ANY American who wants us back in Iraq should shut up and enlist, period !

How many WMDs were found in Iraq?

 

Calm down. I assume you also mean groups like anti-Castro terrs, the IRA, white supremacists, the Klan, etc.

 

0.
Now please post your proof that Bush lied to go to war.

 

Calm down? LOL liberals. Im not responding to your post since it started off asinine.

 

I think you just did....

 

I saw this comment on a poll showing the majority of Americans are on Obama's side with Iraq

"Right wing chickenhawks always want to go to war but the only place they will carry an assault rifle is Starbucks and Chilis!!"

lol

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/iraq-barack-obama-john-mccain-107937.html

28% of the country supports a new war in Iraq. Or, as Fox News might say, "almost a majority"

 

How about those who enlisted, did 20 plus years, fought in both gulf wars then retired..... Them too?

 

Um no. That just means the intelligence was bad along with all of our allied intel who also thought there were WMDs. Also if you remember as I posted Biden also said they were there in 1998 so Biden must also be part of the Bush cover up. You however said you had proof that Bush intentionally hid the information showing there were no WMDs from everyone. Please post the "proof" so we can put him in jail.

 

If you were Bush, and people had lied to you, and by their lies had caused you to make possibly the stupidest decision that ever came out of the White House, would you pursue the people who's lies had caused such misery, or would you bestow on them the nations highest honor?

If they had gone along with you and passed along lies at your behest, what would you have done?

 

Um do you have the proof or not? IF Bush lied lets put him in jail. If you don't have proof, then no offense but Im gonna go over there >>>

 

You're the terrorist running around threatening people with imprisonment if they don't give you their property. Every bit as detestable.

 

what property are you babbling about?

 

Your tax dollars. Defense is monopolized in the state. Especially so over here, where self defense with weapons is effectively illegal - the state has a complete monopoly achieved with the threat of imprisonment. The case is a little less severe in the US - you can at least defend yourself and band together with others to defend your community. It's more like public education over there: you CAN send your kid to a private school, but you have to pay for the education twice under threat of imprisonment.

 

“Service guarantees citizenship.”

 

Throwing their support behind the soldiers of a war when it has been launched is not the same as beating the drums of war long before its started, and/or trying to steer public opinion towards war for their own ideological aims, dumb as they may be.

I think it says a lot about a man who talks of war and war and war, wrapped up in supporting their team (no, not America... the Republicans), but aren't willing to go themselves.
What it really drives at is how shallow they are as ideologues. It's difficult to take anyone seriously, like the 20~30 year old, when they try to convey to someone else how needed and how righteous and how grand a war will be, while they sit here and play video games while soldiers bleed and die for "their" cause.

I remember during the Iraq invasion, there were plenty of these people showing up on news programs. Chris Mathews called one of them a chicken hawk and you saw how irrelevant he instantaneously became in seconds, blushing like a girl and realizing on national television that he was just that - a squawking little chickenhawk.

His place, he started to timidly squeak out, completely embarrassed, wasn't "in the real battlefield. It was in the battlefield of hearts and minds, on college campus." lol.

It's hard to take seriously.

Maybe we should put the chickenhawks in skirts and they can stand on the docks and welcome all the soldiers home, waving tissues in the wind

 

I think that I can see the logic you are employing that basically feels like if you advocate a policy, you MUST be willing to participate in it, as opposed to merely advocating what someone else should do.

With that in mind, I am left to wonder do you employ this same logic in the case of someone in the middle class advocating that we need to raise taxes on the rich? If you make a distinction there...why? What makes one policy belief more hypocritical than the other in those two instances?

 

Sorry I don't do word salad. Strict policy.

 

OP there is age limits in the military so how can someone old enlist?

 

You don't have to respond to my posts if you don't want to.

 

Yes I just thought it would be helpful to tell you why I didn't.

 

I think you may have a point. Clearly you are making a good argument that the only people responsible enough to make these sort of political decisions that result in the life and death of US servicemen abroad are...other service members or veterans. So I second your call for a Starship Troopers Republic, in which only those people who've served should have a say on political decisions, so they should be the only ones who have the vote.

As Robert Heinlein said, "The moral difference between a soldier and a civilian is that the soldier accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic of which he is a member. The civilian does not."


So let's take the vote away from civilians and put it where it belongs, the people who've already demonstrated that they will sacrifice for the country!