Why are the most ardent hawks in the GOP those that haven't served?

Question

Do they not know or care about the human price of war?

Are corporate profits more important than human life to them?

Do they realize intelligent people see them for what they are?

Murtha, Gore and Kerry served in combat - more than can be said for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz (the cowards).

Super S! - I didn't list McCain because he wasn't an ardent hawk. Kind of prickly, aren't you? He served honorably - just as I'm sure you have - right?

Answer 1

In general you're right. The reason is that no one who has actually been in combat ever WANTS to do it again--and certainly doesn't want to send others in harm's way unless its really necessary. Chickenhawks, on the other hand, neither know the real cost--nor do they care. To them it's just images on the TV screen--and they don't know the difference between the "Rambo" movies and reality.

And, yes, corporate profits are more important to some of them It's always someone else that does the bleeding and dying. And its not just liberals. Look at Bush's father. As president, he did send troops into combat--but on a clearly defined mission that was based on an honest case for war. And he did not allow our troops to become bogged down in anendless bloody civil war or to die for no purpose.

But then, unlike his son, GB, Sr, was a MAN--not a drunken cowardly draft dodger.

Answer 2

No one is more ardent than our soldiers. Yes Bush cares about the soldiers, but he also cares about the killing that would go on after we pulled out without Iraq having any stability. We are responsible now, no matter that our intelligence was wrong at first. At the time everyone thought it was accurate and that the US was in danger of being attacked. If we don't hold up to our responsibility now, we could only hang our heads in shame.

Answer 3

I find it telling that the GOPs leadership is filled with men who spent the Vietnam War running away from it,and the Democratic Party has many leaders who served with honor.

I guess a guy can be really brave when he's not the one doing the fighting.

John McCain is the exception.

Answer 4

That is not the way it works in the USA. Murth, Gore and Kerry did not volunteer for combat they were sent. I spend two years in Viet Nam and my brother spent two years in Germany and my youngest brother did not serve at all. It is the luck of the draw.

You are just a bitter libo that does not know yet that the Democratic party is dying.

Answer 5

It kind of seems to be the trend doesn't it? FDR never served and he was Commander in Chief during World War 2. Woodrow Wilson never served and he was Commander in Chief in the first World War. Johnson never served and he was Commander in Chief during the Vietnam War.

Answer 6

Kerry... hah. Kerry was not a soldier. He was a sailor, which at that time was considered a good way to avoid being drafted into the Army and Vietnam

This is simply a silly question, although it is actually rhetorical.
Considering the ratio of Republicans to Democrats who are actually soldiers, this is especially funny.

Answer 7

They know the human cost of war.

The investment bankers who are buying, stripping down and selling manufacturing in the US know the human cost here.

Greed is the simple answer.

Answer 8

They are afraid that if those who are willing to fight their wars for them, don't get in there and get the job done quickly, they will have to start sending in their own sons and daughters, who stay at home watching soap operas, eating bon bons, and procreating.

.

Answer 9

they have a more objective view of things, don't you know the best quarterbacks always stay on the side lines.

Answer 10

becuase if they did they wouldn't have sent people off to die for a lie.