2007-01-12 13:36:47 · 31 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
r u taking the p1ss
2007-01-12 13:39:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
this is a good question tbf. first of all the queen is head of state but has no power, just like in spain with their king.
They have to sign their approval at the passing of all acts but if they refused it would cause controversy, they basically dont have a choice. an i dnt kno about u bt i don't think the queen would have had any motives for invading iraq or afganistan.
Blair may have relatives in the forces but none of them would be anywhere near danger in the warzones, and i think as prime minister you'd ensure ur own family's safety over others, right?
Blair and bush would never serve in the wars themselves or have their families serve in the wars - why ? because they are cowards, no you say ? well why arent they over there killing the afgans and iraqis themselves ? Now would it be something if these pseudo - leaders of our countries fought their own fights, cuz i 4 1 wud hav respct 4 'em. Furthermore who's gaining from all this - us, the americans, the iraqis, the afgans . . . the government ?
2007-01-13 00:27:19 · answer #2 · answered by bluemagicuk 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How is that relevant?
Both countries have a volunteer miiltary so everyone who is carrying a gun and getting shot at is doing so because its what they volunteered to do.
As a point of law by the way, children of a serving U.S president are prevented by the U.S constitution from serving in a war zone, and that has been the case since 1776.
As someone earlier pointed out however, members of the British Royal Family, and indeed many British politicians have fought in wars right up to and including the Balkans, Falklands, and GW1.
2007-01-12 21:28:30 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes Blair's son is of age and just finished officer training at Sandhurst Military Academy and is going to take a squad of commandos into the Tora Bora mountains to flush out Saddam Hussein who bombed the twin towers in the US as a favour to Bush. His sister would provide air cover in a Tornado F1 jet. Saddam has been in caves since they hanged Bin Laden.
2007-01-12 15:57:57 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Probably not considering that Bush has only young daughters, and I don't think Blair has kids at all. But both are doing their best to keep terrorism away from the shores of their counties. You may not agree however you are among a very unpopular group of people who make the terrorist raise their hands and chant of victory because you believe terrorist propaganda. You demean the members of the U.S. fighting forces that protect you, but that's your right. Our fighting forces are protecting all of your rights to live and breath in a free society. If you don't agree maybe you should renounce your citizenship and move to Iraq.
2007-01-12 13:48:46 · answer #5 · answered by Dumb Dave 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No.
The Royal Family has members though. Princes William and Harry will have to go to Iraq or wherever the next USA disastor is. Lots of Royal Family members fight in war. Thats the differnce between Prime Minister, Presidents and Royalty.Royalty have balls. They are insane though when in charge. Also the Queen is head of state and can at any point take full control of the country by suspending parliment. Scary thought or not?
2007-01-12 13:55:39 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Irrelevant question. Why does it matter? We have a volunteer military. George Bush, not the daughters are President. They are the adult children of a man with a job and have the same rights as you or I to do with their lives, what they want. I think its pretty ignorant to think that this war would not be happening if one of Bushes daughters was serving. Thats moronic. Clintons kid didn't serve and he bombed the crap out of several places (like the balkans for YEARS) including when he bombed some places (like the wrong place in the Sudan) to take the heat of his sexual dalliances and perjury charge. The vast majority of hippie liberals who hate this country also have nobody they know in uniform. Its funny how those who are in the military and those who have families in the military are the ones NOT complaining, while those who have absolutely no involvement, don't know anyone or anyone who knows anyone serving, never lost someone on Sept 11 are the most vocal in criticizing the war. Popel need to ask the older generation what WW2 was like. Everyone had family in the service. Everyone sacrificed...Rations, gas shortages, food shortagaes, bond drives etc. People today have no clue what sacrifice is and 99.9% of americans wouldn't even know the war was going on, except for the news. It effects them in no tangible way. Do you think the American lifestyle comes easy?? This is just some utopia that runs by itself? This lifestyle and society must be protected, often in ways that are not pretty. Face it, there are people out there who will kill you in a milli second and spill your blood all over your I hate Bush T Shirt.
2007-01-12 13:54:06 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
My Dad is a Major in Iraq, matter of fact Bush does. Bet your not there, you just like to whiny and put little kid type slurs on here. Grow up and get a real life.
2007-01-12 14:30:45 · answer #8 · answered by m c 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Of course they haven't. It's a pity we don't have conscription any more in some ways. Blair wouldn't be the warmonger he is now if his own children were at risk.
2007-01-13 05:58:46 · answer #9 · answered by Beau Brummell 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course not, but looks like the Queen may have a grandson there in the future
2007-01-14 10:50:29 · answer #10 · answered by Lulu T 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know if Blair does, but I know Bush doesn't, neither does Channey.
2007-01-12 13:45:22 · answer #11 · answered by mischa 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋