2006-11-29 07:22:26 · 23 answers · asked by cazmo 4 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
I was wondering the same thing about Bush myself!!!!! Great question!!!!
2006-11-29 07:24:24 · answer #1 · answered by pupcake 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
I do not think that Tony Blair is a good leader for Great Britain.There is much in the way he has run this country, that I disagree with, including the war against Iraq.I find his politics abhorrent, and I feel that I have a right to be critical of him in this area. However, I do not know Tony Blair the man, so I am not qualified to be critical of his character. You can not just call a man a Coward because you do not agree with him.No one has the right to just assume that he is scared and would run away from conflict. none of us know him well enough to make such an assumption. I think everyone should take a deep breath and a step backwards, before they call another person a coward.
2006-11-29 08:09:24 · answer #2 · answered by Social Science Lady 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
because of the fact hasn't been practiced for hundreds of years. Did Queen Victoria combat the Maori in New Zealand? Did Queen Elizabeth conflict the Armada? No, no. Why merely single out Blair? he's no longer even a monarch.
2016-10-04 12:45:04 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because they have not done that since the end of the 17th century, when firearms became commonplace on the battlefield. Even when the kings would fight alongside their men, they were vulnerable to a random crossbow bolt fired by a common footsoldier, as happened with Richard the Lionhearted.
2006-11-29 07:29:43 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
They never fought alongside their men - they stayed far enough away and commanded the movement of the troops. They were very unlikely to be in danger most of the time.
2006-11-29 07:24:53 · answer #5 · answered by radiancia 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Watch Troy, Braveheart, any Civil War film, or a old War Movie... The Kings aren't fighting, they are either in there castle or some where else... You are thinking of the war hero's that are fighting... Of course if the country is getting hammerd the King may fight as a last resort before him and his family are killed... You must be dumb to ask such a dumb non fact question.
2006-11-29 07:25:40 · answer #6 · answered by sooners83 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Blair and Bush going to war in Iraq thats the funniest thing ever. Fancy seeing them in action :) they would be best at running away, bloody cowards.
2006-11-29 07:35:40 · answer #7 · answered by Longjohn 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Not always...alot of times they went, but they stayed in the back row so to speak. Today they aren't as expendable as they were then,back then most had an heir or someone who was waiting to take their place!!! It depended on which country too. Anyway, today I wish we had more leaders like in the past,at least some of them.
2006-11-29 07:28:20 · answer #8 · answered by javabug61 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because he is a lillylivered cowardly excuse for a man. If he had one ounce of the bravery of our young men who are in Iraq, he would stand beside them, and if the time came he would die beside them.
2006-11-29 07:38:54 · answer #9 · answered by breedgemh_101 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
He might be OK on the left flank. Although, I don't think health and Safety police would allow it. Anyway, it was Kings who fought, not Prime Ministers.
2006-11-29 07:34:28 · answer #10 · answered by Veritas 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Simple he's a polititian not a soldier.
He was chosen to be Prime Minister not a General
2006-11-29 09:53:48 · answer #11 · answered by Steve 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋