy of its own accord the state steps in. because of this i believe you won't be able to refuse the genetic checks. i believe this in undemanding words applies to the state/federal criteria even if. some hospitals run even more effective themes and that i believe you need to refuse those because its on a health center through health center foundation. must you be able to preserve all semblance of privateness touching on to the end results of those checks? actual.
2016-11-15 04:23:28 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're an idiot. This is not the Middle Ages. If you look at the amount of presidents that are shot, simply accepting the job of president is more dangerous than being a soldier.
2006-06-23 08:08:07 · answer #7 · answered by Richard M 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are retarded. U.S. Armed forces aren't contructed like the American revolutionary army. Though President Bush does call "some" shots, the Joint Chiefs make quite a few decisions. They say there isn't such a thing as a stupid question, but this one is borderline. Or it could be that there isn't a stupid question, just stupid people.
2006-06-23 08:11:45 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm all in favor of a return to the warrior-king and agree with the questioner that it would be a morale boost but rather than bring 'em home, perhaps they'd be inspired to finish the job ASAP.
2006-06-23 08:12:13 · answer #9 · answered by Yogi Bruce 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It might be a good idea for the president to have served in the armed forces in some way, shape. or form. That would be prefereable.
2006-06-23 08:10:16 · answer #10 · answered by lynda_is 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course not - he is the president. I didn't see Saddam in the front line either, or Osama, or any other Mid East leader/idiot: they are all hiding in caves and holes in the sand. They are all Cowards.
2006-06-23 08:09:05 · answer #11 · answered by D J 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋