****the POLITICAL LEADERS or KINGS fought along side the SOLDIERS? 1 does not enjoy WARS but know SOME have to be fought. So ATS would the WARS ANY WARS -SPIRITUAL-Cosmic-Drug-Terror- ect. I am asking your pov on this topic. Would the wars be the same or faster or even longer. Me I can respect a LEADER who fights along side those who they COMMAND. Do you?

Risky can be but I hope you all can see what I am saying and getting at. WILL IT WORK this WAY?

That would never happen today. If it some how did it would just be a i illusion. They would make fake footage of the president in war.

They would still be fought. Until the end of the 19th century, the leaders went to war with their armies. Napoleon went. They would probably not be fought the same, but why does it matter? It is far more important that they stop than that the way they are fought changes.

Originally posted by Leahn
It is far more important that they stop than that the way they are fought changes.

I agree why war at all. But with this extra energy on the field with the soldiers I wondered would they end faster be more clean cut since the 1 calling the shots is on the field with his soldiers.

Thanks Leahn good point

It would be a grand thing indeed if our leaders were made to frontline the wars they waged.

politicians start wars, soldiers fight the wars and the people pay the price of war.

that's the way it is.

i doubt you'll see ol blood n guts obama on top of an abrams tank leading the charge.

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
With this extra energy on the field with the soldiers I wondered would they end faster be more clean cut since the 1 calling the shots is on the field with his soldiers.

Doubtfully. Being on the field with his soldiers won't make someone suddenly competent.

On the other hand, why do you think that they want the war to end any faster?

Originally posted by Leahn

On the other hand, why do you think that they want the war to end any faster?

Point taken I forgot some are ment to go on for long periods and not get the goal done and be done. When I was a child and seen civil war TIME life mag. info I used to think all the wars were was 2 sides with flags and they charge at each other to place their flag on the other sides land. lol I know naive, until I started reading and seeing the TIME life data on NAM and realized that wars last for more then a day. At that point I was lost in the mix about why wars last days and years ect. I couldn't understand how blood could be shed over such long time periods.

That doesn't mean wars will end.

Historically many kings or leaders fought on the front lines with their men, and died doing it too.
I guess we could call it honorable in a way.

Well, the leaders today I suppose aren't very honorable. That would be a good differentiation to characterize the situation I suppose.

Point is it won't end war. Those past wars of history were pretty insanely brutal and grotesque to be frank about it.

The real question here is would there still be wars if women ruled everything? Think about it

Originally posted by SavedOne
The real question here is would there still be wars if women ruled everything? Think about it

Yes, there would be, o whipped one. There is no need to think about it. The human history is not absent of female rulers, and they waged wars all the same.