Why does bush warmonger when even his own blood does not believe

Please tell us this was not the least bit convincing to you, AP. This is typical of the silly useless argumentation that is logically and philosophically flawed.

Last I checked, we live in a country with a volunteer army. It may be that Bush's relatives do not share his vision for this war. So what? Do we judge the worthiness of a war by whether or not the commander-in-chief's relatives agree? Surely we have not stooped to that level in our thinking. It may be that Bush's relatives do share his vision, but for personal reasons have declined to serve. So what?

The legitimacy of a war is not determined by who signs up, but by the cause itself. Disagree with the war if you desire. But don't use this silly arguments as if they are legitimate.

We would all be better off if this silly type of argument would just disappear.

 

Bill Clinton "loathed" the military, yet he didnt have a problem sending our boys over to Bosnia.

 

I don't know that Bill loathed the military in the sense that he didn't respect our men in uniform but you do prove an excellent point, that Politicians exists soley for lip service and not for military service. We see examples of Prince Harry being deployed to Iraq but yet not one of the Bush clan will go, granted they don't have to go but where is that patriotic spirit that you would expect to see from the family that supports a President.

 

So now you are questioning their patriotism?

How do you know if his family of military age supports him? And again, why does it matter?

 

Yes , Why not, If George Bush can make the statement "If your not with us, then you're against us.", then I would wonder where the logic is in his thinking , if his family is not with him on volunteering their service to this country how would he expect a country to to be so eager to serve. Just a lot of lip service is all they have to offer.

 

If Military service was a prerequisite for serving as president of the United States, I would venture to guess that a majority of our past commanders in chief were unfit to serve. Many of them served in the military but never saw combat. Does that mean that they should never send the military they command into battle? As a matter of fact, please correct me if I am wrong, President Eisenhower, who sent thousands to their death at Normandy Beach, never was involved in combat himself.
A good homework assignment. 12 former presidents never served in the military. Who?

 

Ike was a man of character and though he was never involved in combat he did at least put his life on the line by being in the field unlike Bush who found a way around active service. Yep , thousands died at Normandy Beach but Iraq was never a threat to the U.S. either. I doubt that Eisenhower would have invaded Iraq without first securing Afghanastan and bring Osama Bin Laden to justice.

from http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/25/carter-cheney/:
OBL TELEGRAM TO W; THANK YOU THANK YOU

Dear Georgie,
THANK YOU for letting up on the hunt for me.
THANK YOU for creating new orphans and Jihadists everyday.
THANK YOU for supporting my family and whitewashing the 9/11 investigation (guess we both were dirty)
THANK YOU for invading Iraq for that I will always be thankful.
THANK YOU for spending all your resources and children to die in the optional war of Iraq .
THANK YOU FOR LEAVING OFFICE WITHOUT GETTING ME.
AS A GESTURE OF MY APPRECIATION I WILL OR AL-ZAWAHARI WILL PUT OUT TAPES FROM TIME TO TIME TO HELP YOUR POLL NUMBERS LIKE WE HELPED YOU GET ELECTED IN 2004
HUGS AND KISSES,
Osama Bin Forgotten

Comment by Your Conscience — February 25, 2007 @ 11:05 am

 

Current U.S. population: 301,256,099
http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

Military-eligible population: 109,305,756

Total U.S. Armed Services personnel: 2,685,713
Active U.S. Armed Services personnel: 1,426,713
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_United_States

0.89% of the U.S. population, or about 1 of every 112 people, serves is some branch of the military.

0.47% of the U.S. population, or about 1 of every 211 people, is in active service.

These figures increase for the military-eligible population.

2.46% of the military-eligible U.S. population, or about 1 of every 41 people in this category, serves in some branch of the military.

1.31% of the military-eligible U.S. population, or about 1 of every 77 people in this category, is in active service.

How many people in that photograph are even eligible for military service?

There are maybe 75-80 people in the photo, so it should not be unexpected that no one pictured is either currently in the reserves or the active military.

This is not a good argument to use for the Bushes being unpatriotic and/or cowards.

The vast majority of people in the U.S. have not and will not serve in the military, provided that the current percentages are maintained and a draft is not enforced.

 

If Bush hadn't sent our military into Iraq what then would you complain about? If Bush was weak in response to terrorism and we had been attacked again since 911 would you then attack him for that also? If Bush had left Iraq alone and Saddam had launched more WMD against neighbors or his own people and continued to torture and murder thousands, would you then criticize Bush for doing nothing?
The liberals have done a splendid job at making it a fad to attack and hate Bush and it's a shame that people that call themselves Christian join right in as if acting like a heathen is natural to them.

 

1. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, just hasn't been proven.
2. No prooof of WMD's
3. People were tortured before 9-11 but you can't use 9-11 to justify going in on that basis.
4. People are being tortured all over the world right now, why aren't you demanding that Bush do something.
5.Why do you call it hate? Yes people are passionate about their criticism and lets' be fair Bush created this tone of criicsm when he stated to the American people " If you are not with us then you are against us".
Bush is not a great communicator and an even worse CIC.
Saddam Hussein needed to be removed and maybe it could have been handled better without leaving such a mess.
Our mission is accomplised in Iraq. No WMD's, they have Democracy and Saddam is gone all of this has been accomplished without spilling the blood of one Bush relativethey were exempt from the demands of our President.

 

One thing learned from people on this board much smarter than me on the subject of Iraq is that what was done in the past and finger pointing for past mistakes in Iraq is not going to help solve the problem as it exists today.

Yes, it is true that George Bush either had false intelligence or lied to us when he invaded Iraq. It is true this has nothing to do with 9/11. It is true that the war has been very poorly executed and shows no sign of professionalism from the top.

Now, does ranting and raving about that help solve our present problem in Iraq? NOOOOOO. We have to use conditions as they exist today to find a way to solve the problem, and not base a solution on past mistakes. Is the democrats passing resolutions to undo the authorization given in 2002 help? Nope, sure doesnt. Again, dwelling on the past.

George Bush is pretty much of the past. He will pay a heavy price for his miscalcuations in Iraq. Again, this does not help solve the problem.

We have to realize that we are there, those people are dependent on us to a degree, and while we must have a gradual shift, we cannot just pull out. It is obvious that the next President will be charged with solving this problem.

The sad thing about the democrats is they could care less about troops, the lives or money lost. They are interested in one thing and one thing only, power and control. They have no more of a plan than the republicans. Pretending you care about our troops and using George Bush's mistakes to further their lie is really pretty sad. It is nothing more than expending lives for the sake of gaining power.

The time has almost passed for this adminstration to solve the problem. All we can do for the next several months is pray to God He intervens and solves the problem. Maybe pray for our next set of leaders. One thing I do know, Hillary's screeching will not solve the problem.

 

If truth be told, we should never had gone to Iraq at all, WMD or not, except if Iraq had overtly or covertly attacked US sovereignty or citizens.
Saddam Hussein was president, dictator, call him whatever you want, of a sovereign country.
What he was doing in his country is nobody's business.
What he was doing to his people is nobody's business, either, although we can rant and rave and point our fingers at him for his cruelty.
George Bush, Uncle Sam, Lady Liberty had no right whatsoever to go into his country and remove him from power, except if we were actually at war with Iraq.
The same is true of any sovereign country anywhere.
Their business is their business, not ours.
But we are already in, no thanks to Bush.
We done it.
So, we might as well stand with our men and women who happen to have George Bush as their commander-in-chief right now, and none of them are calling George Bush coward or unpatriotic.
Ain't no such thing as a coward.

 

All this talk is easy now. But I didnt hear any of it on 9-12-01

 

Maybe.
But Iraq wasn't in the picture then.
Everybody was agreed OBL was the bad guy, and Afghanistan was where he was.
Bush thought of Iraq a little later on.

 

Clinton didn't serve in the military either. Nor did anyone in his family, if memory serves me right. And it doesn't matter one whit. The president is the commander-in-chief. I know that irks you <deleted - LE> when someone not in your party holds the office, but if you don't like it, your problem is with the Constitution.

 

Was Adolph Hitler a direct threat to the United States? Why didnt we just take care of Japan and let it go at that?

 

Well maybe you trusted Saddam Hussein. I didnt. Not to beat a dead horse but it has never been proved that He didnt have WMD. Nevertheless the man was no good. The sad part of all this is Achmadinajead (sp?) will be able to build WMD right under our noses because the media will constantly cast suspicion on the ability of our intelligence to gather true information and the majority of Americans wont believe in it. Do you think Iran is a present threat to our security. Should we wait until it is too late?

 

No. I did not trust Sadam Hussein.
I think he was an evil man, but good man or evil man is not the point of what I said.
The point is that he was president of Iraq, whether or not he was elected.
And Iraq was a sovereign country, until we invaded it.

Ahmadiwhatever, again, is president of a country that is recognized by the United Nations as sovereign, and even if our intelligence services reliably says they do have weapons of mass destruction, Bush or whoever is the president at that point cannot simply invade the country on that premise. I believe there are processes we need to go through before we can do that, and there are certain conditions that have to happen before those processes can take place.

I am a first strike guy, bro. I believe pre-emptive steps ought to be taken, but, unfortunately, the United States' system is not geared to pre-emptiveness, and neither is the American psyche of today.

The US is plain reactionary. Period.

 

I have to wonder, ASLANSPAL, why you are bringing this up again. It seems like some time ago we went through this exact same argument. I am pretty sure it was you anyway. What's the point really? I don't see how Bush can be blamed (etc) for no member of his family being in the military. That fact should certainly never enter into any president's decision making when it comes to war. The facts need to be considered and not who "is" or who "is not" in the military.

I don't support this war, but, I think we need to be fair in our comments (etc).