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

The bias by the Media of the presidential campaign has been evident for some months now.

That implies that a hawk like Rudy Giuliani speaks for the American soldiers and other military members, when he, John McCain, and others, parrot the Bush Administration’s line that the US must "stay the course in Iraq," as withdrawal would be a betrayal of our heroic fighting men and women.

The Media has given short shrift to Ron Paul, the only candidate among the Republicans who argues for withdrawal.

If that logic was correct, then Ron Paul must be the most hated of the candidates among those people associated with the US Military. But, is that true?

The finance reports, easily verified by checking the reports by employer, gives the following results:

52.53%: Ron Paul
35.4%: McCain
7.9%: Romney
5.2%: Giuliani
2.2%: Hunter

Thus, more than half of the Military and Veterans donating funds to the Republican Party candidates gave their monies to one candidate, Dr. Ron Paul.

2007-07-20 08:33:45 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Elections

15 answers

Those in the military should speak for the military because they are the ones putting their lives on the line in Iraq and other places. No one else, except for the veterans, has earned that right.

Obviously, the military has spoken. The only way to support the troops is to support Ron Paul.

2007-07-20 08:46:44 · answer #1 · answered by John 5 · 2 0

Fact from fiction, truth from diction. Who ever has the best rule of logic, whom ever that may be, should speak for the military. McCain, Bush ET AL use fear and pride to prolong a war that was basically a family vendetta. With those hapless men and women(many who only joined to get money for college later)used as his(Bush)personal Luca Brasi. There has NEVER been an insurgency put down by military might, unless you count Po Pot and the Khmer Rouge by the NV regulars at the end of the Vietnam War. Farc in Columbia and the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka combined have fought more than 30 years and have not been crushed. The IRA agreed to but down there weapon. The Queen and the UK did not make them. Who ever has a logical and rational coarse should be the one to say, Not pin headed hawks who logic is liking to stepping in a fire ant hill. And because they start biting you, you don't step out of the hill but stomp harder to show them a lesson, thinking eventually the hill will run out of ants while you still have some leg left. I don't care who speaks for them so long as who do, do so with logic, and not just throw lives and billions of dollars away that could be used on something like Universal Health Care, simply to save face.

2007-07-20 22:10:11 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Well, for me I expect Jim Webb should. He was a (R) like me until the party changed, not his beliefs. He is a former member of the Reagan administration, a combat veteran of Vietnam, a distinguished author, and current (D) senator from Va. Most importantly his son is a Marine veteran of Iraq. I love his beliefs and background because they are the same as mine in many ways. Both of us are sick of the current greed and elitism in the (R) party. So we have switched. He won't run for president this election but eventually he will, in my opinion and he will get my vote. The title of one of his books is " A Country Such as this" another " Fields of Fire". When he does run, if he wins, he will be a great president.

2007-07-20 08:56:05 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

What puzzles me is that twice in the last 30 days, the government in Iraq has said that they don't need us and that we should leave.

None of the political candidates nor the "liberal" media has seen fit to bring this up after the bush league repeatedly saying we would leave when the Iraqis asked us to.

Everybody bought and paid for are they?

2007-07-20 16:21:29 · answer #4 · answered by ? 7 · 5 0

I'd say Hillary, Dianne Feinstein and Charles Shumer, with additional input from that genius, John Conyers. They're all experienced in military matters, and I'd trust their judgement anytime. We should make Hillary the Fuhrer. Heil Hillery! It does have a certain ring to it, doesn't it?

2007-07-20 08:58:58 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

i love army bcz army is a main part of our country.army is full of geniuses.
the military has spoken the only way to support the troops is to support to ron paul.

2007-07-21 17:11:14 · answer #6 · answered by vickyfannay 2 · 3 0

those guys are just giving their opinions...the only elected official who should speak for the military is the commander in chief...but as a retired Navy vet i support Ron Paul...keep the faith & spread the word

2007-07-20 08:40:55 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

You should, with your vote. Just remember to vote with an informed conscience and not your wallet. Sounds easy doesn't it? It's not because we are all fallable human beings trying to get by in our own little worlds. Peace.

2007-07-20 08:49:48 · answer #8 · answered by Tom H 2 · 1 0

From my understanding the Military is more than feed up with being used for cannon fodder in this bungled war.

~

2007-07-26 23:15:02 · answer #9 · answered by fitzovich 7 · 1 0

Only the general in charge.

2007-07-25 09:54:44 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers