Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.
All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..
As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.
Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!
*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."
Seriously I wonder how many president we would go through in a year if the commander in chief had to lead the armed forces in battle at the front of the lines as they do in tv movies with the leader leading the charge...think about that he has the power to send our men and women over to war and to kill and get killed BUT he is never there leading the charges
BadBoy7: I don't know. Usually the guys making the decisions are out of the way of the bullets. But I suspect there would be plenty of men willing to lead the charge. But in reality, it would be irresponsible for any leader to put themselves in harms way since killing them could lose the war for their side (or at least seriously jeopardize things)