Would he have had his sons go to war or get them out of it?
2007-07-16 05:03:43 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
It is a given that our military is voluntary. Also, I realize that there are many women troops.
2007-07-16 05:23:23 · update #1
All volunteer military. He could not have forced them to go. If they volunteered to serve he would have no reason to get them out.
2007-07-16 05:08:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Bush is not in the war for personal reasons! I have two son in laws in service... and I come from a family of military. Regardless of politics... you support the troops. They make it possible for you to be here and to wake up and choose what you are going to do each day!
2007-07-21 14:24:33 · answer #2 · answered by annie12460 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Putting everything aside that they would never be sent to Iraq, and that the military is voluntary, of course he would not let them enlist. Did you know that Michael Moore went in front of the white house with a petition for congressmen to proove that they support the war and asked the congress one by one to sign it to say that they would agree with their kids going into the military and could not get one signature. That just prooves that no one in congress is really supportive of the war. If they were and they knew that their kids would not be sent to Iraq, why wouldn't they have a problem signing the petition? Bush's own kids don't even agree with him
2007-07-17 04:45:55 · answer #3 · answered by Zahira B 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Even if he did, and even if they were in the military, the military would probably deem it an unacceptable risk to have the president's children serve in such a war, just as the British military decided it to be too risky to allow the Prince to go to Iraq.
The negatives would outweigh any positives of such a move. The propaganda value of capturing or killing such a high value target would be immeasurable. Because of that value, the enemy would expend a lot of resources to harm or capture them, exposing those around them to undue dangers.
Just imagine what would happen if the terrorists / insurgents captured the child of the President or a prince of England.
It's significantly different than WW2, even significantly different than Vietnam.
2007-07-16 05:31:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
why not! His daddy kept him out of the Vietnam war. Cheney received more than one deference from Nam. Have you ever wondered why bush has never mentioned that ANY of his relatives are serving in the Army in general, let alone in Iraq? Or cheney. Or for that matter, the great majority of congressional members that are backing this war.The poor, by a very large majority, are fighting this war.
2007-07-20 09:57:03 · answer #5 · answered by peepers98 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
He would still have started the war, he is very clear he thinks it was the right thing to do and he thought it would be over quickly, not a long mess. His sons might not even join.
2007-07-24 04:58:41 · answer #6 · answered by Eric 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If he had any love for his sons yes he would. You forget we have a volunteer military. NO ONE is forced to join, If you do not want to fight, if you do not want to serve then do not join. I have had it with the ones who claim "i only joined to go to collage" get a grip. The military has one purpose to WIN wars, you do that by blowing things up, and killing enemy soldiers. Keep in mind THEY attacked us, not the other way around. Saddam was paying 20,000 in cash to the families of suicide bombers. Get a grip.
2007-07-20 09:05:46 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No they would have never went. They would have been in college or found a loop hole like joining the national guard like George W. did. Of course if his sons were actually there they would have safe cushy jobs not at the front.
2007-07-23 10:53:07 · answer #8 · answered by roundman84 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Kids of high profile people are NOT allowed to be deployed in war scenarios in most cases. The reason being is special treatment, by friends and foe. The risk of being in a platoon with say the "Presidents" son ups the chance of an attack by the enemy greatly. It is simply not right to increase the risk of the lives of others because of this.
Do you think of the enemy knew the President's son was in this platoon at this location they wouldn't attack it? Of course they would... duh.
2007-07-16 06:09:00 · answer #9 · answered by boilerupvic 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Bush has 2 sons??? I didn't know, LOL.
Hey, In my opinions bush can let his sons go to the war, why not??? remember he started the war!!!!
are you in favor the war?
bye
2007-07-24 02:26:47 · answer #10 · answered by Nicolas 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, Bush would have his sons go. But if they are of age, he can't force them if they refuse. But still Bush would do everything to make they go.
What would make anyone think Bush would not?
2007-07-23 21:42:28 · answer #11 · answered by airlines charge for the seat. 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋