71–80 of 101 posts
Imagine if international disputes were settled by one-on-one combat between world leaders. Our ruling class of flabby fiftysomething bureaucrats would disappear fast
To be replaced by macho 20-30 year olds who excel at one-on-one combat? I'm not sure if this is better. Particularly when the 20 year old killing machine is put in charge of the nuclear arsenal, I think we'd all disappear fast .
It should be mandatory for all Presidents to be on the battle field. It should also be mandatory for all members of congress and the senate to rotate in and out of the battle field.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The subtitle might give more context: > Déby had ruled for 30 years and won a sixth term in elections last week
"He was one of Africa’s longest-serving leaders and a close ally of western powers..." So, it depends on how you view "western powers", I guess.
Is this good or bad for people of Chad?
Déby was a ruthless dictator fighting against ruthless Libyan-backed Islamists (and to a lesser extent Boko Haram). Both are horrible. Déby murdered political opponents and oppressed his people. The rebels used child soldiers, executed PoWs, and just want to set up their own dictatorship but Muslim.
Currently, power has passed to his son, who is a general-major, so not much has changed, except he presumably has less power. This probably means more military influence in the country and less success against the rebels.
Best case, his son turns out to be a better dictator than his father or least have to concede to the people more.
Worst case, the discontent and political infighting leads to more instability and hardship for the country and the weakness leads to the rebels taking over.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Otherwise Germany, 1945, comes to mind. And there are those who fought on the battlefield and later became head of state. They obviously didn't die, but ran a certain risk.
Hitler killed himself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Adolf_Hitler
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The notion of a social or family honor has its own psychological problems. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/minority-report/2014...
of course it does! Everything has. so does our system of sending the old people to an assisted living facility to live out the last couple of years in "dignity" while crapping their pants and not having visitors (except on every 1st Sunday of the month between 15:00-17:00 which is the time when everyone asks why they are still around because they are so demented and not part of our lives that we wouldn't know what to…
It should be mandatory for all Presidents to be on the battle field. It should also be mandatory for all members of congress and the senate to rotate in and out of the battle field.
Churchill had to be talked out of attending the D-Day Landings by King George VI - apparently he thought it unfair that if he couldn't attend the landings (which he wanted to do) then Churchill shouldn't be doing it either. Edit: Out by one error for monarch
He had a dedicated military transport airplane and flew it, which is pretty reckless considering how good German AA was.
"Winston Churchill - Nearly Killed by the Germans in 1945"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then the Battle of Agincourt happens and you lose something like 1/2 of all of your leaders. Then your status as a world power is lost forever. Besides, I don't think anyone wants a government based on military service today. Military is important, but not as important as say, infrastructure, hospitals, schools, technology, engineering, or a myriad of other government services today. I'd rather have more government o…
I don’t think your status as a world power comes from 50% of your political leaders. At least, if that status was lost after that battle I’d seriously look into other reasons.
Time heals all wounds. The French became a major power later, but there was a very bloody time. I don't think anyone wants to "Agincourt" their own political leaders.
Regardless, the Armagnacs were severely damaged due to Agincourt. The somewhat neutral Burgundians had much more prominence after the battle.
-------
In the short term, King Henry V (of England) is named the heir to the throne of France. It takes nearly 30 years before another battle routes the English forces and forces England back to its island.
I'd say having a foreign king declared heir to the throne, while nearly eradicating one major political party (Armagnacs) is a pretty big deal. France doesn't make any major moves until the 1500s, nearly a hundred years later.