Clockwood: Funny how it's easy to give the thumbs up to a 'war for freedom' when you aren't in the front lines.
Against the U.N? You are widely mistaken my friend. Go inform yourself on current events and take a look who's in a war made on lies. (Iraq)
"oh i see....so why then, if they are SO passionate bout war as these bunch of dangerous fools are, why dont they send their OWN children to te front line intead o other peoples children?????" Just for a quick reference.... Teddy Rosevelts kids all served. 4 Sons in WWI, and his daughter was a red cross nurse. Youngest son was a pilot who died in combat in WWI. Teddy Jr. made it to general and died during WWII. Led the assault on Utah beach and was involved in direct combat. So just to let you know that sometimes, they do........
With this I agree. If a leader cannot lead his men competantly into battle himself, fight on the front lines with his men, and risk his life out there with his men, then he is a damn fool to have started a battle that he could not win with is own mind. This is why history praises the Caesars, the Charlemagnes, the Alexanders, and the Napoleons on history, because they had the guts and the bravery to be with thier soldiers in battle. They led by example, and they won by example.
But all were Generals. The fact that they were leaders of their respective peoples was directly related to their status as a General of the Army (ie Dictators...and we dont want that now do we??). So its not a fair comparison in todays modern democracy. We have our Pattons and McArthurs- but they didnt start the wars now did they? Did Stalin lead the troops?? Hitler?? When was the last time a leader of a country actually lead his troops?? Napoleon yes...and look what happened to him. When his Army fell HIS COUNTRY was done because he was there. These days if you lose a battle (which happens frequently) the country still survives. So while it may be 'noble' to lead your country into battle, its not the smartest thing to do. Besides, look how many WARS your precious generals started Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If anything, non-military people start LESS wars (or at least less prone to get involved). Though, I do believe Colon Powell to be an exception- and i'll vote for him any day of the week.
Castro was a great leader, but in the end screwed things up, and i think its because of the communists. I myself used to believe strongly in communism, but it just doesnt work and the world has seen too many examples of comminism gone wrong, when will people learn The world leaders are cowards, but they are very very powerful cowards, they hold the world in their hands pretty much and it isnt going to change without a revolution like Mr Karl said
basicly all im saying with this thread is that, if you yourself have declaired a war wich puts millions of lives on the line, then it is kinda a dissrespect to all of those people you just sent to war, because you sent them to possibly die but you know your going to be somewhere thousands of miles away, sheltered and protected, issuing yet more orders for them to obey. we all have different oppinions, and mine is that world leaders appear cowardly to me, i have been brought up to beleive in honor in battle and its just the way i am sorry if some of you dissagree lets keep my threads insult free please, and calm yet productive.
If said dictator can rule benevolently for the good of all humanity, not just america's interests, and can, if provoked, actually win a conflict instead of fucking up, then I'm all for it.
and my initial post in which i said "you western scum" it was a joke and appologise for any dissrespect taken in any way possible. i myself was born in the west and raised here i have many many western friends, i live in east london (UK)
I think with the generals not leading their soldiers, you can't really compare them to the Napoleans and Ceasers of past times. War is a bit different from then, and so is the way you became a general. I dont think many of the world leaders would even pass the fitness test you have to perform when trying to join the army, let alone make it through basic training. The world leaders are kind of like a child playing a video game, they dont have to put up with the realities of war, they can just throw as many trained specialists and tanks and weapons at the problem until it goes away
"If said dictator can rule benevolently for the good of all humanity, not just america's interests, and can, if provoked, actually win a conflict instead of fucking up, then I'm all for it" So then at that point wouldnt a Dictator become a "King"?? Dictator has such a negative tone to it. Maybe "Emporer" or something like that. Either way, not a bad Idea.
i personaly dont think its a stupid thing to lead your troops into a battlee why would it be? stupid because you will get killed? but not stupid if your troops get killed? its not liek the politician deals with all the military strategy anymore they have people for that, so if they die in battle the outcome will be the same just with some honor to it.
None of the world leaders are wannabes, they dont seem to have any military/leader heroes, these days it is full of brutal businessmen in my eyes. Unlike hitler who was definatly a wannabe alexander the great or napolean, that didn't really work out too well, you cannot be like those guys in modern times.
one thing, yes you can be like those people in modern time you can get on your uniform like any other man get in a vehichle like any other man get to the front lines like any other man and engage in battle like any other man. assuming the leader is a man, might aswell put a monkey incharge you have bush dont you, what really is the difference. even a physical resembelence.
Well you could but your chances of survival are somewhat smaller. With alexander the great he was a battle hardened...he was just a tough motherfucker who would have brought you down easily with his sword no matter how tough you were he was tougher. If you brought him forward in time someone would just throw a grenade and it would be like franz ferdinand's assasination. You cant get very far if everyone is aiming at you personally really.
A good leader wouldn't start battles he cannot win. A great leader would prevent battles from starting. A wise leader wouldn't be a leader but only a common individual learning of his citizens needs.
If we had more leaders like Charles XII of Sweden, Frederick II of Prussia, or similar such men, the world would probably not be in such the shitty contidion it is now. Good leaders and good generals.
So wrong. Both Frederick and Charles have lost BIG in wars. Charles knew nothing, wanted nothing but war. Plus he spent quite a few years far away from Sweden (Great leadership). The life in Prussia and Sweden during their reign was quite hellish. Both countries were in ruins after great leader's rein. Only untimely death of the Russian Empress Elizabeth saved Prussia from being absorbed into Russian Empire. Darn, it would have been the best. No WWI, WWII, Hitler. Knowledge - power.
Yeah, dictatorship is such a bad system of government. Naughty dictators... never do anything good for their country. Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte, Oliver Cromwell, Genghis Khan... they all brought their respective countries to ruin!
