http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlGJ-iNMygQ
You depend on our protection, still you feed us lies from the tablecloth!
2007-02-06 04:17:01 · 27 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
What a bunch of jumpy people! Show me where in my question that i mentioned Bush at all. Show me one place where i said George Bush....I DIDNT.
I could have been speaking of any president of any other country in the world. Maybe i was speaking of how Saddam started so many wars.
Dont be so jumpy.
And BTW, ive served. Ive been to Iraq twice.
2007-02-06 04:24:08 · update #1
Um, yeah - that'll happen.
Did you feel this way when Clinton sent troops to Bosnia, or is your anger partisan?
LOL I can't wait to tell my cousins and my brother that they're "poor" - they'll be *so* surprised!
2007-02-06 04:19:39 · answer #1 · answered by Jadis 6 · 7⤊ 3⤋
Where do people get the idea that men and women only join the military because they are poor? We have a voluntary service. There isn't a draft, and certainly there isn't one of only poor people. I'm not sure who started this ridiculous notion, but I tire of people consistently throwing backhanded insults at the people who choose to join the military. Kerry says they're dumb...Matt Damon says they're unfortunate poor people...Charlie Rangel says they're poor and black. I don't think feeling pity counts as supporting the troops. Stop taking talking points from youtube and Hollywood. The linked article from The Heritage Foundatin by Tim Kane, a PhD from the Center for Data Analysis, will hopefully stamp this urban myth from the minds of readers who bother to check it out.
In answer to your question, having the Commander in Chief in battle would be kind of like painting a huge target on whoever was with him. I think more effort would have to be spent on keeping him safe than defeating the enemy. I have however, had military friends question if the title is really appropriate these days. I mean, it's not like we have George Washington on the front of the boat leading the way as we once did. The world has changed. Warfare has changed. Accordingly, so has the role of Commander in Chief. He can lead from a distance now.
2007-02-06 12:38:49 · answer #2 · answered by rumezzo 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't understand how you think the president can decide only the poor and underpriviledged are going to be the ones to go fight. The military is all-voluntary and while I admit htere probably are a large segment that is made up of underpriviledged poeple that is a result of the military being an opportunity for these people. Job training, career advancement and college tuition are a few of the benefits of serving our country. Most poor and underpriviledged youth do not have these things available to them otherwise. But they do have the choice about wether they feel the risk of combat is worth that reward. No one forces them to serve.
BTW is this how you get all the information that you use to form your opinions? Music videos? Nuf said
2007-02-06 12:23:43 · answer #3 · answered by meathookcook 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
1 Presidents are usually many years older than soldiers.
2 The President is the Commander-in-Chief and not member
of the Armed Forces
3 The U.S. Military is an all voluntary force.
2007-02-06 12:22:43 · answer #4 · answered by Skyhawk 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The president has more to worry about than just the war stupid. If the president was too preoccupied in fighting the war, who the hell is going to deal with all the other problems this country has? Who will be passing laws and bills? Only the president can do this. Take a history class, you might learn something.
2007-02-06 12:24:34 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
As far as military history goes, army leaders or country leaders never fight wars. Whereas, sadly, soldiers' lives are and have been expended in wars, leaders cannot be. Without a leader, the war is already lost.
I don't agree with war in general, but since we have them, it makes sense to at least fight them with proven strategies.
2007-02-06 12:23:29 · answer #6 · answered by flywho 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Dude, in case you aren't aware, the US has a voluntary military. The president, with the consent of congress, sends military personnel to fight wars. Nobody goes out and rounds up poor people and forces them into military service.
2007-02-06 12:21:54 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Well if they had to get out there and fight they might think twice about going to war.
Long ago Kings fought along the side of the warriors they did not just send other men in to die.
But some where in the middle men in power lost their nerves and started send others to fight battles that they them selves were to chicken to fight.
2007-02-06 12:28:20 · answer #8 · answered by Tom Sawyer 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The only people that go to war today signed up for the military of their own free will. The president only sends those who sign up on their own
2007-02-06 12:21:00 · answer #9 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
If the military is voluntary then why do recruiters hang out like vultures around high school campuses, bargaining with kids like a used-car salesmen?
Presidents do not go to war because they choose not to. They start wars and then go to their ranches and play golf.
2007-02-06 12:38:23 · answer #10 · answered by murkglider 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The military is volunteer. It has nothing to do with your status in life. Everyone is treated the same there, regardless of the background they come from. You might give it a try. It has a tendency to make a man out of most boys.
2007-02-06 12:22:09 · answer #11 · answered by Night Wind 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋