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

http://www.nhgazette.com/news/chickenhawks/politicans_platoon/
http://www.nhgazette.com/news/chickenhawks/barking_head_brigade/
http://www.nhgazette.com/news/chickenhawks/propaganda_platoon/

2006-09-06 17:42:06 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

shut up dummy

Yeah right you served, and I'm President of the United States. Wait my Dad never armed and trained Bin Laden in the 80's.

2006-09-06 17:56:01 · update #1

tfg

I don't support any of those. And the question wasn't why don't conservatives support the war. It was the one's who are gung ho for it just as long as they don't have to fight it. As you can clearly see the word support is not in the question therefore your an idiot.

Don't pull that change the subject crap on me, I don't buy it.

2006-09-06 17:59:20 · update #2

drag the waters

Now lets see if you give the same answer to John Skerry or anybody else, because I don't think you have the balls.

I think I ticked you off and you know it. If that answer you gave me isn't found on other more conservative questions then you sir know as much about being fair and politics as you do about fornicating.

2006-09-06 18:02:44 · update #3

to zaphod

Because Clinton isn't gung ho for Iraq.

2006-09-06 18:06:10 · update #4

mr phatt phatt

It would be easy, just locate Bush's house in Texas.

And again not gung ho for war (though we should hang Bin Laden). And if you'll pay for food and lodging I will go.

2006-09-06 18:08:09 · update #5

andy g

The only thing you served was french fries at Mcdonalds. You can be anybody over the internet. Oh by the way I'm Bill Gates.

2006-09-07 14:06:38 · update #6

17 answers

the Bush war plan is failing

2006-09-06 17:43:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 6

Idiot. I suppose Conservatives are the only type of people who were not obligated to go to war? Please, this site criticizes those who were in college or medically unfit to serve as being illegitimate reasons for not going to war. Have you been to war? I seriously doubt it. It's so easy to point the finger for you. People like you and these so-called "news" sites are why the Democratic Party has been failing miserably the past 6-8 years. You're too concerned with what Conservatives are doing rather than what you should be doing yourself and what needs to be done to better this country. When there are problems, you point fingers rather than offer up viable solutions. When there is conflict, you tuck tail and run. When you are exposed, you double-speak. When something far reaches outside your views, you jump the gun and criticize before fully understanding it all for the sole purpose of making your counterparts look bad, which you do quite terribly considering no one from the democratic party seems to be able to get elected. Oh wait, the elections are fixed en parte of some grand conspiracy. Get a life, get your own brain and try to form some semblance of understanding that you didn't read on some two-bit biased website.

Good day.

2006-09-06 17:56:10 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

Do you support the police? How come you're not a police officer?

Do you support teachers? How come you don't teach children?

Do you support the Peace Corps? How come you're not handing out food to needy children in Africa?

(you can't be at least 2 of those things)

You don't have to be in the military to support military actions.

Remember, the real Draft Dodger was Bill Clinton who wrote to his draft officer, "I loathe the military".

George W. Bush flew military jets for several years (no small, safe feat, right?) while Bill Clinton was partying at Oxford and making trips to COMMUNIST RUSSIA!!

Yet, Bill Clinton was not afraid to send troops to harm's way in Somalia (furthered the mission), Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq (attacked Saddam for having WMD in December, 1998), Haiti and other hot spots around the world.

Bill Clinton even sent the USS Cole to the Port of Aden where it got bombed and 19 sailors died.

EVERYONE CARES ABOUT BIN LADEN. At least President Bush attacked Al Qaeda, something Clinton refused to do (read former FBI Director Louis Freeh's book)

2006-09-06 17:48:09 · answer #3 · answered by ABC 3 · 5 2

I am amazed at the ignorance of those who forget - we were fighting Iraq all through the 1990s. People were dying. It had to end.

Enemies of the US prefer that it ended with Saddam's victory rather than an American one. He was the Socialist Hope for the Middle East just as Hitler was the Socialist Hope for Europe.

All the 'war dodgers' are Leftists mis-educating my fellow students at the University.

2006-09-06 17:46:51 · answer #4 · answered by speakeasy 6 · 2 2

After the 70's we had a all volunteer Army so why does posting people from desert storm have to do with anything .
Since you like to split hairs why isn't Clinton there he dodge his way out of Vietnam too.

2006-09-06 17:58:07 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

"Conservative" is a extensive time period that encompasses a really great area of the inhabitants, a lot of whom do help conflict specially circumstances. even if those listed purposely "prevented" conflict (even as nevertheless helping sending others to strive against one), there are certainly a multitude of conservatives that do want conflict. many of the troops are honestly conservative, and maximum are truly shielding of the present conflict in Iraq; it is organic, as opposing the conflict might want to render the hazards they take and their total line of duty meaningless. in view that a lot of those specially conservative troops do strive against contained in the Iraq conflict and do help their artwork, it would want to be suggested that conservatives might want to be - and are - "so gung ho for conflict" if - or perhaps as - they truly might want to strive against one. As for the easy contradiction contained in the circumstances, i.e. the help of conflict with the help of those who curiously prevented conflict themselves, one may do properly to reassess the concern; is it the conservative ideology that helps others (yet no longer the supplies of the ideology) partaking in conflicts, or are the leaders chosen with the help of the favourite public the most objective of the question? persons, truly than blanket labels which incorporates "conservative", "liberal", etc. must be evaluated. To do something else is to form a stereotype, which may be sensible for particular heuristics, yet inhibits the most optimal determination-making procedure, which procedure is significant for finding out on the leaders of a rustic. in short, a in part-inclusive convinced. ... Answering loaded questions objectively is difficult, for the record.

2016-11-25 01:49:39 · answer #6 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

I served and will proudly do so again if called upon! How about you trying! Or is it true that all of the lying left is YELLOW

2006-09-07 12:12:44 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

You call us war dodgers like our current military is made up of liberal fairies. I know some army boys and Marines who would take issue with you calling them liberals. The point is, who do you think our military is made up of?

2006-09-06 17:46:02 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5 1

Hey let's not forget about Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton... Where were they??????????

2006-09-06 17:52:54 · answer #9 · answered by cman 3 · 3 1

How many sissy, liberal, spoiled, faux-rebellious, posturing, rich, college kids think the world would be better off with people like Saddam in power?

(how many hundreds of thousands of his own people did he kill? Maybe you can refresh my mind since it's obvious you're such a great admirer of his...)

2006-09-06 17:46:29 · answer #10 · answered by salaamrashaad 2 · 5 2

Stay the course, right?

2006-09-06 17:47:50 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers