How many politicians have died in war?

In war there are always casualties but those who make the decisions seem never to be among them.
The reason that they go hide in bunkers is that they say there has to be someone in charge of the country so they must protect themselves to protect us.
If they start a nuclear war then there wont be much of a country left to run.
Its not about keeping the politicians alive its about keeping the system alive.
Hundreds of years of politics have shown that it doesnt matter who is in charge along as they follow the rules, but it seems no one can do this as they all mess up in the end.
If Russia where to bomb a city in America then America would respond by bombing russian cities.
Who are the casualties, normal citizens, those who keep the world turning. Millions of people have died in history because of trigger happy politicians.
Is it just me who thinks this is wrong?

[edit on 1/6/2008 by neo2012]

Not enough of them.

quote from Troy


'Imagine a king who fights his own battles, wouldn't that be a sight'

Many have not died in wars and insurections the've authorised. However a whole lot of them fought in many of these same wars before they ever took office. Its not like they don't know what happens in war. They do. Many who where being readied for higher office have perished in our armed forces before they had the chance also. Think, the Kennedy's!!

Zindo

[edit on 6/1/2008 by ZindoDoone]

Black Sabbath said it well in the song "War Pigs"....


"...politicians hide themselves away, they always started the wars. Why should they go out to fight? They leave that all to the poor."

It's basically been that way since time and wars began.

I would hardly hold Black Sabbath as any authority on this issue. I doubt Ozzy /if he did write this song) thought very hard about this before he wrote that song. It's easy to agree with what he is saying, but.. unless he is anti-military or a pacifist I really do not understand where he is going with what he is saying.

As said earlier, a lot of politicians and leaders served in the Military and fought wars before they stepped into positions of political leadership. War is an important experience, and to have seen it first hand should give a leader more weight when she or he speaks of military issues. But to complain about the fact that for example Dick Chaney and George Bush are not posted in Iraq strapped with an M16 at this moment is just... silly.

For any democracy to work, we need either the people or our representatives to step up and make an effort to organize and work to control and better our society.. make things work. usually we trust our representatives to do this. They are important. They need to make a lot of decisions, and some of these decisions lead to armed conflict. This is not some evil deed, it's a necessity for humans. Conflicts arise between humans, and armed defense or attack is sometimes needed to ensure the survival of what we believe in. Note that the legitimacy of current or past wars or conflicts is not relevant here. Protesting the use of violence in some situations is just logical and sensible, but I just can't take it seriously when people complain about our representatives not fighting and dying in our wars. We need them alive.

Naturally there are cases where leaders and representatives send thousands to their deaths in wars that should never have been fought, and is kept going for public relation reasons, economic reasons or imperialistic reasons, but those cases are issues we need to deal with on an individual basis.

Yes, it is wrong that brave men and women die in wars that should never have been fought, but far from all armed conflicts are examples of this. Yes, our leaders have authority, and no, they do not fight in the wars they start, but why should they? We all fill our roles in society. The role of our politicians is not to die in combat. Sending all our representatives into war would be senseless in modern warfare.

We should always watch our leaders and challenge their rule if they do wrong, but in essence, the act of starting a war and sending others to fight it is not wrong, no. I wish for human society to one time evolve beyond this, but that is hardly anything to count on or base the opinions you apply to situations in the now on.


[edit on 2-6-2008 by me_ofef_seraph]

I wonder how many wars we would have if politicians had to serve in the war they voted for. Obviously, we won't send them all at once. We can send them in groups and still maintain an effective government.

Make each of them serve 1 tour on the front lines and see how many countries we HAVE to invade.

There is an old saying that goes something like this: "Old soldiers never die; young ones do.

There are very few politicians who are not too old for military service and very many have already served.

At any rate, referring to the above quote, any aspiring politician who dies in combat is very unlikely to achieve his goal.

[edit on 2008/6/3 by GradyPhilpott]

The problem is that people in the decision making process of going to war stand to gain if they attack a nation.
While there undoubtedly will be innocents killed there are companies that make ALOT of profit out of making weapons that do the killing.
There have been politicians link to theses companies who stand to make money on the back of killing people.
While there are honest hard working politicians who fight for the rights of the people they are, in my opinion, outnumbered by those out to further there career or financial standings.

I,m guessing that those saying many have been to war in there younger years are from the USA, i do know of this fact but that doesnt mean they dont want to manipulate the situation for there own gain.
EVERY leadership has fallen to scandale and outrage otherwise the party would never get voted out.

Going back to soldiers turned politicains while americans have served for there country english politicians have not and go straight into politics from leaving University. While im sure some would of served i dont think i recent years that has been the case so there judgement would be less valued as they have not seen the devastation first hand.

It has to be stated this is my opinion and therefore will not be 100% truth and i am open to people who can provide facts to prove iam wrong.
I can easily admit that i am wrong and am not stubborn like others even when the facts are overwhelming.