Quote:
Originally posted by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown:
What a sad sort of leadership is that. In Olden days, a leader was expected to lead by example. To be the bravest and to put himself most at risk.
Now, our leaders hide behind armies of men, not taking personal risk for the decisions they are making which so profoundly affect the world and put us all in potential jeopardy.
From a purely economical perspective, assassination would seem to me to be one of the best ways to get Ben Laden (assuming the evidence shows he is guilty, etc)-- certainly having the advantage of reducing the risk to innocents to almost nil. Certainly better than a war.
Just some thoughts I wanted to throw into the forum 
|
I think you may be mistaken about the olden days. Royalty did not lead from the front, they used "tasters" to check their food for poison...who would want that job? In the armies, peasents (masses) of peasents protected the Royals and Knights from the armies of the enemy, of course then knights were expected to fight each other.
I thinkk those in power have always been protected more than the common man since their death could have (in theory) a more damaging effect on the whole kingdom, state, country, whatever. Cowardly? to a point. Sensible? to a point.
new? not on your life.
------------------
Disintigration is easy, If you really want to impress me, ReIntegrate it.