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

All the Government People have no kids that I know of in the Iraq let alone the Military which I am very Proud I am to say I did , but thats not am here for . I just notice none of there kids if are any if any them will serve in Iraq or be protected because Daddy is in the Congress or the Senate and therefore they do not serve overseas and to me that is not right

2007-09-14 10:43:48 · 17 answers · asked by robert 1 in Politics & Government Military

17 answers

AMEN!!! I was just saying that during the Presidential Speech last night to my boyfriend who just served 8 years in the Navy. Have you seen Michael Moore's documentary when he goes up to congressman to inform them of the military for their children and the absolutely disgusted looks they gave him as "why would my child be in the military?" It is ok to spend 10 billion a month on the war, but yet lower rank soldiers/sailors are getting paid so low that they could qualify for food stamps. don't even get me started brother!!! :)

2007-09-14 10:50:58 · answer #1 · answered by Wonder Woman 4 · 1 5

You are far from the first to ask Senators and Congressmen if would support the war if their sons or daughters were serving.

Bush wouldn’t' change his polices; even if it cost him both of his daughters.
1. The course is set and we CAN'T get out so easily. Even the democrats know that if we pulled out totally we would lose Iraq totally; and just have another case of the Taliban. The democrats won't pull out totally; they will just force Iraq to take on more of the load.
2. He has already set the course of the war and couldn't change it if he wanted to; his party won't let him. They have too much invested in the war.

If we like it or not we are going to be stuck with troops in Iraq for at least the next decade. That is the reality of the situation and you had better get used to it, if you like it or not.

The democratic response to the President's recent speech (Thursday) nailed it on the head. It is the responsibility of government to make sure that we don't send our troops into harms way without a strong need to do so. That is what makes me the most angry about this. The war was actually a result of Dick Cheney's political maneuvering against the CIA director.

Yes Saddam would still be a problem in the area, but he was a paper tiger with no real threat to the US. That's the problem about a lot of the Arabic leaders they are more talk then action. Look at Kaddafi; we bombed his *** and even though we missed killing him we hit his family and he got the message and has been playing nice ever since.

2007-09-14 11:02:30 · answer #2 · answered by Dan S 7 · 0 2

sadly Robert, there is actually a law that prevents the children of a standing president from serving in the military.

An actual law.

The excuse for the law is that the child of the president may get favored treatment and that would be unfair to the troops.

But Jenna and Barbara?

Come on:

they're Daddy's kids. If they had to serve at all they don't even have his option to choose the safety of the National Guard.

Now they send the guard overseas with the rest of the cannon fodder.

2007-09-14 11:02:21 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Dumb Yahoo! lib theory technique.... at the start, it incredibly is a volunteer militia. i don't happen to work out you donning any canines tags ( i've got already served, 1st Gulf war)? the females have chosen there very own profession course break away the regulations or 8 year term of their father. Being a instructor is as worth as being a soldier. in reality you will possibly could flow all the lower back to TR's son commanding at Utah sea coast on d-day to discover a president or ex presidents youngster interior the breach. As to the 2d question: To teach what? 2 extra interior the scheme of issues make no distinction. except your the British Royal kinfolk, it incredibly is in simple terms not a great deal... Basing militia or distant places coverage on regardless of if on not you have kinfolk in contact is stupid.....

2016-10-08 21:11:23 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Quentin Roosevelt served in our Army's Flying Service in France in World War One. He was killed in combat. His father, former President Theodore Roosevelt still kept pressing President Wilson for a commission to go to France and serve. Theodore Roosevelt III, the son of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the assistant division commander of an Army division which landed at Utah Beach in the Normancy invasion. Senator Joe Biden of Delaware has two sons on active duty, both of whom are deployable. But, as I recall, to date no female child of any elected official has even been in uniform.

2007-09-14 12:37:48 · answer #5 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 0 0

First you need to learn proper English. General Paytraiss (Spelling may be wrong) has a son that just completed jump training three days ago and has been assigned to an infantry unit with the 101st Airborne Division.
If you took the time to look it up you would find others whose parents are in congress are on active duty.
Please don't state falsehoods as facts, doing so makes you look really stupid!

2007-09-14 10:58:05 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5 0

Its hard being a parent and having to send your child of to a war whether its unpopular or not.Many polititians over the years have sent their children off to war and many politicians have served themselves.I would think most presidents,prime ministers etc have regrets about the decisions they make.But I would think that most of them could not stop their children serving in a war zone if the kids really wanted to.
Take the royal Family in England one prince Charles sons wanted to serve in Iraq,it was the military itself that stopped him as his presence would have endangered his fellow service personal because of who he is.Hard choice.

2007-09-14 10:59:59 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Wait a minute we are not in the 60's, there drafting no one here, these people in our military joined of there own free will, or because they could not find a job and had his 2 daughters joined and died the war would still be on.

2007-09-14 10:54:08 · answer #8 · answered by man of ape 6 · 4 0

I don't think the sons or daughters of the president should be in combat. Suppose they were to be captured, tortured, beheaded (on tv)? It could be a terrible situation.

President Bush is risking his life for our country. Our enemy would like nothing more than to kill him, and they're willing to die for that cause. Like others have written, we have an all volunteer military that is bravely, and successfully defending the USA and destroying our enemy.

2007-09-14 12:00:55 · answer #9 · answered by kimmyisahotbabe 5 · 0 0

Actually, it's worse than that. Rich kids don't go into the military, and a lot of the time it's the people with no other options (can't pay for school, etc). And people who have no other options don't have political power.

So it's not just poitical leaders, but also business and social leaders who affect global politics sending the working classes off to gain for them and never having to worry about fighting themselves.

2007-09-14 10:52:09 · answer #10 · answered by Sarah 5 · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers