English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh, Ginghrich, Buchannon, Wolfawitz, Perle, Gramm, Bennet, Starr, Delay are just some of the chicken shits who are gung ho for war just as long as they don't have to fight it. They were all asked to fight but somehow got deferments because of things like sore butt, bad knees, acne (its true see delay) or just plain A.W.O.L

2006-06-27 15:34:50 · 19 answers · asked by The Patriot 1 in Politics & Government Government

ALL DRAFT DODGING FAGS !!!! whimpering Queers !!!

2006-06-27 15:36:10 · update #1

The TRUTH Is Here :
www.iamthewitness.com

2006-06-27 15:36:52 · update #2

19 answers

Because that is what cowards do. A shame that so many brave american men & women have died in a war that advances an ideological and financial agenda. Blood is on Bush & Co.'s hands.

2006-06-27 15:37:03 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I remember this question because I asked a couple of weeks ago.
One of the reasons is not only because there chicken ****, but because they have this "I'm to important attitude". And if you noticed there mostly republicans. Some people like republican Tom Delay have said "he couldn't get drafted for Nam because there were so many minorities ahead of him that they didn't need anymore people".
Besides if Bush die's who's going to be around to steal Iraqi oil? If Cheney went to war and was killed who would be around to give out no bid fire fighting contracts to companies that Cheney has invested in?
And what would we do if "I have a sore butt so don't send me to war", Limbaugh was killed? Who else would make painkillers so popular?
Does anybody here think that any of these politicians named above have any kids in Iraq. If defeating terrorist is so important than we need all the help we can right? So how come Bush's daughters aren't over there helping the cause? I would say Cheney's daughter but I forgot republicans don't want gays in the military.
The answer to this is simple. We'll make the poor and middle class fight so we can invest in businesses that will receive no bid contracts to do work or supply arms for the war effort, and we'll laugh all the way to the bank.

2006-06-27 22:52:40 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I don't know, but I agree with you! It is wrong for someone who has dodged fighting, to be allowed to send our troops to war. They are all cowards and should not have positions of power. Unfortunately, there are still many Americans who think Bush is a wonderful president, they can't see the man for what he is. But, eventually, the truth will come out. It always does. I just wonder what this man has to do for people to realize that he is nothing but a liar and a crook. You can't trust a liar, because if they will lie, they will do anything!

2006-06-27 22:52:57 · answer #3 · answered by georgiapeach 4 · 0 0

Bush was trying to prove to daddy that he was a man and not a coward. It had nothing to do with terrorism or weopons of mass destruction. It has been proven that Saddam was a beaten man and no threat to anyone outside of his little country. If Bush sr would have mad good on his promise the Kurds would have wiped out Saddam after the first gulf war. AS for the terrorism aspect the terrorist didnt show up till AFTER Saddam was ousted.

2006-06-27 22:39:44 · answer #4 · answered by don A 3 · 0 0

Because all through history that's the way it has worked. The few and powerful start the crap and then send the many and expendable off to duke it out. I think it's a shame we are over there fighting a fight that can't be resolved. The problems and in-fighting of all the Middle East have been going on for CENTURIES and we are not going to resolve that because they don't want it resolved.

2006-06-27 22:43:22 · answer #5 · answered by doiordon'ti 2 · 0 0

What about the wars started by Woodrow Wilson, F. D. Roosevelt,
Harry Truman, John Kennedy ? Those wars cost the USA millions of lives. Can't recall your history or just a conveniently short memory ?

2006-06-27 22:38:33 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Actually, if you look at recent history, Clinton was the bigger chicken. He went to Britain to study to avoid the draft. Then while he was President, we had the first World Trade Center bombing. Than we had at least two barracks bombed overseas and one US military club bombed. Finally he had a US war ship bombed all without any retaliation or any thing else. In Somalia, he forbidden our troops to return fire to protect themselves, he cut the Military by over half and he got us involved in Bosnia where we still have troops today. I am sick and tired of major cowards who want peace at all costs. The last time that happened, the Nazis took over all of Europe while the American cowards wanted to talk. We would not have gone to war with Germany if Hitler hadn't declared war on us first. LEARN YOUR HISTORY FIRST BEFORE ASKING STUPID QUESTIONS!!!!!!

2006-06-27 22:46:03 · answer #7 · answered by andy 7 · 0 0

I think the politicians need to lead the troops into battle if the war is political and for oil or something trivial. If we are attacked as by the Japanese in 1941. Let the military fight to win. Bush need to be with the "Grunts". He need to sleep, est, and die with them. If he is unwilling to take command. He needs to stop this idiotic war and let Exxon-Mobil buy their oil on the open market.

2006-06-27 23:28:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

You answered your own question!

None was ever in the real service and Bush was a deserter for a year from the lousy National guard so he didn't get sent to Nam

I really think Bush should be a Hummer driver in Iraq for a year!

2006-06-27 22:38:56 · answer #9 · answered by cantcu 7 · 1 0

I guess we can't ask the 19 COWARDS that flew planes into our buildings on Sept. 11th killing 3000+ Americans. I'm sure they were your heroes.
Not to worry though, you could very well get the 72 virgins too (as soon as you blow yourself up on a bus load of Nuns).

2006-06-27 22:49:37 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers