It seems to me that the traditional way of having leaders going to war directly has slowly diminished and vanished from being how the way of things are supposed to be.
(My speculation)
And I speculate that one of the contributing factors which helped in changing people’s mindset and perspective, in normalizing with the cultural and traditions changes, is the fact that people of old time (whom long lived in these similar environment) [Edit: were able to get] used to accepting the benefits and the joys of having appointed such leaders, regardless of the drawbacks that comes with it - and the fact that they are corrupt.
It is a really interesting point to raise up, especially in today’s age.
And maybe, then, the more important question becomes: “How/ why did people normalize their perceptions and mindsets towards such leaders, despite their anticipated character changes became worse than their precedents”.
(Some justification)
It is really interesting, because historically, we have stories of figures (Such as Al-Shimr, the murderer of Imam Hussain) whom were known to have been cowardly, but were presenting themselves nonetheless, due to the fact that people sought the opposing leader was one with more qualities than theirs; and as such, if one leader becomes of the type that is confrontational and upfront in battles; the opposing leader, due to the pressures of his own people, perceptions, and environment, deems it necessary and more appropriate to come forth to present himself as one with better and more fitting qualities that makes him more qualified to be a leader than the enemy.
(It is certainly an interesting topic to discuss, research, and think about. And one might even write a respectable book about it, were there to be someone who writes a book about it.)
You don’t need to increase your text size for us to be able to read your book
I just realized that it interprets ’ — ’ in the text format as headers. I thought that was funny. (I was using them to make the split between lines from other paragraphs more apparent, and therefore more readable).
I apologize for the oversight, let me fix that.
“Forward”, he cried from the rear
And the front rank died
The general sat and the lines on the map
Moved from side to sideWhy don’t presidents fight the war?
Why do they always send the poor?
Why do they always send the poor?
Why do they always send the poor?!Why don’t presidents fight the war, why do they always send the poor?
War pigs was written more than 50 years ago and is still relevant
They used to. For millennia they were with thier army. Even Washington was in battles.
Washington stayed with his troops but kept behind the lines. Western Leaders mostly stopped leading from the front after Gustavas Adolphus got killed doing so.
There would be a lot less wars, and the wars that did happen would be blamed on someone else.
Except he’d be dead or cowering in an outhouse somewhere.
Fuck, that would be a beautiful day.
I could watch this movie
Guy’s 71.
Wouldn’t know if he’s pissing his pants from fear or old age.
He doesn’t have any qualms sending old dudes it to die.
Yeah-yeah, some folks inherit star-spangled eyes
Hoo, they send you down to war, Lord
And when you ask 'em, “How much should we give?”
Hoo, they only answer, “More, more, more, more”Question as old as time
Not really, because that used to be the only way to get people to war.
Isn’t Putin like two inches shorter?
He’s just in high heels, as usual 👠
