Pulling out of Iraq

Should've never went in, asap.

Why don't presidents fight the war? Why do they always send the poor? Why don't presidents fight the war? Why do they always send the poor?

1. The president is to old to fight in the war, I believe the cut off age is 35.
2. They don't send the poor, you sign up to go over and fight. They only send you if you wish to be sent. And anyway, might as well make a use for them if they arn't going to work hard, or go to school.


And yes I know it's from a song.

There is never a cut off age for being sent to war, my dad's HS friend got sent off, he's 41.

They recruit in urban schools around the nation, that's sending the poor.

Definitions of recruit on the Web:

* enroll: register formally as a participant or member; "The party recruited many new members"
* a recently enlisted soldier
* seek to employ; "The lab director recruited an able crew of assistants"
* any new member or supporter (as in the armed forces)
* cause to assemble or enlist in the military; "raise an army"; "recruit new soldiers"


They go to lots of schools. I go to a rich school and they came. And like above, in this post, and in my other post, you must SIGN UP, you're making it sound like they're only recruiting the poor.

Most of our Royal Family has been, or is in the Armed Forces. Yet you don't see Prince William or Prince Harry in Iraq giving the Insurgents the old one two now do you?

And you wouldn't want your Presidents fighting your wars. You'd be absolutely stuffed! It doesn't matter how strong your Army is, with Bush leading it into battle...well, speaks for itself really dunnit?

I'm pretty sure thats why we have generals.... to lead them into battle.

Generals dont lead anyone into battle, its the Captains and Lt. Col.'s that do. Generals just stay back in the safety of the base and plan stuff all day.

edit and by the way my Captain is only 28. And our Lt Col is I think 40 - 45ish

We've seen what happens when politicians run wars. World War 2. What would happen if the generals had gotten to do everything they wanted? Well, I for one hope my ancestors would have bought VW stock if that would have happened .

WWII is a bad example.

Hitler was doing pretty well for himself (and managed to get the army doing amazing things) until people began intervening. France just laid down for them, as did Poland, and Austria, and Czech Republic...but then again, much of that was due to the Blitzkrieg tactics.

Russia managed to beat the Germans with their weather. And all the Allies brought an end to the Tyrany.

Most of the war was fought by politicians doing things, and it all turned out right in the end.

I'd say a good example would be the Vietnam war, with Nixon (was it?). But then again I'm no great for American history.

For better or worse our version of "democracy" is as easy to catch as the common cold. This situation would be "better" I believe, that is if there are enough qualified people to hold together a stable government.

Options "Not quite yet" and "get out of there asap" are pretty much the same thing. It's not an option to leave before the job's done or that will decline our status with other nations even more (yes, that is possible.) It's already a terrorist factory ...why not let an extremist organization take hold and exterminate the level-headed individuals that are left, right? Wrong.

If we are successful this will get democracy right next door to those people that are still in dictatorships or monarchies. That'll really be making those rich oil sheiks sweat . How're they going to secretly fund terrorist groups to kill innocent arabic people at mosques?

Think of it ...get the idea of democracy into these people and as passionate as some of them are (i.e., extremists :P) they'll be "liberating" other nations around them in no time .