If leaders and soldiers were in any way interchangeable, we could be governed by our armies, then?Originally posted by j2k4+27 March 2003 - 20:54--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 27 March 2003 - 20:54)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--DiogenesUK@27 March 2003 - 15:19
I'd give the whole shebang (!!! a lot more credibility if Butch & Blur had the courage of their convictions,and were prepared to put themselves in the vanguard of the fighting,much like leaders did at one time.
It must be mighty satisfying,in some perverse way,to send your youngest & finest to die,whilst you cavort around the media,thousands of miles away, pretending to be the hard man.
I also happen to think,as the media here pointed out,that Butch is more likely to be Blur's Rottweiller,after all,he drools & slavers like one,and appears to have that required insane gene just barely lurking beneath the surface.
Just watch his eyes next time he's on telly
Leaders are (in modern times anyway) SUPPOSED to avoid the "front". In WWII, do you think Britain could have benefitted from Churchill, instead of, say, Montgomery leading the troops? Of course, maybe you thought Winston had the "insane" gene, too.
To suppose either Bush or Blair is "mighty satisfied" at the prospect of sending our youngest and finest to die is, in itself, "perverse".[/b][/quote]
I certainly take on board what you're saying j2k4,and in essence I agree with you,especially regarding possible 'rule' by the military
We mustn't forget,however,that both the UK,and eventually The USA,were under attack themselves during WWII,and we were fighting an invading force in Europe,which seems pretty much how the coalition forces are perceived throughout much of the Arab world,and other many other areas of the world in general today.
Winston Churchill,who was a military man himself,and who had visited troops in the field on many occasions,suffered a landslide defeat in the first general election following WWII,because people had supported the action against the nazis & japanese,but realised,despite their massive sacrifices,that life at 'home' wasn't going to improve for them,as they so rightly deserved.
I don't believe either of the leaders of the main coalition forces would fit either bill,and I believe their actions are going to bring a lifetime of instability and paranoia to their nations regarding terrorism,if that hasn't happened already.
Just to put my original point in some perspective,I certainly believe Madass Hussein is a tyrannical despot who needs to be deposed,but Arab/Middle-Eastern values are so utterly different from the comfortable Western values we are privileged to live under,and to expect them to suddenly forget thousands of years of culture/lifestyle is to be naive in the extreme,and some of the media reports are pandering to that naivete with a new level of misinformation/cynicism not seen (in the UK) before.
I'd like to point out also,that I now fully support,in principle,our troops engaged in hostilities throughout Iraq,but my deepest reservations regarding the conflict,and the repercussions remain.
Bookmarks