I say we send the politicians to Iraq to fight the war, its theirs to fight after all isnt it?

Question

We go into Iraq on March 2003 on the premise that Saddam's regime is supporting Al-Qaeda and that he possesses WMDs, despite 2001 and 2002 reports from the Bush administration that only Afghanistan is a necessary target. Well I guess the fact that Saddam's attempt to kill Bush's daddy prompted him to conjure up a pot of boiling bs so he could finish the job in Iraq. Congress voted hands in, but I'm sure not one truly looked into the reports, and only 1 congressman had a child in the military so no loss right, well not for the boys on the hill at least. Funny thing is 15 of the hijackers were Saudi, 7% of the American economy is set on Arabian investments, and on September 13 Bush allowed over 100 Saudis, some of the bin Laden family, board private jets back to Saudi Arabia without a single interrogation. Why doesn't Bush grow balls, pull his hand out the Arabian wallet, and force the Saudi family to cut down on their own terrorist problems? So why are we in Iraq again?

Answer 1

I am in full favor of sending all of the politicians children, grand children, to the front, and if the damned politician says, does, any thing, including blinking an eye,, send their asz to accompany their heirs !!!!! ALL OF THEM!!!! THE COWARDLY BASTAR#S WANT OUR SONS THERE, BUT NONE OF THEIRS !!!!
Uncle Wil

Answer 2

no longer almost sufficient of the wealthy ones. The damaging ones do because of the fact they are instructed that they gets a commission properly and that they get scholarships, which some do, and a few do no longer. with the aid of recruiter loopholes that make it legal for the recruiter to lie approximately advantages and portray contracts to be legally binding, while the only individual who's definite in any count number is the recruit. Any provision in a settlement with the protection tension that a youthful recruit signs and symptoms could properly be altered at any time and for any reason, yet he/she is legally obligated to do in spite of the settlement differences into. in view that Republican politicians think of this scientific care is in basic terms for people who the two oppose them, or can not use 6 0's to describe their earnings, they frequently discourage those they deem "worth".

Answer 3

If the politicians had to fight, the war would be over tomorrow. In fact, it would never have started. Wish Bush had to go. Bet the Iraqi people would love to take him for a water boarding ride.

Answer 4

Perhaps to free the country from the tyrranny of an evil dictator?

Answer 5

Yes, Indeed, It's time to put the Defeatocrats feet to the fire!!!

EDIT:

See how well they hold up in desert heat, under 80 pounds of body armor.