Does anyone out there actually believe this BS?

quote:

---

A leader must be ready to send soldiers under his command to their deaths. There is a difference between lives spent and lives wasted.

---

call me old-fashioned, but I am curious to know if this makes any sense at all and why...

I think it is supposed to be a suggestion that if your death leads to the success of a military mission, then it wasn't a waste of your life.

the real worry is that people do believe it, the belief seeming to be mainly held by American soldiers. some British soldiers share the belief, but the majority of soldiers and cadets I've met seem to be more cynical about the glory of war and just sign up for the entertainment of playing with guns and tanks during military training.

What scares me most is that the belief can occur in some people so young. as you may have noticed we have two shining examples of this posting on CC. As a Brit and a cynic (there is quite probably a link) I see little glory in dieing for your country, and find those who's aspirations are to be the tools of their nations warmongers completely baffling. Admittedly using heavy weaponry and explosives does look quite fun, but only on inanimate objects.

Generally, no, but during world war 2, yes. A good leader should be ready to, but should not want to, send his men to fight.

i gotta say that that's a load of crap. no leader should ever be willing to send people away to die. there is a big difference between willing to do something and being forced to do something. every leader should have to be forced to send his people to war because if he does end up doing it you know that he tried every other possible alternative.

i also believe that the leader should fight with the soldiers just like in past times, cause then he'll also be more loyal to the soldiers and more inspiring and more responsible. but i do understand where complications may arise from this.

war is sometimes an unfortunate necessity it's true. I think however that a leader should be ready to send his men to fight, aware that some may die. However only in the times of direst necessity should he be willing to send them away to die.

It's a shame neither Skarpio or Oblivion have wandered into this thread, as I think it would be interesting to get the opposing point of view.

Hmm. Interesting thread. Leaders should be able to make clear headed decisions, even if they do have close relatives in a battle. But one of the biggest problems is that they think they should or have the right to send people to their death. Instead you should be thinking about ways you could avoid death on your side or other ways. Dont think about glory'n death and death'n glory, think about life comes once.

"He" is gettin us into a heap of trouble and sending "his" soldiers to a war thats not even any of our bussiness! We are goin to need our troops when someone comes over here to jack with us, wanting to jack us for "resources"...straining our resources to help a country that can solve their own problems and thats their own dang fault for voting for their president. Carpe diem? or shall I say its our own dang fault for voting him into the "kings chair"....lol

Dictators rarely get voted into power, they just take on the names and shapes of a democratic government so they seem more acceptable. So I would highly doubt that their problems stem from voting someone in. That and a country that took bush back for a second term without being forced to by dictator rule can hardly tell people that they vote badly.

Assuming for a moment that there are no terrorists going to all that trouble of suicide bombing etc, just so as to make a protest against US interference in their own country.

And then assuming that these so-called 'terror attacks' were very timely placed so as to convince YOU that you should vote for, and fight for a worthy cause..., which just so happened (a lucky coincidence?) to bring about financial relief to an ailing US economy.

Ain't money just always behind almost every evil?
(you should also never forget the fact that HUGE profits were made on that 'other terror attack' on the WTC. (Lucky coincidence?)

Terrorism seems to be quite profitable hey...

So then, are YOU prepared to sacrifice your life for this 'worthy cause'?

Even if money is behind MOST conflicts yes i would give the ultimate sacrafice for MY country. All though i would rather not be one of those heroic dead guys, i just want my famiy to feel safe

quote:

---

And then assuming that these so-called 'terror attacks' were very timely placed so as to convince YOU that you should vote for, and fight for a worthy cause..., which just so happened (a lucky coincidence?) to bring about financial relief to an ailing US economy

---

. Oh, gee loks like they have created the need to reboot the cold war 'offensive posturing' & spending for military superiority => domination of the world.
Ya, Bush says Russia has no need to fear our nukes bases being open so close to them? After all we are not after them, Bush needs to subdue Iran.
If I were the Russians I would not believe him but then I didn't believe him about Iraq to begin with so 'what else is news'?

Crazy, huh? A president makes the ultimate to decision to go to war only after deep reflection, and for the right reasons. I'm not sure why we went into Iraq in the first place. All those other reasons, WMDs and links to Al-Quaida don't cut it anymore. Now people are saying that Dubya had this crazy idea that he was going to begin the unification of the world under democracy, where the US would, of course, be the undisputed world leader. This mentally isn't very from Hitler's, if you think about it. And it only causes fear from nations that are not yet democratic which leads to terrorism which leads to war. What a mess!