my opinion is to send george bushes family over to fight the war, and leave him here to worry...then maybe he would change his tune about keeping your military people there to loose there life for no good reason.
2006-12-08 02:40:46 · 16 answers · asked by mzmom05 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
The democrat plan is to get the troops out today. That is according to what at least 42% of the American public voted for. Never mind that it would destabilize the middle east, disrupt the supply of oil, sky rocket the price of gas exponentially, cause economic disaster across the globe and provide a safe haven for terrorist to launch attacks against us. The American public is so wise aren't they?
2006-12-08 02:42:52 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
One of the founding principles of the United States is civilain control of the military. The President has to make decisions at a macro level and shouldn't make them based on a family situation.
The US military is an all volunteer affair. People in it know what they are getting in to. We have been at war since the first troops hit Afghanistan in late 2001. There is not anyone in the service who hasn't had the opportunity to get out since then. I know more people who have volunteered for second tours then people who have gotten out because they were scared about going to a war zone.
President Bush flew the F-102. The cockpit of the Deuce was hardly a safe place to be even over the skies of Texas. The plane had a troubled history and the active Air Force was quick to send them to the Air National Guard while they flew better stuff.
2006-12-08 02:59:27 · answer #2 · answered by k3s793 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
And why is the question asinine? Yes, his father was a pilot (not that this has anything to do with the father, the father was against the adventure in Iraq but was marginalized because he wasn't the yes man Cheney and Rumsfled were) but the son was noticeable absent from the Vietnam draft. Used his family's influence to stay out of harms way.
It is very easy to use force to achieve policy when you are not capable of using diplomacy as long as it doesn't affect you. It is a trait of politicians, has been since Todd Lincoln in the Civil War in the US. We can cry big tears for the families of those who have died as long as we are sure that it won't be our children.
2006-12-08 02:55:45 · answer #3 · answered by Elizabeth Howard 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Guess what? George Bushes family didnt WILLINGLY sign up for the United States Armed Services! The soldiers who are in Iraq, its their job to be there okay? they are doing what they signed up for. If they didnt want to get sent to the middle east to fight for freedom, then they should have stayed out of the Army. And to say that : " people there to loose there life for no good reason", is dishonoring their death completely. They died defending freedom, the freedom of the greatist country in the world and i am disgusted with your lack of respect for their death. You are an ignorant fool, that see's through the real significance of the war and jsut believe's whatever Fox News tells you to believe. Support our troops and what they are doing, dont make this another Vietnam!!!!
2006-12-08 02:48:33 · answer #4 · answered by Stupendous Man! 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Already have. President George H.W. Bush was a Navy pilot in World War 2 and was shot down over Kichi Jima in 1944 and rescued by a US Navy submarine.
2006-12-08 02:46:48 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Since our military is an ALL-VOLUNTEER force, this would not be feasible. I'm sure any and all members of the Bush family who want to volunteer do so with the implication that they may go to war. And if so, I'm sure the family would be very proud. Your comment is egotistical and simple.
2006-12-11 05:42:07 · answer #6 · answered by CPT Jack 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have a better idea -- let's round up all the folks who have nothing better to do than to spout anti-war propaganda, send them over to Iraq, and let them win the Iraqi people over with compassion and understanding and increased economic opportunities. Heck, we're talking about the geniuses who keep saying our President is an idiot and purporting themselves as so much more enlightened, so why don't these people who are supposedly so much smarter than everyone else go over to Iraq and show the rest of us how it's done?
2006-12-08 02:48:14 · answer #7 · answered by sarge927 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It figures that someone that would ask such an asinine question can't even spell.
So by you convoluted logic, Abe Lincoln should not have maintained the Union, Roosevelt should have not have declared war against Japan, the Axis and Germany, and (probably your hero) Clinton should not have protected the Serbs.
None ever served.
2006-12-08 02:47:41 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually Bush pimped himself out to the military industrial complex, Enron, Blackwater, Dynco, Fox News, wealthy friends, Oil companies, etc. So it would stand to reason he would pimp to the Saudis too. Maybe that's why he "promoted" Condi to Secretary of State? She could pick up wherever he leaves off.
2016-05-23 06:32:06 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Politicians should always be in the front lines. You lead from the FRONT. Never send someone else to do what you wouldn't do yourself.
All this brings to mind Bill Clinton being referred to as the Commander in Chief. That is enough to make a military man violently sick!
2006-12-08 02:46:57 · answer #10 · answered by iraqisax 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋