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

2006-07-25 18:05:38 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

Blogging about hating Liberals on your computer at home isn't supporting the wars.

2006-07-25 18:07:11 · update #1

Sorry your faulty facts are wrong, the soldiers are coming home with different stories. Most of the soldiers are from the Northern more populated States that aren't Republicans.

2006-07-25 18:12:33 · update #2

16 answers

I've wondered about the answer to this question for a long time myself. It finally dawned on me that America as they think they understand it has not existed for a long time. They tend to live in some kind of fantasy world where they think they are either a). defending Jesus by defending the pResidents policies, or b.) are independently wealthy and are making boat-loads of money due to policies of the administration. I can't see the middle ground anymore. One group is purely deluded, and the other has never lost sight of the prize - the unbelievably huge dollar amounts that they are getting paid. It's an unholy, purely evil alliance of chest-thumping patriots that might as well be purely owned owned subsidiaries of Haliburton. There have been some hopeful developments lately though. For example pro-war Democrat Joe Lieberman is getting a real challenge in the Connecticut primary, and people are waking up to the agenda.

You know, most people don't know that Dick Cheney is still drawing a "deferred" salary from Haliburton. Haliburton's primary business line is to make drills, pipes and pumping equipment for oil. Exactly how many American lives is Haliburton's profit margin worth to Mr. Cheney do you think? I don't think he gives a damn as long as his stock keeps going up.

2006-07-25 18:35:24 · answer #1 · answered by quietsage 1 · 1 1

The wars they created? You mean the ones that John Kerry and most liberals in the government supported and voted for too, before it became trendy to oppose the war? Since you say wars, plural, I take it you're also referring to Afghanistan, the war started when al-Qaeda brought down the Twin Towers, the same attack that could have been prevented if Clinton had defended this country after the numerous times we were attacked during his administration?

Also, if your added details are true, then blogging about hating neocons on your computer at home isn't opposing the war either. Please, your own hypocrisy makes my point for me.

2006-07-25 18:11:06 · answer #2 · answered by Tim 4 · 1 0

In all of history the rich have never fought in the wars. They send the poor to die for them. They, in fact, tax the poor to pay for weapons they then put into the hands of poor people to go and kill other poor people so that they, the rich, can make money off both sides of the conflict.

Has always been thus, will always be thus so long as there is war.The biggest pawns of the whole scam are the fundamentalists who believe and promote the concept that they are fighting for God (hahahaha) or with God on their side.

George Bush is the perfect example of this: a fortunate son of a wealthy family who dodged military service and now wages war with glee from afar while talking tought and invoking "Jesus" whenever he can. While his airlift onto the carrier from which he declared major fighting over in the Iraq conflict was a far cry from actually flying a jet in a war zone, it was still a heck of a lot closer than he ever got in his youth!

He should be dropped off somewhere outside the Green Zone in Baghdad and left to fend for himself before another young American is sent to die for him.

2006-07-25 18:13:02 · answer #3 · answered by Rory McRandall 3 · 0 1

They simplest care approximately themselves and what quantity of money they are able to make. They do not care if the nation collapses so long as they will nonetheless be rich whilst the grime settles. Making cash on the cost of others is their concept of the American Dream. They additionally spend an inordinate period of time taking note of Fox News, owned through Rupert Murdoch, who isn't an American. They're always bombarded with the message that benefit is the one factor that concerns.

2016-08-28 17:48:47 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I'm not seeing the resemblance between war and hating America.

Also, you might want to take 10 minutes and research the origin of the term "neocon" before you continue to make a fool out of yourself in the future...

2006-07-25 18:11:24 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

They are too busy making money.
And where and how and who they get it from does not matter.
If they could, they would drive us alive and breathing into meat grinders,throw in some spices, Can it ,and sell it in supermarkets.
Kinda like SOYLENT GREEN
________
Soylent Green is a 1973 science fiction movie starring Charlton Heston, Edward G. Robinson, Joseph Cotten and Chuck Connors. It is loosely based on the 1966 science fiction novella about overpopulation by Harry Harrison, Make Room! Make Room!, but diverges into its own plot points and ideas.

The film's title refers to the fictional artificial food product at the center of its plot. Due to the cult popularity of the film, the term 'soylent green' has come into popular usage as a reference to this food product, or any food of dubious origins. It has also been referenced by numerous media sources and parodied in many television series.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green

2006-07-25 18:17:29 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Well, since most people in the military vote REPUBLICAN and since the ARMY met it's enlistment goals...it seems that the "chicken hawk neocons" DO love AMERICA and ARE fighting these wars overseas so the rest of us don't have to fight them here!

GOD BLESS the "chicken hawk neocons" in the ARMY! Let them fight. Let them VOTE!

2006-07-25 18:10:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Juliete: it sounds like you are talking about people like Bush and Cheney (5 deferments!), Karl Rove and Paul Wolfowitz, Pat Buchanan and John Ashcroft, who are super gung-ho about war but declined to serve, or pulled strings to escape combat duty, when they had the opportunity. It didn't sound like you were talking about "rednecks."

Answer to your question: because they want to reap the benefits of war, but are not interested in taking the risks. They want brainwashed young men and women to get killed while they enjoy record-high corporate profits. They shoot from the hip since they've never had to actually fire a gun in combat.

A tree-hugging peacenik who opposes the war isn't guilty of any such inconsistency. It's the equivalent of an animal-rights activist who eats whale meat.

In short, they're hypocrites, that's why.

2006-07-25 18:18:40 · answer #8 · answered by mistersato 5 · 0 1

How does not fighting in a war make you hate America?
FDR never fought in WWII, he was just our brilliant commander-in-chief
Lincoln never fought in the Civil War, does that make him hate America?
Your line of logic doesn't make sense.

2006-07-25 18:11:52 · answer #9 · answered by Austin 3 · 1 0

70% of the men fighting in Iraq and Afganistan are rednecks from the south.

80% of the Rednecks from the south voted for Bush.

It appears your an idiot that doesnt know what you are talking about.

2006-07-25 18:08:25 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers