Do you believe that the us military would have been so quickly involved in Iraq.? If the president himself knew what a combat situation and ACTUAL army life was like would he have gon into Iraq?
2007-07-17 13:15:51 · 14 answers · asked by Natashya K 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I didn't Dodge the Draft as CANADA hasn't had a draft in my life time, and I didn't vote for Clinton as I am a Canadian. However I do have grandparents who fought in World War ll and still have nightmares, ( one was in Italy in '42). it is my opinion that Bush is so quick to send people over to Iraq because he doesn't know the life of a soldier, the strain of distance in families or the fear of leaving a family at a young age. as for Iraq being a peacekeeping mission thats like voting Republican to get a democratic government...FUTILE
2007-07-17 14:34:05 · update #1
A person with military experience would not be so qick to get into an armed conflict.
2007-07-17 15:33:20 · answer #1 · answered by OldGringo 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
President John F Kennedy was on PT 109-so he had combat experience...would he put us in iraq? I would assume so.
We went there because to help them govern their own land as peace keepers as well as search for Bin Landin.
Iraq to us today was like vietnam in the Kennedy era
2007-07-17 20:27:33 · answer #2 · answered by audioworld 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Who knows. The current president is an idealist, following his own ideals. If he had seen combat, he might have been a bit different, but he did live through Vietnam and Kent State. I believe that he knows what goes on in time of war, but that it doesn't really matter to him.
2007-07-17 20:20:31 · answer #3 · answered by Deirdre H 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
President Bush received a Purple Heart for the poison arrows of Democratic political attacks!
2007-07-17 20:19:12 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yes, absolutely without question. Now if you are asking if a liberal would, then the answer would probably be no and we would still have Saddam and his charming sons to deal with for the next 50 years.
2007-07-17 20:20:06 · answer #5 · answered by bravozulu 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
that kind of thinking is very dangerous.
the next step would be require a president to be a military man.
this is NOT what we need.
with no disrespect ,just because someone is a great general,,this does not say he will be a good president,,,
point ,,,,,for all you bush bashers,,,slick would not have got there,,
what about hilpac,,does she have military service,,
it is a lame question and really does not deserve this much time ,,but i am waiting for my wife to finish her chores in the barn,, so she can make me dinner
2007-07-17 20:26:56 · answer #6 · answered by daorangejello 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
no i do not think so. this war had nothing to do with any terrorist it was about ego. to say we would still have to worry about Saddam and his kids is bull. they had not attacked the US in any way. Ben laden attacked and killed thousands and we still will not step on any toes to get him. if we really cared about terrorist we would have been in Pakistan a long time ago. and also Kim jun IL or what ever his name is has killed far more people than Hussein has were is that war.
2007-07-17 20:23:19 · answer #7 · answered by panther_nut 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Definitely not. The President would have at least known that you need some kind of plan for post war Iraq.
2007-07-17 20:19:42 · answer #8 · answered by greencoke 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Kennedy had actual battle experience and he escalated Vietnam. Bush Sr. was a navy pilot during WWII, and he did the Gulf war.
2007-07-17 20:18:49 · answer #9 · answered by GoGo Girls 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
A President with actual combat experience would have sent MORE troops and not allowed ROE that handcuffed them.
2007-07-17 20:29:28 · answer #10 · answered by STEVEN F 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋