why we don't send bush to iraq so he can see how it is to have your *** on the line ?

Question

he should go to fight and not just say i declare war

Answer 1

I do wish that everybody who directed, voted for, or otherwise supported the invasion of Iraq spent at least a year over there fighting it. Supplied only as well as any of the regular troop members are supplied: if anybody over there doesn't have body armor, they themselves don't get body armor. I wish that they would get exactly the "support" that many of our troops have gotten: I wish that their families would be among those who got poor, or no, housing or medical care, and that when they came back from Iraq, they themselves got poor, or no, housing or medical care.

But American society is structured so that those who make decisions seldom experience the consequences of those decisions.

I recommend the book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, by Jared Diamond. If we choose to let incompetents remain in charge, and remain insulated from the effects of their incompetence, then we are choosing to fail.

Answer 2

I think 'M's answer suks when he put's Kerry to anything other than a Jane Fonda Test. That was the only idiot that would have lost to Bush. And Bush did not go any where near combat. But did you? Has your A** been on the line. SH** N* because when it has you don't have to use ****.

I don't want anybody to know the next bullet maybe theirs but please don't speak like an expert.

Answer 3

He HAS gone. So has SOD Donald Rumsfeld when he still had the job. They both went to the hot spots, unlike John Kerry who stayed safe in Bagdad. Do a little research before asking "loaded" questions.