jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (22 posts)

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

  1. Handicapped Chef profile image81
    Handicapped Chefposted 4 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

    https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/8339184_f260.jpg

  2. christopheranton profile image74
    christopherantonposted 4 years ago

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

    1. Handicapped Chef profile image81
      Handicapped Chefposted 4 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

  3. junkseller profile image86
    junksellerposted 4 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.

    1. larryprice5372 profile image70
      larryprice5372posted 4 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.

    2. Handicapped Chef profile image81
      Handicapped Chefposted 4 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.

  4. maxoxam41 profile image76
    maxoxam41posted 4 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.

    1. Handicapped Chef profile image81
      Handicapped Chefposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Your right if we did this all wars would cease tonight

  5. cmoneyspinner1tf profile image89
    cmoneyspinner1tfposted 4 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!

    1. christopheranton profile image74
      christopherantonposted 4 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 .

    2. Borsia profile image45
      Borsiaposted 4 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.

    3. cmoneyspinner1tf profile image89
      cmoneyspinner1tfposted 4 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?

    4. Handicapped Chef profile image81
      Handicapped Chefposted 4 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

  6. lburmaster profile image82
    lburmasterposted 4 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.

    1. christopheranton profile image74
      christopherantonposted 4 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.

    2. Borsia profile image45
      Borsiaposted 4 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.

    3. lburmaster profile image82
      lburmasterposted 4 years agoin reply to this

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

    4. Handicapped Chef profile image81
      Handicapped Chefposted 4 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

  7. CrescentSkies profile image87
    CrescentSkiesposted 4 years ago

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

    Those are fairy tales.

    1. Handicapped Chef profile image81
      Handicapped Chefposted 4 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.

    2. CrescentSkies profile image87
      CrescentSkiesposted 4 years agoin reply to this

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

    3. Handicapped Chef profile image81
      Handicapped Chefposted 4 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

 
working