Michael Moore says he should and I think this is right. So come on George otherwise it will be Iraq-Nam
2007-05-18
04:22:01
·
24 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Military
http://www.fahrenheit911.com/
2007-05-18
04:22:32 ·
update #1
I just liked the idea of George driving a tank and misunderestimating the controls
2007-05-18
05:39:00 ·
update #2
Just listen to Bush's clear and concise leadership, you have to let him fight it would be priceless
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdmVXHtgooI
2007-05-18
05:43:43 ·
update #3
"Eh heh heh, well.. you know... uh... eh heh heh.. ah'm the.. deci-DUR, eh heh, and ah decide, um... uh.. not to fight, eh heh heh"
2007-05-18 04:29:04
·
answer #1
·
answered by Ivor Hugh G.Rection 6
·
2⤊
4⤋
Micheal Moore is appeaser. He thinks that the only way to stop the attacks on this country is to give in to the terrorist and any tyrant that comes along. He hates this country, he hates the freedoms that we have in this country. He does not look at what happen when a dictator comes into power. He loves Communism but won't go and live in one. He would not live like the peasants do; because he could not handle that. They paint rosy picture about Communism by show some beautiful places. They get people to tell how wonderful they are treated and if the peasants says anything different they are put to death so they can't anything against the government ever again. Bush has lead the troops but he could do one more thing of getting out of the way and let the people who are generals run the war. So they can hurry up and get the war won. The Democrats need to back off too.
2007-05-18 11:55:37
·
answer #2
·
answered by DALE M 4
·
2⤊
2⤋
The President of the United States, as a CIVILIAN LEADER, would never be in the battle zone leading troops. That concept of leadership went out of style in the Middle Ages.
The current principles of leadership include DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY. The PotUS may be the Commander -in-chief, but a good PotUS lets his military commanders do their job without micromanaging and interference.
This is a concept that those nutjobs in Congress would do well to get their heads around. All the Congressional mickey-mousing and micromanaging ties the military's hands behind their backs, making it far more difficult for them to do their jobs so they can get back home.
Michael Moore is a flaming idiot with no military experience or knowledge whatsoever. As a film-maker, he's mediocre at best; a bald-faced liar at the worst. As a military leader, he'd get all his soldiers killed in minutes. Anything MM knows about fighting a war he learned playing with Legos or plastic soldiers in a sandbox, or floating plastic boats in his bathtub. Listenign to his advice about military leadership is like asking your goldfish to calculate the next ten lunar eclipses.
2007-05-18 12:11:30
·
answer #3
·
answered by Dave_Stark 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
Be fair. Dubyu leads his troops every day.
OK, behind a desk. But is that not the same thing?
(There was an item on today's UK news which shows a very senior police officer being shot by a Tizer - few thousand volts thru his body, imobilised completely) to prove it was safe.)
So perhaps Bush should spend some time on the front with the troops.....but I don't see it.
2007-05-18 11:33:06
·
answer #4
·
answered by Bunts 6
·
2⤊
3⤋
Using Michael Moore as a source of knowledge shows you need to do more research my friend. He is a phony. Google him and find out for yourself. His "Roger and Me" was edited to present his views.
I am a retired journalist. Take it from me. You make a fool of yourself by not doing your research before posing such an outlandish question.
President Bush leading troops in the field is ridiculous and laughable. No President of any country in the modern world has ever done it nor should do it. That's why we have Generals.
You might consider deleting your question.
_________________________________
See http://on-line-tribune-front-page.blogspot.com
2007-05-18 11:32:38
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
2⤋
George had his chance to fight-he chose not to-he joined the ranks of privleged children who found a way out of Vietnam-ya know no matter how you cut it Kerry went Bush did not-I am not a Kerry fan-but the kid had guts-he was only over there for 3 months-a long enough time to die.
2007-05-18 11:27:42
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋
Why do you want to send him now in Iraq in order to get rid of him?
Nearly a majority of American citizen have elected him and now you must keep him.
And not to forget, he was elected twice. It was already a big error the first time. What to think about his election the second time? To me this is more than unbelievable.
2007-05-18 12:05:59
·
answer #7
·
answered by Jean 4
·
0⤊
2⤋
It is not the Presidents place. He is the Commander in Chief, the highest level. You don't put the coach in to play the game. Micheal Moore is a piece of dog sh*t. He distorts facts to fit his own agendas.
2007-05-18 11:27:45
·
answer #8
·
answered by only p 6
·
4⤊
2⤋
He is leading the troops. Just like LBJ did during Viet Nam Harry Truman did during Korera and FDR druing WW 2 .
2007-05-18 11:27:01
·
answer #9
·
answered by 1st Buzie 6
·
6⤊
4⤋
That's why we have generals. God your stupid. Mainly because you listen to anything Michael Moore has to say. Why don't you use your own brain?
2007-05-18 11:29:44
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
G.W.Bush is going to lead his troops in Iraq to "labyrinth".
2007-05-18 11:32:34
·
answer #11
·
answered by abdulnasser a 1
·
1⤊
1⤋