It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What If Presidents And Leaders Had To Go To War....

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 12:53 AM
link   
What if our presidents and world leaders had to go to war? What if congress themselves had to go to the wars they declare? What if the leaders of the United Nations had to go to war and fight NATO's battles? What if to go to war, the president was the first and last person on and off the battlefield? What if their families had to go to war? What if in order for them to send our sons and daughters to fight their wars, they also have to send their sons and daughters to risk being shot, bombed, tortured, kidnapped, beheaded or burned alive? What if this policy was implemented? What if we would never fight another war again with such a policy?




posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 01:06 AM
link   
here is something from a thread I made.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is war to someone who is not a soldier? What is the difference to someone who is a soldier?

I ask to make that juxtaposition because more often than not we find people who are not soldiers making wars.

Is that not similar to a mechanic recommending brain surgery? Should not the ultimate role of waging war be placed in the hands of those that fight it? This brings me to my next thought. Some may argue that military people act as advisors and ultimately are involved in the decision making process. I wonder though.

Is there a difference between the generals and experts of the past and now in reference to their "being soldiers". I am not saying a general is not in the know. What I am saying is that allot of times these people are officers from the get go. The go to military academies and when they finally do take on the role they have been trained for, they are not necessarily soldiers but rather advisors and organizers with the same uniform with a little more crap attached.

I look to the past when a king or a leader had to lead his army on the battle field. He was protected and not like swinging a claymore rushing into the enemy force literally leading his army. Not always at least, but the leader WAS there and some did die. Take for example the legend of EL CID. He rode into battle with his troops in Spain against the moors and inspired his men and struck fear into his enemies. His cadaver was even placed on his horse and sent into battle just because the men felt as though they could not lose when he was there bleeding with them. The moors saw him as a kind of war god.

Now flash forward a bunch of years and we have our leaders in thousand dollar suits pressing buttons and signing papers that make officers command men miles if not hundreds of miles away from them into battle. They are not soldiers and the officers, though they will say different, are watered down versions of their former selves. I am not speaking of the grunt who had a good head and balls to match and progressed up the chain of command. Many will argue that even he has a ceiling to his potential advancement. He is not refined and "politically marketable" so he might lead well and command the respect of his men, so he does JUST that.

Imagine if our leader was there with them. Imagine if war was taken as seriously as it was throughout our history. If you want land, you go fight with the men you inspire. If you want power you rally your troops and live by example. A leader that would not risk his life in the least was considered a coward and so was thought to be bad luck on a battle field. No pay would make men risk dishonor and defeat because they followed a fool into a game of masters.

There is no greater honor for a soldier to prove himself true on his battle field. That he is capable and worthy of living and dying alongside men of similar worth. There is nothing of this to a politician who cares not how well his troops do as long as his purpose is served. (Vietnam for example). If he was a soldier he would first care about the honor of his soldiers being fulfilled and kept and there after the consequences of a single battle or war. Victory is tantamount to fulfilling your reason for war in the eyes of a soldier. They want to win. Victory is circumstantial to a politician since he can serve his reason for war in many ways with or without it.

That is a grave problem to me. The people who argue the necessity of war don't actually care. They aren't warriors. They are liars who like to feel manly commanding men, and so will never understand the awesome truth of being a leader who has victory and jubilee with his men, or loss and solemn respect with his men. A leader who is just a leader will never compare to the kings of old who were soldiers first on the battle field and leaders second. The will never be like the leaders of the past who knew what was being delt before going to war since they will never have to become the war they make.

To become the war you make. Think about it.

I will defend my nation with war. In my peopleĀ“s name I will defend our honor. I will become the war it needs.

Or

I will command for war to be made for my nation or in my name. The war I see fit. They will become what I ask them to.

Which comes from a lion? Which from a fox?

Who would you follow. Who would you not dare defy.

May the lions rise again.

May men who make war, fight the war. May they inspire us to overcome our fears. May the make us stronger for it. May we learn to respect our lives in peace, knowing the honor of war and its sacrifice.

may the disrespect of life be forgotten in our living world. May the dishonor of frail men be erased from our nationĀ“s thrones.

Men will bleed rivers for a single drop of blood from a righteous leader bled in their defense.

Men will shed only what blood they must to survive, if their leader only offers tears for his victory or his defeat. Even if he cries oceans
edit on 30-4-2012 by BIHOTZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 01:09 AM
link   
that policy wouldn't prevent war, just look at Alexander the Great.

good reference eh? long time ago, but still.. the dynamic has changed, the weak now command the strong.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 01:20 AM
link   
Those chicken-hearted cowards in suits are WAY too soft to engage in combat, but, that's how chickenhawks roll.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Merlin Lawndart
 


Okay, lets send all our leaders to wars so that our forces can become a disorganized mess and make our country look stupid.



new topics

top topics
 
3

log in

join