2007-04-22 04:23:54 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
You have it all wrong. He is thinking logically about it. He wants to send more troops so that less American soldiers will die. He wants to give them the resources they need to continue to fight the war on terror and keep you safe.
2007-04-22 04:27:26 · answer #1 · answered by ValleyR 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
You think there is another "reason" for this war in the middle east? And there is also a willingness on GWB's part to knowingly send military personnel to their deaths. It IS a war. In wars (of any kind, in any locale) people (soldiers AND civilians) are going to be killed. Like making the proverbial omlet, you have to wreck a few eggs. Or choose not to eat omlets. War, while it's not my personal favorite thing, is not always an easy nor a simple choice.
2007-04-22 05:06:30 · answer #2 · answered by solo_powered_boatie 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Obviously you have very little understanding of military strategy and tactics, as well as a low opinion of the ability of the United States Armed Forces.
If you seriously think that a bunch of rag-tag terrorists who hide among civilians and bomb these same civilians rather than fighting in actual military engagements can defeat the U.S. Army, Marines, Air Force, Navy, and their allies, then you are ignorant of the past 200 years of United States military history. Even in Viet Nam, our forces never lost a single military engagement; however, then as now, the press portrayed an image of defeat by constantly dwelling on casualties and focusing on low-morale among the troops, which they actually fostered by their slanted coverage.
Beyond U.S. military history, the vast majority of battles and wars in the history of man have been won by the side which brings the most and best-trained forces to bear in the conflict.
Therefore, in fact, more troops will actually lead to LESS U.S. deaths, and, God willing, a quicker resolution to the conflict.
2007-04-22 04:41:44 · answer #3 · answered by musashi 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
None because of the fact those funerals are not nationally televised. those funerals could get a couple of minutes of air time on interior of sight information and that isn't sufficient air time or a huge sufficient objective marketplace for Bush or Cheney to "play" the situation of the compassionate and worrying chief. those adult men are only like the previous due Bob desire, they like a huge objective marketplace. additionally, in the event that they confirmed up at a funeral, they could meet a grieving mom like Cindy Sheehan who could call for solutions that i'm specific neither of them have.
2016-11-26 20:25:04 · answer #4 · answered by reust 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you ask me it's the Dimwitocrats that are trying to create more deaths through defunding the military with what they need to do their job.
Just like they did during Vietnam, they are trying to micromange the military.
2007-04-22 04:30:16 · answer #5 · answered by scottdman2003 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't believe he wants to send more troops to their death, he made a decision to go to war and now he has to see it thru.
2007-04-22 04:27:40 · answer #6 · answered by That one 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
He has not gotten the oil secured yet. He wants a blank check approved by congress for war spending so he can continue lining the pockets of his cronies. He cannot and will not admit that he was wrong.
.
2007-04-22 04:27:52 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
So that you can live a smug and secure life at home. Enjoy.
2007-04-22 04:29:05 · answer #8 · answered by righteousjohnson 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
To achieve victory! And define that if ya can!
2007-04-22 04:29:09 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
He is not sending them to Iraq to die. Geeze!
2007-04-22 04:29:56 · answer #10 · answered by JessicaRabbit 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋