2006-11-29 07:17:33 · 23 answers · asked by cazmo 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
because he is not a serving member of the armed forces....and before hand kings etc were not voted in by the electorate..and the world has moved on some what since then..grow up
2006-11-29 07:20:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Because that hasn't been practiced for hundreds of years. Did Queen Victoria fight the Maori in New Zealand? Did Queen Elizabeth battle the Armada? No, no. Why just single out Blair? He isn't even a monarch.
2006-11-29 15:49:49 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because if Bliar and Bush led the army we would most probably lose and have to shoot them for desertion.
The truth is that politicians verbally start and end wars based on their high morals (making a peace around a dinner table).
The stupid people are the "cannon fodder" and obey orders from the Army chiefs who get orders from their political masters.
In the end a lot of ordinary people died for nothing but the politicians whims.
2006-11-29 20:27:28 · answer #3 · answered by ian d 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Kings...leaders....people who led their countries because of birth right or leaders who fought to lead their countries. Today all that is needed is a glib tongue and a few friends in high places... guts and bravery don't even enter into it. Any idiot can start a war but only the brave fight it.
2006-11-29 09:35:29 · answer #4 · answered by reggie 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush & Cheney etc,were too scared to go to war when their country needed them,,yet,being the cowards they are,they had no hesitation in starting a war they wouldn't have to fight in.While American soldiers were being slaughtered in Vietnam,Bush was having a great time,pissed as a newt every night.To see'The Great Commander in Chief' wearing combat gear makes me want to puke.As for Blair,he can't go to war because his tongue is super-glued to Bush's a*se.
2006-11-29 08:45:07 · answer #5 · answered by michael k 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The answer is in the question, in that you said kings, leaders and men, and George Bush is none of these.
2006-12-01 04:25:37 · answer #6 · answered by manforallseasons 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There used to be no means of communication too. There's been no kings OR leaders on the front lines in war for over two centruries. Get real and don't be stupid.
2006-11-29 07:29:06 · answer #7 · answered by namsaev 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
In the present our kings/ leaders dont fight with their men. Are you still living in the middle ages?
2006-12-02 23:32:45 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
some of you may call this childish.. but it brings up a very good point.. how many wars would be avoided if leaders HAD to be there with their troops? do you really think anyone would be in Iraq right now? would Vietnam have happened? ... granted their are cons to loosing a GOOD leader to war.. but the BAD leaders would never start some of their messes if they had to be there as well.
2006-11-29 07:24:12 · answer #9 · answered by pip 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Because this isn't the middle ages. Wake up & join the 21st century.
2006-11-29 07:42:11 · answer #10 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋