Maybe if they got a taste of war they wouldn't be so gung-ho..right?
2007-07-11 14:09:13 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Well considering that many of them claim that people who DON'T support war should be forced to go and "see what it's like", it makes a lot more sense to me to make the people who do support these wars to go and see just how much they like doing it themselves. I very much doubt they'd be "gung-ho" about it whatsoever after spending 15 minutes in Iraq or any other war zone they're currently backing.
2007-07-11 20:24:56 · answer #1 · answered by Mystery Lady H 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I agree, I believe they should fight, or that they should make their kids fight if they are so adamant about this war and its righteousness. In fact I would go one step further. I would make it mandatory that any Congressmen, whether in the House or Senate, or an aspirant for the Presidency, can only be qualified to hold any of these positions if they have a son, daughter, niece, nephew, wife, husband, brother or sister, who is of age to where they are eligible for military service. If they don’t have such a relative they are not allowed to run for the Senate, House of Representatives, or the Presidency.
Once any act of war or military incursion into foreign soil is conducted by our military, it will be an inviolable rule that these relatives be entered into military service and enter the frontlines. No excuses, or cushy military office jobs will be offered to them, to circumvent them being put in the line of fire.
I guarantee you, that if this statute was made mandatory; we would never conduct wars for frivolous causes, or for causes that are driven purely by corporate greed. People who are the most reluctant about war are those who have the most lose from it. It would be nice if we had government officials who had something to lose for going into battle. Maybe then, they will act with moral discretion and not aggression. Maybe then they will use the military for its only morally legitimate purpose, - protecting the homeland.
2007-07-12 14:02:32 · answer #2 · answered by Lawrence Louis 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm not a warmonger i thought we went in too fast and i just say we stay and finish what we began. I believed in invading Iraq just we should have gained more support first and dug deeper for our intel. I've never fought in war because im too young but many "CON warmongers" have fought in war.
2007-07-11 21:21:23 · answer #3 · answered by Half-pint 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I have had my "taste of war" and i believe we are doing the right thing in Iraq. Tell me are you going to volunteer to go to Darfar if a Democrat calls for our intervention there?
2007-07-11 21:19:43 · answer #4 · answered by smsmith500 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No. Shouldn't all liberals who claim to be so in favor of the military be forced to go fight in Iraq with them?
(Yeah, see how stupid of a question that was? Read it again and compare it to your question. So ignorantly similar, aren't they?)
2007-07-11 21:20:01 · answer #5 · answered by Emma 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
But then our military wouldn't be a volunteer army, so no.
2007-07-11 21:17:17 · answer #6 · answered by K 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think a compulsory draft would work for many of you
bigots
2007-07-11 21:18:48 · answer #7 · answered by UMD Terps 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Yep, either that, or close their warmongering mouths.
.
2007-07-11 21:18:56 · answer #8 · answered by Brotherhood 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
lmao, wrong,
USAF vet
Proud American
2007-07-11 21:21:37 · answer #9 · answered by shut up dummy 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
yes. They do the talk and avoid all walking.
2007-07-11 21:17:27 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋