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

Everyone knows that Pres. Bush has daughters but as much sympathy as he puts into our troops would the war really of been changed in the beginning? Ask yourselves this. But also consider the woman (mother of a soldier) that died over in Iraq & she is protesting against the war b/c of her son. Thats like taking her own sons name and stomping it in the ground.

2006-07-03 14:16:59 · 21 answers · asked by fryeindustries2002 3 in Politics & Government Military

21 answers

I don't see how it would make a difference. Women serve in the military right along side the men. It's not like back in the day when women could only be a nurse in the Armed Forces. We have had military women die in Iraq right along with the military men.
I can't speak for every person in the military, but I know my husband has told me that if he is killed in a time of war, he died doing what he felt was right. Just because they go to war, doesn't mean they like going over there and being shot and having bombs go off everywhere. They go because they want to keep our country free and help those in other countries that are being ran by mad men! As a mom, I understand the devastation of losing a child, no mater how they die, but as family members of an American service member, you need to support that person and know that they picked this life because of their beliefs.
You don't have to like the war or even the President, but you should still give support to to your loved one, and that means even if they are killed. I don't think these fallen soldiers would want their families protesting.

2006-07-04 02:41:33 · answer #1 · answered by Naples_6 5 · 1 0

I'm getting confused by all these questions regarding Bush's daughters.

Firstly I understand that U.S law actually prevents a serving Presidents children from going to war, whoever the President is and whatever sex children he or she has.

Secondly the U.S military is a volunteer force so anybody ending up in Iraq is there by choice.

No-body therefore can either force Bush's kids to go to war, and equally once he steps down as President, no-one can stop them going if they want to.

As for the mothers protesting after their sons are killed over there, I simply cannot imagine the grief of losing a child and therefore anything they do to handle that grief is coool by me,

I just find it disturbing that when people join the military, they and their families do not understand that there is a reason why they are being trained to carry a gun and kill people, and that life isnt just going to be about looking great in the Dress uniform at prom night.

When you join an organisation which gives you a gun, understand that at some point they will ask you to use it.

2006-07-03 19:22:27 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The girls can serve, other women are. It's their choice not to. I think a bigger question should be, if the war is so important why do the Bush girls not enlist. The war is important, the Bush girls just choose to live off the sacrifice of others. There are many people just like thm in this country. It doesn't make them bad, jsut hipocrites.

2006-07-03 16:03:25 · answer #3 · answered by Bill S 3 · 0 0

I don't know how old you are, I don't know how much you know about world history or American history. He father is a great hero of the second world war. No matter who is President, it wouldn't matter. There's certain things in this world that you must do. When Theodore Roosevelt lost his youngest son in the first war, it was devestating to him. But he said, "It was ahorrible thing that his died in the war, but it would of been worst, if he didn't serve.
I sugggest you catch up on your history and what makes it possible for you to live in a free country. You have a lot to learn.

2006-07-03 14:27:01 · answer #4 · answered by richard m 1 · 0 0

The purpose of the energetic accountability militia is to guard and preserve the form of the u . s .. This incorporates the terrific suited to disagree. Disagree with coverage, the President, the Congress, the very terrific courtroom, and each and each of how down on your mayor. as quickly as you're no longer to any extent further interior the militia, i.e. a veteran, you have a similar rights you fought for. i'm a Veteran, on a similar time as i do no longer help what they are asserting, I do help their good to assert what they do. The shape is for each guy or woman. another occasion i visit offer you is the touchiest one there is professional-selection vs professional-existence. no rely what edge you're on the different edge feels you're incorrect. The shape can supply the terrific suited to disagree and that's the terrific suited edge of the argument. basically remember freedom isn't unfastened. Many have given up their threat to alter into veterans via dieing on the battlefield for what they believed in. i'm pleased with my service. i think of the war in Iraq must be gained. i'm additionally so pleased with the Vets against the war in Iraq. EDIT: You added this paragraph "at times i think of that any Iraq war vets who talk out against the war shouild be reactivated, and shipped off to the front strains..Im sorry, yet I extremely have a troublesome time forgiving them whilst they without warning turn against united statesa.." I stand via what I mentioned up above. i'm deeply indignant via your added Edit to the question. as quickly as you're a Veteran you're unfastened to assert what you desire, once you desire and the variety you desire. i ask your self whether you have ever worn the boots of an energetic accountability soldier. Like I mentioned i'm indignant via your words, yet I help your good to assert them.

2016-11-01 04:11:34 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Yes it would be different. All the media would be focused on his sons in Iraq instead of the real reasons. If they live Bush will be the father of 2 war heros. If they die Bush would use them as martyr's so Bush would use them for Pro-war speech's.

2006-07-06 04:43:14 · answer #6 · answered by The Max 2 · 0 0

First, the President's children can not serve, by Federal Law. Even if they wanted to serve, they have too many alcohol convictions to be able to enlist.

As far as Cindy Sheehan, her son Casey reenlisted in the Army, knew the dangers, and still decided to stay. She is only using his death to raise herself in the world's view. Even her husband has left her for desecrating their deceased son's name. She had her audience with the President, after Casey's death, and left the White House saitisfied with the answers he gave her. So what changed a year later? Personal agenda.

2006-07-03 15:13:24 · answer #7 · answered by Mark W 5 · 0 0

That woman is the worst of hypocrites. She gave that son away years ago.

None of our sons are drafted, by the way. None of our daughters have ever been drafted which makes these girl commentators look more than a little cheeky.

2006-07-03 14:22:12 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

he himself is a draft dodger. his dad was a congressman at the time of viet nam & got him into the texas air national guard ahead of tens of thousands of other applicants. he scored a 26 out of 100, 60 is a failing grade. technically, the daughters arent safe because women now serve in all ranks but the only war theyll ever see is tv & video games.

2006-07-03 15:03:42 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

No they would find a way around it . During the Vietnam era the National Guard was the way around it. We now send the Guard overseas to make current people who escaped to the Guard look better.

2006-07-03 14:22:03 · answer #10 · answered by Elwood 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers