Or are they still just letting all the poor kids do their dirty work?
Seriously, if Bush is proposing an upsurge in troops, why shouldn't those who believe in this war, who think the Bush Administration has done a great job of conducting it, and who feel confident that we can defeat the insurgents if only we have enough troops volunteer to enlist themselves? If they really support the troops, why not volunteer so our troops won't be overextended, and let the hard-working men and women who have already been there too long come home?
2007-01-09
03:35:41
·
8 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
To Mark J: You don't get it, do you? This country is based on freedom of self-expression. Not just because it's a nice thing to do, but because a democracy cannot operate without it. When I criticize the current administration and the corrupt, incompetent, pointless war they are waging, I am not criticizing my country; I'm criticizing the direction in which the current idiots are heading.
It's like being in a car with an idiot behind the wheel. I don't have to throw myself out of the vehicle into rush hour traffic just because I dare to point out that the driver is careening towards the rail. We all have not only a right but a responsibility to make sure that the MEN in charge of executing our nation's laws do so responsibly, effectively, and without undue burden on all of us.
2007-01-09
03:50:16 ·
update #1
To DevilDuck74: Good try, but I read your links. It looks like it wasn't so much pro-war supporters but poor people and the unemployed who enrolled this time around. "Because the Army recruited 80,635 soldiers in a year when its goal was 80,000, without the 2,600 troops who did not meet the previous standard, the Army once again would have failed to meet its recruitment goals." Oh yeah, and that's from your own source. Thanks for providing me with additional ammunition!
2007-01-09
03:54:45 ·
update #2