Generally speaking, citizens of most countries are law-abiding people who want to live in peace. Since governments, not common people, tend to have disagreements with one another, why don't they fight their own battles and leave us out of it. While one could argue that members of the military are part of the government, and hence the govenment is fighting its battles, aren't they really just pawns for the decision makers?
2006-12-19 06:29:43 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The vast majority of those in the government have never served a day in uniform. I believe it should be a requirement. Either that or their children should be the first ones sent to be cannon-fodder. We'd see a lot more negotiating...
2006-12-19 06:36:32 · answer #1 · answered by john_stolworthy 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Though it seems logical, this probably isn't a good idea. Our government and military (I'm assuming we're talking about the US) was designed to protect the rights of the people. One of those mechanisms was the establishment of a military with civilian leaders. If government officials were part of the military and fought, you would effectively have a military-based government that controlled all of the weapons (think military dictatorship).
2006-12-19 06:50:13 · answer #2 · answered by Ian 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am a great fan of the way the ancient 'celtic' tribes of Ireland used to fight.
Having agreed to fight the two sides would turn up at an agreed place, spend all day on either side of the valley shouting obscenities at each other and making rude gestures, and at the end of the day the two leaders or champions would meet, and either agree their differences or knock seven bells out of one another until somebody won.
At the end of the day, the people were too useful in feeding the tribe to waste killing each other. 'Kings' were expendible (and sometimes ritually sacrificed)
Can't see Bush or Blair going for that really, shame tho.
2006-12-19 06:39:43 · answer #3 · answered by agtfos 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
by using fact if as many cons certainly signed as much as combat in Iraq as declare to help the conflict, the recruitment lines for the protection rigidity could be blocks long. as a substitute, we study that the army is having trouble filling its quotas. they have raised the age shrink two times. they have additionally issued a checklist style of waivers for previous criminal pastime and scientific themes. as properly, the potential standards have been diminished and recruitment bonuses have been raised. additionally, persons already in protection rigidity service have had repeat excursions of accountability in Iraq and function had the size of their excursions prolonged with the intention to fulfill the present choose. the folk who profess to help the conflict ought to be keen to combat interior the conflict. the great style of persons on Yahoo solutions who declare to help the conflict, if extrapolated to the ordinary public, could signify a considerable ingredient to the eligible public. There could be no choose for the marvelous measures that the army has taken with the intention to enlist recruits.
2016-10-18 12:06:39 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A people who are not willing to defend themselves are not worth defending.
2006-12-19 06:43:42 · answer #5 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Umm, have you seen the way Cheney shoots???
2006-12-19 06:32:38 · answer #6 · answered by The Twist 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋