Yes. The old system was better
No. The current system is better.
It occurs to me that in practically all the forms of government we have today in the world and have had for sometime now, one set of people actually make the decision to go to war and quite a different bunch actually prosecute the war.
Doesn't that disconnect actually foster a more casual attitude to going to war and actually staying at war.
What I'm asking is, when the life in line is not your own does that color your decision?
The Roman senators for instance fought in the wars. When the Romans fought the Carthaginians, the ranks of the senators and the equestrian class got decimated during the Second Punic War. I end up thinking that when a roman senator got up to speak after the battle of Cannae and spoke about continuing the fight the words carried a lot more weight than those of our politicians of today.
"Of all the manifestations of power, restraint impresses men the most." - Thucydides
How 'bout we take YOUR idea - which is highly impractical and would add absolutely nothing, while possibly ennervating an already gutless political class - and make meritorious military service so laudable as to be an almost insurmountable political advantage when running for political office?
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell
I didn't exactly ask every law maker to start donning cammos. The question was simply about whether that system had an advantage with THAT particular issue in mind. I'm a student of late republican roman military history and am well aware of drawbacks of the system.Originally Posted by Bluesman
You do have a nice suggestion but I fail to see why your tone is combative from the minute your boots hit the ground.
"Of all the manifestations of power, restraint impresses men the most." - Thucydides
It comes from my dislike of you.
That, and it amuses me.
Seriously, I didn't think it was combative at all. I disagree with you (and probably always will, given some of the things you've posted and from which I draw my mental picture of your worldview), but I wasn't particularly disagreeable about it.
Are you sure you're in the right place, Pattycake? I mean, that was just an ANSWER, it wasn't some kind of ATTACK, so if you're going to start threads where we're all supposed to just agree to your proposition, let us know that's what you're after right up front, so if we do NOT agree, we can just read your post and ignore it.
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell
I don't have any problem with people disagreeing with me. I come from a democracy where everyone is entitled to an opinion. I just dislike coming to blows before I even know the other guys position.
I wouldn't be posting a bloody poll if i didn't want opinions, would I?
If you don't like what I have to say, thats your problem. For my part I still appreciate hearing your opinion.
Last edited by chankya; 10 Apr 07, at 22:56.
"Of all the manifestations of power, restraint impresses men the most." - Thucydides
Well, alrighty then: that's my opinion, and it wasn't combative at all.
Enjoy.
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell
Do you REALLY want Cheney with a loaded gun in the front lines?
An interesting point.
As a matter of interest, does anybody know who was the last head of state (a loosely used term by me here) to lead his men into battle?
I thought it was Alexander the Great, but I might be wrong. Any ideas?
x
Czar Nicholas II, also many Roman emperors, Mohammed and some Arab caliphs, European kings, princes, and dukes of the medieval age, Ottoman sultans, other Russian tsars, Mongols and Mughals, Byzantine emperors. Literally hundreds.
There were several Indian Kings (and one queen) that led their kingdoms in war. The queen's name was Jhansi ( I think) and she even carried her baby "papoose style" on her back during battle.
I would say Napoleon. But I'm very unsure of that.
"Of all the manifestations of power, restraint impresses men the most." - Thucydides
Czar Nicholas II is later than all of those (1916-17). But I'm not sure if he's the last. And I forgot Napoleon... who could forget him?
By 'lead into battle' I was thinking more of being right up there in the thick of the fighting, rather than standing way back in the rear directing what was going on, as somebody like Napoleon probably did, and Nicolas II too I suspect.
Were any of your suggestions, Ironduke, doing the actual fighting with sword or gun in hand?
x
Going back to the point of this thread (!) I seem to remember reading of a proposal where the politicians who voted for war then had to commit suicide.I expect the world was a simpler place in those days!
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.
Should the people who advocate welfare for the poor, be poor?
Should the people who champion conservation, be a little bit thrifty on their energy usage?
Should public school teachers send their own kids to public schools?
Yes, on all of them.
No, none of them is being practiced right now.
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: