-The United States of America has an ALL-voluntary military.
- George W. Bush is the most powerful man in the world. To have his children there would be a threat to national security.
-They would have a huge target on their back
-Our brave soldiers would be in great danger
-Our soldiers would be too busy protecting them than to do their jobs.
I am so sick of people saying that our President's daughters need to fight in Iraq. I really didn't think people were that ignorant.
2007-02-19 11:36:48 · 15 answers · asked by TRUE PATRIOT 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Because they just dont like Bush.
I want to see all Congressmen and Congresswomen's SONS be sent to Iraq, even the ones who voted against the war. Its a collective consent.
2007-02-19 11:44:57 · answer #1 · answered by Mike_Hustle 2 · 7⤊ 5⤋
for the comparable reason chelsea clinton didnt bypass to iraq. what we choose in iraq is better than liberal pap or grandstanding via nancy pelosi. what we choose and what grow to be initially sent pre turn flop hillary clinton and john edwards have been infantrymen freed from liberal extremist interference who can combat the conflict with al qaeda and win it. the difficulty is uncontrolled liberal extremists cant seem to get that harry reid affirming unilateral renounce does no longer something to bolster our place in iraq..its cowardice and wears on an army attempting to guard the very rights questions like this endanger.
2016-10-16 01:20:55 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
One reason why people say that is because of the 'send 20,000 liberals to Iraq as a peace offering' that is thrown out. So, people respond in kind.
2007-02-19 11:46:06 · answer #3 · answered by K 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Thank you sir for reminding me that there are still true Americans out there who have some education and common sense under their belt. After being on this board for about an hour im starting to lose hope in America. I blame the public school system.
2007-02-19 11:50:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 5⤋
The twins could serve behind the lines.
2007-02-19 11:50:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
It's not literal! It's to put your self in our place...figuratively: And is in response to talking about the draft or sending in more troops. It's as if to say, "My son? Your daughters!" Get it?
2007-02-19 11:49:58 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 6⤊ 3⤋
I'LL TELL YOU EXACTLY WHY: NO IFS, ANDS OR BUTS WHY...
It's because Liberal men have no shot with pretty, traditional women. They are like those stalker guys who say: "If I can't have you nobody will." So, they angrily sit in the their mother's basements typing away like Keyboard Warriors saying that these two, educated, fine young women should be placed in harm's way.
It's that simple.
2007-02-19 11:47:45 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 6⤋
Hold on a second, if his daughters were in the army, would he be so war hungry? He wouldn't send his daughters to war unless it was absolutely necessary. And this war was absolutely UNnecessary. get the picture.
2007-02-19 11:50:50 · answer #8 · answered by Andres 6 · 7⤊ 5⤋
You got all this dumb *** people who get there information form cnn or any other president bashing station, Im sick of them, fvcking traders!
2007-02-19 11:44:57 · answer #9 · answered by down 1 · 6⤊ 5⤋
That's funny, all four of FDR's sons served in WWII.... as well as his son in law.
and could anybody really tell who they were? they might have a huge target, but most deaths are from IEDs, which can strike anybody.
2007-02-19 11:42:53 · answer #10 · answered by The Big Box 6 · 7⤊ 5⤋