It's super easy to be tough sending some other sucka to go and die for you while he stays back protected by arm guards 24/7 eating steak dinners and sleeping in air condition room.
Harry Truman chose to drop two atomic bombs on Japan. A war they started. Roosevelt promised the United States would stay out of the war that Hitler started.
The US had no choice in developing the atomic bomb. It was us or Hitler.
History shows how fast and how far Germany conquered Europe. Eventually the US would have been next. Isolationism is not how you stay out of other countries wars. NATO is safety in numbers.
The atom bomb has prevented a third world war for 78 years. A third world war that any of us could have had to fight and die.
Vietnam was not a mistake. The mistake was how it was micromanaged.
Yes, the first Gulf War was fought over oil. Few realize how unstable the rest of the world would be had Iraq maintained control of such vast amounts. A country without oil is a threat to the rest of the world’s national security. Part of the reason for Japan attacking the US was because the US and other nations stopped selling oil to them because of their aggression in the Pacific.
Wars are not just fought for territory, but for much needed natural resources.
I know that after 9/11, and any war before that, it is better to take the fight to the enemy rather than fight that enemy on our own soil.
The second Gulf War managed to bankrupt our enemy of money and leadership, thereby preventing more attacks here at home.
It is unfortunate that war means war profiteers. But those war profiteers keep us above ground, free of oppression, free of future World Wars and most importantly, free. Without those war profiteers and those that choose to fight and die in regional conflicts, life would be hell for the rest of us under the likes of Germany, Japan, the Soviet Union and now Russia.
Just ask those living in Israel if forming a country where Jewish people can live without being persecuted or having 6 million being rounded up and sent into camps only to be gassed and cremated. Ask them if dying is worth holding their country together.
People crap on "war profiteers" all the time but the gear they develop blows the issued crap out of the water and does it cheaper. There's a reason so many of us who deploy in small groups are carrying a whole lot of commercial off the shelf stuff with us. It's at least a generation ahead of even the RFI stuff.
I am pragmatic. While I can see why people might want it and how it has been successful in history I am actually against this idea. Putting aside the fact that they might die, I would consider it to be a negligence of their duty. They are supposed to be the leader, the one running the show. Their job is back in their country running the whole thing, not out cosplaying as soldiers and pretending to be useful to boost morale.
If we take this away from war and instead imagine a president or leader going to a house construction to film himself personally putting in a brick into the wall to boost the spirit of the people and pretend he is an "common person" for a day then I dont think its too far fetched for us to agree that it is a stupid PR stunt.
Furthermore, he is not a professional. Him going there to put in a brick or going to the battle is causing a disruption and forcing actual professionals to accommodate him rather than perform their best and do their jobs.
It is just a really stupid idea no matter what angle you try to look at it. Let world leaders do their own things and soldiers do their thing separately.
i saw a movie i think it's history inspired where the leaders will have a one to one combat so that the soldiers don't have to figjt. basically to orevent lose of many lives. i fond expect that on leaders today because many leaders are psycho and they all care about is their fame and power
I get what you’re saying but generals and presidents never fight on the front lines. They’re too important.
Generals are at risk and get killed though. Ukraines killed around 7 or 8 Generals of Russia already.
I still don’t think President Zelenskyy should be fighting on the front lines though. If he was killed it would be a huge blow to Ukrainian morale.
Opinion
39Opinion
no i don't think so. you can have great advisors around you who can help you make informed decisions.
American culture is the way it is now because so many people take after their leaders. Colombia had a president recently that rode around in his motorcade standing up through the sunroof of his limo wearing a bulletproof vest with the heart cut out. When asked why, he replied, "I want my enemies to get a clear shot at me." USA, the "Land of the Brave" huh? Don't make me break my ribcage laughing 🤣🤣🤣. WW2 days are LOOOOONG GONE. We're the nation that has gang members attack 78 yr old ladies in public for an "initiation." Where (El Paso) in a public mass shooting, the ONLY person who ran around herding people out of there instead of running to save himself-was a U. S. soldier. Where high school kids from well off families piss on homeless people and set them on fire sleeping on a park bench or shove them sleeping in a wheelchair into the river, killing them (Boston, Knoxville Tennessee). People are reflective of their leadership. Our leaders are cowards, and many of us now, reflect that. Not so in Colombia.😏
I believe that a leader/president/king should be on the battlefield with their soldiers.
This will not only help with camaraderie, but it’ll raise morale for the troops, and most importantly, they will be less likely to enter into war for selfish reasons—because they putting their own lives at risk when they’re on the battlefield.
Does it mean they should be on the front lines? No.
Does it mean they should at least be at base camp? Yes.
It’s cowardly to send other people to fight a fight that you’re unwilling to fight yourself.
And it’s heartless to send other people to die for a cause that you aren’t willing to die for yourself.
Hard to say. But we already have a constitution telling us when war is and isn't legal. We just need to get more serious about trying and executing the war industrial complex criminals that don't care about the law, and would rather continue to create illegal wars all over the world for the sake of profiteering.
I think our political leaders should have to send their able-bodied families. For now they send their sons to Ukraine to sit on corporate boards. Instead, their sons should have been sitting in trenches as ever since 2014. If they were required to do that, this war would stop immediately.
@RealMarek Great idea. Make sure they get sent to the front lines. Maybe the UN could enforce that for leaders of all countries... what am I thinking of, the UN has problems enforcing anything.
people who risk their lives on the front line and take charge should be given all the power and authority they can have especially if responsibility is thrust upon them
too many people wanting leadership positions because of their gender and ethnicity have absolutely no clue what it means to be a leader
Obviously we cannot expect are leaders to go into battle, those days ended during the American Revolution when Americans went against the norms and picked off military officers, those leaders would be picked off as well. As a matter of fact early on in the war a British soldier had a high ranking American officer in his sights, he chose not to fire based on the fact he was an officer. The man turned out to be George Washington himself.
My only requirement is I hope if war is chosen, it was the last option. And that person must also show appreciation for everyone of those who make that ultimate sacrifice. There also must be a willingness to see the war to the end with victory so those lives lost are not done so in vain…
If Presidents go in fight they would be killed as high value targets and cease to be presidents in short order. The only reason Linclin could even show up on a battle field was because it was so close to where he lived and he lived in a time where the rules of war which the south generally valued also generally protected him.
Today militarizes go to great lengths to kill the leader. Althou in Joe Biden's case it it would only matter in that a democrat actually capable of leading themselfs and the white house would assume office.
So maybe a little less corruption, but then again its Kamala Harris, so that would cost us an arm and leg.
Based on that logic... we (the USA) would have just had to roll over and take it when Japan bombed and sneak attacked Pearl Harbor sinking many ships, blowing up many planes and killing thousands of citizens because old, Polio ridden FDR was in his wheelchair and couldn't go fight in the war.
That's an exception. The man was handicap.
m actually, in many ways...
the companies that do sponsor and profit many of these wars, do send a lot of their contractors and many of them die as well
but no, usually not the bosses at the top, or their investors... like, congress people
Maybe. In the case of Ukraine vs Russia definitely.
when it comes to a war on terror where America was literally attacked by terrorists no
went it comes to an attack like Pearl Harbor where we were attack militarily by the Japanese no.
if the United States randomly decides to bomb Mexico which would start a war with Mexico then yes
If a leader says build a building you don't expect him to start laying bricks.
The problem with leaders going into battle is once they're killed the enemy has won.
Laying bricks isn't near the same as getting shot and bombed at and losing eye sight and limbs and life.
Soldiers sign on for a reason whether it's money or the misguided belief of fighting for a country's ideals. It's their job as a president had their job.
So no. The president is not liable for the PAID soldiers that are supposed to be soldiers and just do as they are told. It's funny how people today don't just complain about their job and why clearly, they complain about other peoples' job!
No, I think leadership at some high level should stay out of harms way. Having them go into combat would leave the chain of command vacant at the top. There needs to be oversight at the top that can focus on the big picture to have an effective military strategy.
I will say this though. If you are opposed to war then you should vote for Trump. He is the ONLY president in the last half century who did not get America into ANY new wars.
Yes defo.. if he don't have the guts to fight for the cause he shouldn't be sending his people to go do it...
The good old days when leaders were actually expected to lead and not "manage" or "administrate" or "preside".
I think there's a basic rule in war that you don't take out the enemy leaders because then you have noone to negotiate with and it makes predicting moves of the army more difficult.
If this is true, then you would want your leaders in a safe place, making (hopefully) logical decisions.
Uh, do you want your commander-in-chief, who's past fighting age, on the front lines? No, you don't- they become a target. And these days, they never served in the military when they were younger.
True Leaders are respected if they lead from the front, this is how it was in the past.
Today there are not true Leaders as the leaders/presidents are true REMF's, hence they do not have the respect of the troops they send out to die.
Yeah. What happens when the leader dies? His/her men get slaughtered. Ideally leaders should have served like JFK or Carter or Eisenhower or Ford.
In olden days, a King led his troops into battle. That no longer happens. Leaders stay safely behind the lines now, directing their troops.
So convenient now.
Not wrong if the person or group is so bad that they deserved to be killed... so that they won't live to cause harm to innocents
No, as most of them are too old. But neither should that leader be able to unilaterally do so, and if he/she knowingly uses lies / deception to start said war, that leader should be tried for the damage and deaths caused by the actions.
That used to be so. Kings lead armies.
Im guessing that changed since we developed weapons capable of hitting targets from miles away
Up until Eisenhower presidents did go to war. Also Kennedy and Bush served in war. Presidents like Clinton and Obama are too cowardly, and no one in the future will.
This hypothetical leader would never be anywhere near the front lines, regardless.
there's a reason why the most respected generals in history are those who are willing to fight on the frontlines with their troops.
Isn’t the whole point of the leadership having protection so the other side doesn’t win by default?
Regardless I think war should only be fought for purely defensive purposes
Kings always went to war, now they will send you to get and bombed at while he's home having sex with his woman and watching TV.
Yeah, but they still were hiding deep behind the front lines. Your point?
No, they weren't. If you read the Bible, they are out there fighting and can and did get killed or captured and tortured then killed.
Yeah in the Bible. That’s nowhere close to having even been within the past thousand plus years
I don't expect the leaders of nations to fight on the front lines, however their children definitely should be in the first wave.
No, thats stupid lol if they go and get killed immediately then what? And if they are a great leader but not physically fit or inept it would be a waste. It has nothing to do with toughness, bravery or any of that
Chain of command takes over.
Easy to send others to do your dirty work.
Which again just leads to more confusion and bs, Why have to keep going through leaders and adjusting plans because each leader is not going to view things the same.
No. The President would be a hindrance at a minimum and more likely a hazard. POTUS has no training and probably wouldn't know a grenade from a mortar shell.
I always say that. I never had my technicians do something that I would not do myself.
No. This is a question that children of every generation ask. The point of being a leader is you have people willing to follow you.
I think women should so they learn some respect and stop lying as if they sacrifice anywhere near what men do. Woman is the whore of Babylon
If he funds it himself, fair game. As soon he uses the peoples tax money, they should have a direct say as to where each penny goes. The president should suit up, yes.
I'm not sure about other countries, but in the U. S., many presidents were ex soldiers
If polititions fought their own fights, there would be no need for soldiers, weapons or casualties.
No, because presidents can't declare war. But their families should have to go.
Sadly, no. While I may agree with the sentiment--soldiers would be too busy protecting them. It's too great a risk.
Yes. All wars have been started by Democrats. It is what they do. Let's Go Brandon.
Perhaps not but touring the Fobs and not lying to the public would be a big step.
I dk, draft dodger trump, you tell me
Or at least have served
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
