Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If I was a politician, I would put my own son or daughter in front-line.
When my brother was serving in the Marine Corps, his CO had more combat experiences than any of his Marines. You lead by example. That is how you earn respect. I volunteer at a VA hospital, I see the differences between combat Marines, soldiers and pog officers. lol (Not saying all pog officers are bad, but some of them are very annoying)
I hate unfair people being in charge.
You would really be willing to put your daughter in the front line???
When politicians decide to start a war, 99% of the time out of pure greed for themselves, do you think they truly in their hearts feel bad knowing they are sending many to die, do you think they ever lose sleep over it?
Nope, of course not. Like crooked clinkton famously, said, "What difference does it make?" That's why when they were trying to send my generation to fight their war in Vietnam, I said no and hired a lawyer to game the system and get me out. Gee, I'm just like those rich guys who bought their way out too. Good on them. It's a sucker's bet to go into the armed forces unless no other choices are available to you. I admire and honor those who choose to serve but unless someone is invading my country, my town, my way of life, fick 'em. Politicians don't give a rat's ass about our military any more than they give a rat's ass about the rest of us.
Not as much as they care about the war profiteering of the military industrial complex.
Wars are started by the rich and fought by the poor.
Yes! I am so glad there are so many fellow Americans who realize this! We need to stop massacring third-world countries and sending young Americans to die. Instead, let's focus on things like ending poverty, researching cures and green energy, and preventing violence.
Yes! I am so glad there are so many fellow Americans who realize this! We need to stop massacring third-world countries and sending young Americans to die. Instead, let's focus on things like ending poverty, researching cures and green energy, and preventing violence.
Well, it certainly doesn't look like it will happen if the likes of hell-ary get in office.
1) Did George Washington and the congress of 1776 care about the soldiers they sent to war against the British?
2) Did Abraham Lincoln care about the million casualties and the devastation of the civil war?
3) Was Winston Churchill a greedy politician who sent his troops to death in Europe and the north African desert?
4) Were Washington and Lincoln greedy politicians?
If George Washington had lead an army to invade Nova Scotia, I would say yes. He lead an army for our Independence. Not for unknown reasons like Iraq, Libya and Syria.
If Lincoln had attacked Cuba, I would say yes. Etc.
Please read the OP again: it doesn't say a word about invading. It only speaks of "politicians who start wars" - do they care about the soldiers?
Washington (and congress) started a war which was much about money (taxes). Lincoln started a terrible war that was also much about financial gain (slavery).
The difference is the common perception: these wars were "justified" in the eyes of some folks, but others were not. Anyway, in all cases leaders send young people to death and cannot think about every person life. Otherwise they cannot deal with the large picture.
1) Did George Washington and the congress of 1776 care about the soldiers they sent to war against the British?
2) Did Abraham Lincoln care about the million casualties and the devastation of the civil war?
3) Was Winston Churchill a greedy politician who sent his troops to death in Europe and the north African desert?
4) Were Washington and Lincoln greedy politicians?
This is my answer. All politicians are motivated by their base instincts.
George Washington was looking for power and opportunity, he didn't care about how many people disagreed with him or how many people died to fulfill his aims.
Churchill was even worse, he would spare no number of lives in order to enhance his standing. He was the one who got 100s of 1000s killed at Galipoli. There were some other events that this fool got others into also.
In my opinion Churchill was worse than Hitler. Hitler didn't do what he did just to satisfy his huge ego.
FFS Lincoln was a lawyer. He didn't have to go to war with the south but did so anyway. American history is filled with powerful people who stole, lied, cheated, and killed for their own gain.
I don't buy much written about people in history books. A lot of it is from authors with a definite bias one way or another. I'm not going to believe a politician shed tears for any fallen soldier, it's just theatrics.
I'm certainly not going to respect any politicians of this day and age and I sure a hell am not going to send my offspring to die for them if they tell me too.
I'm certainly not going to respect any politicians of this day and age and I sure a hell am not going to send my offspring to die for them if they tell me too.
If I started a war, yes, I would send my offspring to die.
I would respect ANY politicians who think like I do.
But no politicians think this way, so I don't respect any politicians who started the war.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
