2007-10-26 23:57:24 · 6 answers · asked by American_Dago 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Your Bush bashing is over the top. It is not the responsibility of the US military to fight fires.
2007-10-27 00:12:33 · answer #1 · answered by regerugged 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
First of all, Bush wanted to send more troops overseas well before the fires started. Trying to link the two is an exercise in futility.
Secondly, I'm not exactly sure how troops are going to help put out fires. Does shooting a fire kill it? I'm sure that there are details in the military that are devoted to containing fires, especially in the Navy. However, if sending troops to fight fires is the answer, why stop there? Why not send all of the dentists to California to fight the fires.
Thirdly, doesn't California have about 30 million people? I'm sure they have enough bodies around to fight the fire. I'm guessing the problem of fighting fires has more to do with trained firefighters and supplies, not manpower.
2007-10-27 07:15:51 · answer #2 · answered by Pythagoras 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Maybe he thinks by sending more troops overseas the fire will stop burning by itself. But seriously, it's so easy to rattle US. Just start buring forest fires all over the country & Bush will really be helpless.
2007-10-27 07:02:46 · answer #3 · answered by lytsimon 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes but California voted for Gore
2007-10-27 07:37:26 · answer #4 · answered by man of ape 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Genius our fine military is trained to fight...not put out forrest fires...why don't you volunteer to help in California?
2007-10-27 07:00:52 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
of course...GREAT IDEA.... why not bring them all home and invite al qaeda here. sounds like a real "winner" plan to me
LIBERALS...gotta love em(sic)
2007-10-27 07:34:21 · answer #6 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋