2006-11-21 03:13:50 · 17 answers · asked by Repubs_R_Treasonous_SCUM 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
George Bush is a liar and has sent many, many good young men to their death based on a lie. No, I am not proud I am ashamed that he not only is a free man, but was re-elected by this country.
2006-11-21 03:18:44 · answer #1 · answered by Frank R 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I can't say I've always been proud of Bush, because he does come across as a baboon, but, I am still proud to be an American, and proud that we stand for something. It is unfortunate this war couldn't have gone down a little different, but at some time we were going to go into Iraq. It just happened that Bush and the Congress were given faulty info, which tipped them over the top. It wasn't just Republicans, or Bush, that decided on this war, it was a joint, bi-partison resolution.
Lastly, it is sad you think our soldiers are not doing any good in Iraq. It is a slap in their face. The 18-year olds that are there chose to enlist, they were not forced/drafter (like what the Democratic senator is trying to push now). Don't criticize those who have chosen to stand up for freedom and democracy.
2006-11-21 11:21:35 · answer #2 · answered by straightup 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Volunteered?OK and who do you think will volunteer?The poor are overrepresented in the American army and that's a fact.
Lies were told to get people to enlist,people with little chance in life are made to believe it's the only way out of poverty.
People who volunteered for four years are forced to stay longer,the contracts can be changed unilaterally by the army
If that's volunteerism then all these people are right but it's a disgrace in my eyes
2006-11-21 11:43:05 · answer #3 · answered by justgoodfolk 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The 18 +year old.. volunteer for service
no one forces them to join to Armed Services
now if you are referring to the Vietnam War when guys were drafted against their free will.. that's another story
I am VERY PROUD of all our military- past and present
2006-11-21 11:19:08 · answer #4 · answered by Mopar Muscle Gal 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The bottom line is: "He does not care". He would send 70 year olds too if he thought they could complete his agenda.
I say lets send his two girls. I bet this ugly war would be over REAL fast if we did. Nothing would be worth their precious lives.
War should always be a LAST recourse. Used when all else fails. And in many cases only if the agressor were to try to take over your country (USA). The pen is mightier than the sword.
2006-11-21 11:19:58 · answer #5 · answered by Nevada Pokerqueen 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Read the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998. Do you think that since Hillary was married to a President that thought there were WMD's, she would have the same information? Maybe that is why she said we should be in Iraq!
2006-11-21 11:20:36 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, I wasn't proud of Clinton's little fiasco in Somalia, after which he so ignominiously retreated.
I hope you're not talking about President Bush, who liberated 25 million Muslims and others from the oppressive tryanny of the Taliban and Saddam, helping them create respresentative democracies and rebuilding their infrastructures so they can have hope, prosperity and a future. That's worth fighting and dying for. I know the liberals don't care if millions upon millions of Muslims die and suffer under brutal totalitarian regimes, but we do.
So, why do you support our enemies, and the enemies of Iraqi freedom and prosperity?
2006-11-21 11:41:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
That's odd... I thought folks enlisted out their own volition...
I have relatives (doctors) and good friends who have enlisted in the army and other branches of the military. They are not poor, third world-type, illiterate peasants who were lied to so they'd join the military. How incredibly sad that the fat, armchair politicians would continue to slap our armed forces in the face with such ridiculous diatribe. You may not agree with the war in Iraq, but believe it or not, some people are the self-sacrificing type who joined the armed forces with eyes wide open. Lazy armchair politicians simply can't grasp that concept.
2006-11-21 11:17:33 · answer #8 · answered by scruffycat 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't see what Hillary has to do with anything. It would be just as honorable if she made decisions like this. On the notion that these people enlisted and weren't conscripted, they joined the war because they believed that it was the right choice for them, yes. My question is, what conditions led them to think it was the best choice for them???
2006-11-21 11:37:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The soldiers fighting right now volunteered to be there, and I really doubt they would've done so if they felt the cause was futile. I don't agree at all with this war, but I think it's foolish to blame the president for "sending" troops to die. They know the risks.
2006-11-21 11:19:22 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋