Through out history, Kings and rulers bravely led their troops into battle, fought and died along side them. How readily would this country go to war or participate in a conflict if the president, senators, congress men/women had to actually fight? Or what about their children? I'm certain they have children old enough to serve in the military. Yet, it's our fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, cousins, etc that are out there on the front lines!
2006-07-08 13:39:52 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Mrs House 3 has a point, hum?
2006-07-08 13:49:09 · update #1
Why am I not fighting? Personally, I didn't declare any war, neither do I support it. I know what it's like first hand to loose a loved one to war. Do you?
2006-07-08 14:44:07 · update #2
I CONTINUE TO SUPPORT OUR TROOPS IN THEIR EFFORTS.
2006-07-08 14:45:41 · update #3
m1a1mikegolf
You are just stupid. The majority of these soldiers are every day people with little to no prior combat experience, anybody can receive the same training they received all you have to do is enlist. Most people didn't join the military to go to war, they did it because they need to earn a living.
2006-07-08 14:50:49 · update #4
Remember when GWB sent the message to the rebel groups to "bring it on"?
Easy to say that when you're sitting behind a big desk in Washington. Not sure W would have been so cocky if he was patrolling around Basra. If I was serving in Iraq I would have felt sick when W said that.
"Forward! he cried from the rear, as the front rank died".
2006-07-08 14:45:43 · answer #1 · answered by Big E 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
That would be ideal and great. It is a logical question. however, think about the impact of winning a war or battle without the leadership.
I believe, personally, that the people in public service should see and tour the domain having the same risk of dying or being injured.
What about this: if the war is unsuccessful in achieving the goals, the law should be that they are automatically barred from serving in public service for the rest of their lives.
2006-07-08 20:46:02 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
For as much as I would LOVE to see Bushy-boy out there in the muck... it's not probable that one could fight in combat and run the country at the same time.
I do think that EVERY politician should have to serve a minimum of 4 years as a grunt before being able to hold any place in political office. I think this would drasticly change their POV on our soldiers and would make them less likely to treat our troops as numbers and bodies and more likely to view them as human beings with lives and loved ones. I belive we would be less likely to beat the war drums everytime someone pissed us off screaming "Let's Roll" and a bit more likely to use diplomacy and exahust that avenue first.
For those with the rude comments... I stood beside my husband as he served for the past 12 years... I think I MORE than earned a right to what I think even if it doesn't match your opinion.
2006-07-08 22:36:23 · answer #3 · answered by sullenmoon79 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Lets leave the battlefield to the people who are the most skilled at combat.
Your reasoning makes as little sense are asking the mayor of a city to fight fires alongside trained firemen.
If you ever need major surgery - do you want a politician to do the operation or a trained surgeon?
2006-07-08 21:33:08 · answer #4 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, because I couldn't trust them. A war doesn't just involve shooting a rifle. Just to function as a member of a Marine fire team, you have to know how to call for fire, call for medevac, maintain and operate crew served weapons, communicating with a PRC119, offensive manuevers, defensive tactics, urban terrain patrolling, proper cover and concealment, and etc. I don't wanna give them orders and I sure as hell don't wanna take orders from them.
2006-07-08 21:51:05 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Great idea that way people like that idiot John Kerry could make up more war stories how he earned 3 purple hearts in 4 months. Must've been one mean paper cut.
2006-07-08 20:55:22 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would be extremely dangerous to our Warriors to put that many natural scam-artist, faux-patriots, fake-prophets, vapor-heroes, pseudo-leaders, virtual-gods, ... sociopathic-personalities in a war-zone.
I would demand that we first pull our warriors out of the war-zone before it goes to hell in a hand-basket with any deployed and delusional politicians ....
I mean, just look what has happened to NYC, ... Washington D.C., the invasion of the USA across our southern border by drug dealers and econ-slavers.
Those jokes [AKA: Politicians] are fools not leaders.
2006-07-08 21:53:46 · answer #7 · answered by oldhawk21 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes i think they should not just stay in the white house , tell all these story of why these why that, Atleast the president should send one of his own out there thay that he feels what is like to lose a love
2006-07-08 21:02:58 · answer #8 · answered by Evbayowieru E 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"...President and other members of Congress..."
The President isn't a member of Congress.
Yes our country would still wage war. Over time, however, the aptitude of our country's leaders would change. War would not. War is inevitable.
2006-07-08 20:45:59 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would SO FREAKING LOVE to see Bush and various other members of our Government out their fighting their wars with us. EARTH TO YOU their RICH, LAZY, AND CONCEDED there's no way in Heaven, Hell or Earth that your going to get them out there, but hey, if you've got a plan run it past me and I'll do EVERYTHING in my power to help you and to help the stuck-ups ruling over us realize that what there doing to better themselves is making it hell for us
2006-07-08 20:49:23 · answer #10 · answered by Synyster 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋