English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-03-15 14:53:46 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

The Bush administration does support the troops. In fact, of course, they’ve shorted the troops on everything from body armor to medical care for four years now.

The only way to support the troops is to put them at risk of death or grievous injury and leave them there, for no good reason. If that’s “support,” then I’m glad I’m not being supported.

2007-03-15 14:56:08 · update #1

24 answers

My brother went to Iraq and when he got back the military offered him no support. He got no therepy, and no help in any way. He is now a danger to the world and he has been put back into civilization. People who support this war have not been in war, and have no idea what is really going on. I asked my grand father who is a rebublican, why are we at war? and he said, to stop terroism. I asked , then why arnt more solders in Afganistan? he started to mumble like bush does and then he changed the subjust to: why dont kids these days have any respect for the government. LOL

2007-03-15 15:03:37 · answer #1 · answered by Shalasaska 1 · 1 1

The war could have been over long ago. The best way to have supported the troops was to have let them do their jobs. Keep the politics out of it and let the military do that voodoo that they do best! It would have saved money, lives and time had the Armed Forces of the US and UK been let off the leash. The world would be a safer place and we would not be drained of blood and treasure.
Then again, maybe the Democrats see that the war has been milked for all it can be and want out of the game.

2007-03-15 15:09:06 · answer #2 · answered by Finn 2 · 1 0

Well that didn't unfortunately happen as the republican senate voted it down.

But if it had a decent chance yes. This is Bushes war and personal vendetta - let Bush, Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly (and the FOX news channel crew), John McCain and those who support his on-going failures to pay for it out of their own pockets. Not from the pockets of those who oppose his efforts. Including the soldiers in the news who don't understand why they are there in the first place really, and would rather come home themselves.

p.s. Bush didn't fight on the ground, in the air or by sea when he was in the military. Why should he be allowed to make a unilateral decision for these kids he's tossing in this war like they were grenades??

2007-03-15 15:18:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

I listen Nancy Pelosi has said that Congress gained't decrease off funding for the conflict. That suggested, Her social gathering has rebelled adverse to her outbursts formerly, and some Republicans are creating a similar decrease the funding noises. to finish that is a really politically risky flow. even if, to refuse to finance the "surge" should be more advantageous in all probability, even if I doubt that it ought to end Bush from increasing troop means. there replaced into $3.2 Trillion lacking from the DOD on 9/10/01 which nonetheless has no longer been accounted for. The CIA are continuously operating money raising schemes , which under no circumstances are examined with assistance from authorities accountants. And the Treasury Dept is area of the authorities branch. i'm particular Bush will do as he damn nicely pleases as long as he believes he can get away with it. i'm relying on that conceitedness to eventually convey him & his inner circle down.

2016-11-25 23:01:29 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Let me guess - you're a working person. You're not among the super wealthy that support this war, yet pay little or no taxes. Do you get to pick the color of your new Ferrari? Do you get to pick what $10million property you spend your vacation at? Hawaii? Fiji? South of France? No?

Bush and company will leave this country in a mess that we have never witnessed before. And they will, in particular, be laughing at people like you for supporting them, against your own interests.

You give plenty of your money to the gov't. They have wasted nearly $500,000,000,000 (that's billion) of your money in the deserts of Iraq killing people, making enemies, making terrorists, and there is no end to it.

That you are willing to give your money for this purpose is an outrage. That you are willing to criticize proposals to keep your money here, to benefit you, is quite hard to understand.

2007-03-15 15:11:17 · answer #5 · answered by lip11 3 · 0 0

Congress and the Senate are our elected representatives. They are voicing their opposition to the war because they believe that is why they were elected. I am sure this is what most of their constituents are telling them. I seriously doubt that they will cut off funding for the war until Iraq is in a better position to take care of itself. Setting benchmarks and time limits seem perfectly reasonable to me to let Iraq know we aren't going to be there any longer than we have to.

2007-03-15 15:13:22 · answer #6 · answered by BekindtoAnimals22 7 · 0 0

Here's the problem we didn't vote the Senate to provide enough votes, remember it's 60 there and a simple majority, therefore it will take more time and machinations to achieve the goals of protecting these brave young men & women


sorry that should a simple majority for the house

2007-03-15 14:59:05 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

He never should have been in iraq, for the many many reasons that you all already know ( even if you won't admit it to yourselves.) If there is a god, then bush will have to answer to him someday for every lost life on both sides. However, considering the problems there now, we broke it and we have a duty to fix it.

2007-03-15 15:02:54 · answer #8 · answered by Zarathustra 5 · 1 0

Democrats aren't going to do anything but talk. They are keeping themselves from taking over the presidency.
Speaking as a democrat myself, I am pretty irritated by the whole party's attempt at pretending to fight the president and backing him all the way.
But to answer your question, no I am not hoping that. I actually believe in the war, sorry skippy.

2007-03-15 15:01:03 · answer #9 · answered by Chrissy 7 · 3 1

God I hope not. Whether you are for the war or against it you can't leave your countrymen out in a war zone with out support.They will be slaughtered with no ammo, food, water, fuel, medical supplies or anything else they wont even make it home.
If we leave our solders out to die at the hands of the terrorists it not only be the saddest day in U.S. history it will just be the beginning of the end for the United States of America because there will be nothing to stop them from invading our homeland and killing all of us.

2007-03-15 15:07:56 · answer #10 · answered by Wraith53089 3 · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers