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

In a war game during the clinton administration the military determined they would need 400 to 500,000 troops for a period of 4 to 5 yrs to achieve our goals and that even then it may not work do to outside influences (Iran,Al queda)
So I suggest we either give them what they asked for or get them out of harms way.Gwb never gave them half of that. I would think the military knows what they need more than gwb does. Now then... after saying that who is it that hasnt been supporting our troops?

2007-06-09 02:12:42 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

Huh... well booman I am merely stating the fact that the military determined that is what it would take. Perhaps bushler shold have thought about the fact that we didnt have the needed rescources before making the attempt?

2007-06-09 02:44:18 · update #1

Dear madmaxiene,
the clinton administration never had the intent to invade Iraq. Therefore your blame for debacle it has become on said administration has no basis.

2007-06-09 02:45:52 · update #2

Furthermore the fact that in your mind one who does not support a war started by the corrupt utilizing LIES does not support the troops is totally ludicrous.

2007-06-09 02:47:59 · update #3

8 answers

Why didn't Clinton give them what they needed if the military decided this during the Clinton administration?
You can not blame Pres. GW Bush for something Clinton should have taken care of.

The anti-war people are typically democrats.
If the war is evil then the people taking part in it are evil.

If putting a stop to Saddam's murder spree is a good thing than our solders are heroes.

I think our soldiers did a good thing by trying to help peace loving Iraqis. And therefore I support the troops.

If you think putting a stop to Saddam was a bad thing then by default you think our soldiers are doing a bad thing. If you support evil doers what does that say about you?

People who make their living doing good things are good. People who make their living doing bad things are bad.

Support the war= Support the troops
Hate the war=Hate the troops

2007-06-09 02:42:33 · answer #1 · answered by Mad Maxine 4 · 2 3

If we had gone in with what was needed in the first place this war would have been over, there may have been small up rising here & there but you would have had enough ground troops & force on the ground & you would have eventually put them out. Generals sould be running this war not politicians . Yes, you can support the troops & disagree about the war effort. But it is dishearting to the troops over there to see such a divide amoungst Americans about what & why they are there.

2007-06-09 03:39:05 · answer #2 · answered by Polilical conundrum... 6 · 0 0

Perhaps you should ask how many troops we actually have available for deployment while maintaining forces in other areas around the world before you blame GWB for not deploying something that doesn't exist. Seems easy to blame GWB until you actually learn something about what you are talking about.

2007-06-09 02:36:46 · answer #3 · answered by booman17 7 · 1 1

The only person that is not supporting the troops is Mr. Bush, buy starting an unwarranted war, not having a good plan, and giving most of our tax money away to mercinaries instead of our kids who really need it. Now then... After saying that, you still think Bush cares about you?

2007-06-09 02:32:43 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

we are scuffling with a viscious enemy over there in Iraq, Afghanistan and regrettably quicker or later in Iran. confident the sensation that it incredibly is a pointless conflict is clever in some procedures, yet we gained't basically bypass away. Preaching around against the conflict isn't helping something. If we extreme tail it out of Iraq and Afghanistan, we bypass away the doors extensive open for unjust takeovers in those international places and permit terrorist communities to take fee. additionally it is going to likely be seen as a defeat on the US and the thought would be that any you may attack the US like they did on 9-eleven and smash out WITH IT. we are able to' t basically bypass away Iraq or Afghanistan. it isn't the suitable thank you to bypass. we would desire to adhere it out. the US does not would desire to retreat from suicide bombing losers. We hear approximately our losses yet their losses are great too.

2016-11-09 21:48:52 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Those, between the ages of 18 and 35, who sit at home, whining about Democrats, but don't have the gumption to get up and stand in line at their local Military Induction office.

This would include the bush twins.

.

2007-06-09 02:25:09 · answer #6 · answered by Brotherhood 7 · 2 3

GWB and the others in the administration have acted more like democrats when it comes to treatment of the military. The VA hospitals are a joke, he denied military pay raises. he sent national guard into combat when they are only supposed to be used in their respective states, he failed to properly equip them and so on and so on. Only thing going on now is troops are getting killed and we have nobody to blame but everyone in Congress and the Whitehouse.

2007-06-09 02:19:46 · answer #7 · answered by archkarat 4 · 3 4

MadMaxine...... Well Said!

2007-06-09 02:56:20 · answer #8 · answered by snickers 3 · 1 3

fedest.com, questions and answers