They should make presidents lead their troops as kings led their knights on the

1. 70

   Handicapped Chefposted 10 years ago

   They should make presidents lead their troops as kings led their knights on the battlefield.
   
   That may raise the "stock" on diplomacy what is your thoughts
   
   

   replyreport
2. 63

   christopherantonposted 10 years ago

   It could never happen. They just don't have the breeding.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Handicapped Chefposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      The Bigger question - "What you gonna do about it?" Having been behind the curtain a few time, it annoys me that so many people say 'D's and R's are the same' not because its true or not, but because too many folks sit on their hands and bitch. You w

      replyreport
3. 79

   junksellerposted 10 years ago

   I wouldn't want many presidents or politicians in charge of anyone in battle. Their troops would get slaughtered. I do, however, think they should re-institute a draft, but only for the children of politicians who vote for war. I think that would have the result you mentioned.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      larryprice5372posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      would sqy kinow. mos of our leaders have nit served in battle, but it is not the leader but the individual person at war.  A man is an individual person who does as he sees right. It is individual courage that is the question here.

      replyreport
   2. 70

      Handicapped Chefposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Lol. Knights operated under a different code. These Ivy League puppets only want to fight behind a desk. Not behind an army headed to war.

      replyreport
4. 64

   maxoxam41posted 10 years ago

   I do agree and for sure presidents won't be so eager to wage war on any country. It is easy to command behind an oval office in the confinement of luxury and safety. It is easy to drone civilians by pressing on a button ignoring the reality of its consequence, it is easy to pretend to be the good one when the mediatized armada deployed all its channels to vilify a third party, I could do it. But the difference between them and I is conscience.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Handicapped Chefposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Your right if we did this all wars would cease tonight

      replyreport
5. 84

   cmoneyspinner1tfposted 10 years ago

   In modern times, I don't see any kings, prime ministers, dictators, presidents, etc. going to war.  The better recommendation is just to stop having wars!  Like that will ever happen!

   replyreport
   1. 63

      christopherantonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      The British Royal Family have always fought in the frontline in conflicts. Prince Harry served in Afghanistan, Prince Andrew in The Falklands casmpaign. Prince Philip fought in World War Two and King George Vi served in the Battle of Jutland .

      replyreport
   2. 39

      Borsiaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Very true Chris, the Royal men have almost all been in active duty and on the front lines or close.
      There have been some strong military men in the Whitehouse as well JFK, Eisenhower, Roosevelt and many others starting, of course with Washington.

      replyreport
   3. 84

      cmoneyspinner1tfposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      @christopheranton, @Borsia - Uh huh.  So ... you both DISAGREE with the better recommendation?  If Harry and Andrew were my sons, they wouldn't have gone!!  Ditto for JFK, Roosevelt and Washington.  But that would only be in a perfect world.  Right?

      replyreport
   4. 70

      Handicapped Chefposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I guess the illusion of choice is better then no choice at all. The system in which this country governs is broken. On all levels, when dealing with the federal gov. most systems are broken. Call the Congress for answers? That's almost laughable. But

      replyreport
6. 72

   lburmasterposted 10 years ago

   I saw this and instantly started laughing. That would certainly change a few things. Hitler might have thought twice, but Joan of Arc would have stood fast.

   replyreport
   1. 63

      christopherantonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Henry V and Edward III were both fighting at the head of their soldiers during the Hundred Years War. But then they were not presidents. They were kings. There's a difference.

      replyreport
   2. 39

      Borsiaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Sorry but Hitler was battle proven in WWI and very brave in combat. He was a runner,  one of the most dangerous position there was.

      replyreport
   3. 72

      lburmasterposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Ah, I always focus on his social skills instead of his combat abilities.

      replyreport
   4. 70

      Handicapped Chefposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      You might be right, some of them would be on some Robo-cop thing but I could def see leaders outside of the core nations suiting up though

      replyreport
7. 64

   CrescentSkiesposted 10 years ago

   Kings never led troupes on the battlefield except in VERY ancient times. Long before knights even existed.
   
   Those are fairy tales.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Handicapped Chefposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      It still was a time in our history so it was not a fairy tale the difference was they were Kings not presidents.

      replyreport
   2. 64

      CrescentSkiesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      those were emperors and warlords :3 so there is a technical difference.

      replyreport
   3. 70

      Handicapped Chefposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Both kings and emperors are monarchs and a warlord is a person with power who has both military and civil control over a subnational area which is the same as a king but they all have to worry about defending his country and taking cities with milita

      replyreport