Heck, i thought all the Dem candiates think we should be making more war in Afdghanistan.
So does that mean Hillary is urging Chelsea to enlist ?
She sure didn't urge Chelsea to enlist to go to haiti, bosnia or kosavo. I don't remember any Gore kids enlisting for those either.
But now I guess, Bidens, Obama's, Edwards and Hillarys kids will be lining up to enlist to go to afghanistan..right ???
2007-08-10 13:32:16
·
answer #1
·
answered by jeeper_peeper321 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
No one is pro war....They just fill the need to protect their Country.
I don't know how old you have to be but the oldest is nearing 40 and the youngest is 26 and 29. I would say the youngest two could enlist. I think they want younger fit guys to fight. Even though they are young, but you don't know with today standards. Some people think 45 are old :/
I'm sure Mitt would be proud of his boys if they fought. He just gave them a choice to go or not.
2007-08-10 13:43:41
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
i don't experience he has any explaining to do. His sons are there very own persons, they have their very own minds and make their very own judgements. the protection stress is all volunteer, there is not any longer a draft. So it quite is unlike they have been meant to serve and did no longer. you are able to quite make the comparable argument approximately applicants who've sons interior the protection stress who've by no capacity served in Afghanistan or Irag. How did they handle that. Your insinuation is guilt by relation. i could be extra disillusioned if a candidate intentionally made their babies sign in for the protection stress to benefit votes. What approximately Hilliary who voted for the announcement of action, wheres her Daughter. no longer interior the protection stress. If Hilliary and her fellow Democrats did no longer help the announcement of action in congress there could be no conflict. Is she a expert conflict candidate. there is adequate blame to bypass around. to no longer point out Hillary and her fellow Democrats had a great gamble to provide up the conflict. they did no longer have the integrity to decrease the handbag string that's with of their constitutional authority. rather they communicate and bring no action. Romney a minimum of does what he have faith no count the outcomes to his marketing campaign. i will no think of of no Democrat hypocrite candidate that would say the comparable. Romney believes it quite is extra powerful to combat over their, then right here interior the U. S.. the U. S. ought to shop it delivers to it allies besides because it commitments. I want the comparable would desire to be mentioned for Democrats. Democrats in trouble-free terms have faith what the political polls tell them too. Republicans do what they suspect irreguardless of the particular or political ramifications to themselves. further, Romney isn't a expert-conflict candate. Romney merely believes you ought to finnish what you start up, shop your delivers on your allies. Peace!!! Love!!! well being!!! expertise!!!
2016-10-14 22:07:24
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
You know this smugness gets old. Decent citizens just want their civil rights and freedoms intact,their borders secured and NO BIG BROTHER monitoring their every move and every thought and every word.And those citizens who do not are mentally ill,period.I mean what is with some of these people who actually want to lose their rights and their freedom and welcome BIG BROTHER to rule over them with an iron fist and brainwash them? They are NUTS! - Insane! - not well - CRAZY - MENTALLY ILL - sickos!!!!!!!
The decent people in this country whether they vote Republican or Democrat better stand up to them
before its too late.Because the freedom hating pro BIG BROTHER sickos cross party lines.
too.
By the way foreign policy supercedes your bias.
If only those who VOLUNTEER for military service and their immediate families were allowed to support foreign policy decisions to go to war then there might not be enough support to do so when it really counts most.
2007-08-10 13:05:04
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
yup. Probably much like George W Bush is pro war as long as his daughters don't have to go.
2007-08-10 13:30:58
·
answer #5
·
answered by Lily Iris 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
You have to ask? The so-called "defining struggle of our generation" according to one of Bush's speechwriters, er, I mean president Bush is apparently not important enough for the rich to fight. I guess that strategy solves two problems - they kill off Muslims while simultaneously ridding themselves of those damned poor people in America.
2007-08-10 13:04:16
·
answer #6
·
answered by wineboy 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
Of course he is, he's a republican. Their chickenhawk track record speaks for itself.
Of course, he did let them choose for themselves. In my opinion, that's better than forcing them to join as a way to court the military vote.
2007-08-10 13:30:27
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
Leftest cheep shot!
No one is "pro-war" dog.
We do believe there are enemies of the U.S. besides you liberals.
2007-08-10 13:05:54
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
"neither of his five sons"??? Is that possible? LOL
Okay, I know you didn't mean it. :)
Volunteer military. Their choice.
2007-08-10 13:07:09
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Yes.
Those able-bodied Mittmen are the same pvssies the neocons spew about the dems that don't enlist.
Which one is gay?
( I think the youngest one ).
2007-08-10 13:04:03
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋