2007-01-10 04:52:51 · 12 answers · asked by DNCsucks 1 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
not likely
2007-01-13 19:41:41 · answer #1 · answered by Chad 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ben B said it best. I guess by your logic, all Presidents who have children and happen to hold office during a time of war should send their children as well even if there is no draft? That makes no sense at all. Hate to break it to ya, but the military is optional and there for a reason. To fight wars! Instead of crying about two people you don't know and do not affect your life in any way, shape or form, why not support the people who actually volunteered to protect your freedoms and liberties?
2007-01-10 05:40:38 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
What a bunch of mindless crap. We have a V-O-L-U-N-T-E-E-R military.
Liberals and Conservatives weren't bitching and moaning about Bill Clinton not sending his daughter to Bosnia, which by the way also had no bid contract from Haliburton.
Lets take this stupid "send your own kids in" statement, and try it a different way.
A leiutenant orders his soldiers to enter a building. Oh wait none of those are his children. Thats not right. He shouldn't be allowed to make a decision that might get them killed if he is not sending one of his own children in.
These people volunteered to join the military. They volunteered to take orders. Don't give me some BS about recruiters promising paradise. What in the last couple thousand years of warfare has not taught you that a "soldier" might go to war and die? How many war movies do you need to watch to figure that out? Stop this mindless BS.
By the same token, Bush is not an engineer. So what gives him the right to sign bills authorizing money for roads. Hey he's not an astronaut, police officer, welfare worker, doctor. I don't know if there is anybody in the family that is, so he can't pass legislation for that either.
Who is in the business to do those things? Why there are companies. Yes thats it. There are companies that deal with roads, medicine, farming, etc. Lets get rid of our current form of government and replace it with corporations that are in the business and do have people doing these jobs. Wouldn't you like that instead? I believe its called facism.
2007-01-10 05:10:14 · answer #3 · answered by Ben B 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
for the comparable reason chelsea clinton didnt bypass to iraq. what we want in iraq is better than liberal pap or grandstanding with the aid of nancy pelosi. what we want and what replaced into initially despatched pre turn flop hillary clinton and john edwards have been infantrymen freed from liberal extremist interference who can combat the war with al qaeda and win it. the priority is uncontrolled liberal extremists cant look to get that harry reid putting forward unilateral renounce does not something to reinforce our place in iraq..its cowardice and wears on an army attempting to guard the very rights questions like this endanger.
2016-10-30 13:11:15 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Did his daughters choose to join the military?
2007-01-10 05:07:03 · answer #5 · answered by tabithap 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
nope its a volunteer military they don't volunteer they don't go I heard chelsea and the Kerry girls are going though Mr/Mrs Clinton and John and his wife must be so proud
2007-01-10 05:06:11 · answer #6 · answered by topgunpilot22 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I doubt it.It took him almost 40 years to go to Viet Nam....
2007-01-10 04:57:51 · answer #7 · answered by festeringhump 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
All-volunteer military pal. If they wanted to go, I'm sure they would.
2007-01-10 04:56:50 · answer #8 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yeah right he will not send HIS children to IRAQ.
2007-01-10 05:00:49 · answer #9 · answered by Kdude 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
You're funny.
2007-01-13 13:37:25 · answer #10 · answered by robert m 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋