Why don't presidents fight the war, why do they always send the poor?

They used to. For millennia they were with thier army. Even Washington was in battles.

Then they wouldn't start wars.

I mean, having them out in platoons is too much. You would basically be punishing the real soldiers by burdening them with some mook. However, forcing them to live in forward operating bases, with no special considerations for safety, or comfort, would be nice.

Isn't Putin like two inches shorter?

Why 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?!

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"

Fuck, that would be a beautiful day.

"Forward", he cried from the rear
And the front rank died
The general sat and the lines on the map
Moved from side to side

The other side doesn’t need Ai to get a visual.

Question as old as time

Except he'd be dead or cowering in an outhouse somewhere.

If the war is so important, then they will have no problem dying for it. If their country is so strong, then it'll be fine without them.

There would be a lot less wars, and the wars that did happen would be blamed on someone else.

Guy's 71.

*vacation Islands panicking*

https://piped.video/watch?v=rblfKREj50o&t=11s

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.)

*Edit2:

• How did the changes in perception happen ?

(How was it that people's perceptions towards the current leader were inherited from people that appointed them long before their ages; i.e their ancestors that sought such leaders with presented qualities are more qualifying than others, whom, at some point, when they casted away the ones of their own that had stepped down into the battlefields with such better leadership qualities presented ?)

• When did it happen (at what point exactly in history did it specifically happen, that their perceptions changed so much that they normalized with cowardly leaders) ?

• Why has it not changed ?

• And what would cause it to change ?

I could watch this movie