Everytime I watch movies like Troy and Alexander, or study the history of Kings and warfare, It makes me wonder why it is that leaders do not lead anymore.
Basically people like President Bush and even Nasrallah send out men and women and children to fight their wars and die while they sit in their air conditioned BUNKERS simply watching the battle unfold, or currently, in Bush's case - GO ON VACATION while our soldiers fight for their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Why is it that today's "leaders" get to put on expensive suits and posture for cameras while young boys lose their arms and legs for NOTHING
( Iraqi's don't want democracy - they want their sect to rule the country PERIOD)
If I was president and I put our country in a war which I believed was for JUST cause, I would be leading my men.
I'd be leading a squadron of F22's to bomb the reactor in Iran right now!
How about we stick an M-4 in Bush's hands and give him some inadequate armor and stick him in Iraq
2006-08-15 16:18:00 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
BTW, GENERALS don't fight wars anymore either. They stay in the Pentagon while the soldier is on the battlefield. The highest rank to normally see Combat is usually a Lieu. Colonel or a Colonel.
2006-08-15 16:29:25 · update #1
How about we stick an M-4 in Bush's hands and give him some inadequate armor and stick him in Iraq
How about doing the same thing to his daughters. Seems to me if there are so many Iraq moms his daughters should be able to FIGHT for their country too.
2006-08-16 16:36:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
George Bush, Osama Bin Laden, Nasrallah, Tony Blair and the other world terrorists are cowards. They are all concerned about personal interests and not the peoples interest.
The current conflict in Iraq is about securing more oil fields for daddy and his business partners and the American corporations having secure future markets to sell their products.
Democracy= Rule by the people.
Even if the people want to wrap towels around their head and bodies, live without modern amenities and shun American entertainment.
A terrorist who straps a bomb to himself and blows up a bar is just as guilty as the guy flying and M-16 that costs 10 million to build dropping a bomb on many homes. Both are killers and are terrorizing.
Getting back to the article, So maybe the person strapping the bomb on them is today's leader?
2006-08-15 16:43:59 · answer #2 · answered by xpnstos77 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When the ancient Greek and Roman leaders went to battle (2000 plus years ago), they sat up on a hill watching the events unfold... Don't believe for a second what you may have seen in a movie LOL!!! they never got their hands dirty. The only reason that they were there was because they had to see what was going on in real time. Now we have excellent communications that negate the need for leaders to be on the field.
(If the pres. went to battle, and was killed, who would be leading the country? NOT someone we elected, that's for sure...)
2006-08-15 16:25:34 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I was thinking about the same lately. But it's been like this for years, kings and presidents using soldiers like pawns in chess... in the old days, the king would keep attending the battles till he's old. Once he's old, then he no longer attends the battles.
Now as you said, the higher your rank, the least job you need to do. Same like corporations, the front line and customer services do all the job while the CEO pretends that he's orchestrating the scene.
2006-08-15 16:46:01 · answer #4 · answered by RigorMortis 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Many kings and leaders did not fight alongside their troops. That is why we haven't ever heard of them. They are overshadowed by the glory of a King leading his troops to victory. That is why Bush will be forgotten soon after his tirade is over, but the cesspool of a Middle East and our poorly run economy will not soon be forgotten.
2006-08-15 16:48:06 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, like the good old days of Clinton, when he led troops into Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Haiti, and Somalia. O wait, I forgot, he didn't do that - he just sent others to bomb those places...
Love, Jack
2006-08-15 16:37:23 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Don't believe what you see in the movies
Good leaders are hard to replace,so they
don't lead - they send thier flunky's to die
while they stay away,safe & sound
2006-08-15 16:35:13 · answer #7 · answered by trebor2 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Kings didn't always lead into battle. Emporers didn't lead into battle. Presidents don't lead into battle. You have armies and you let generals and admirals do what they are trained to do.
2006-08-15 16:23:52 · answer #8 · answered by TexMan98 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I was going to answer this, but Howard the Dolphin said it best and there is no reason to repeat it. I will vote for his answer.
2006-08-15 17:10:51 · answer #9 · answered by historybug 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He said it best when he said profits. Because that's what wars are all about........
2006-08-15 16:25:47 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋