* War heros usually make good national leaders.
Though war heros tend to make either very good or very bad national leaders, they usually make bad ones. The reasons vary but may include these factors:
* Warriors are exposed to massive killing and often brutality which can have negative affects on their ability to have respect for life.
* Warriors, particularly the ones who become heros, tend to have a very strong sense of conviction, which may serve good or bad purposes.
* The battlefield is full of harmful and bad feelings that can also hurt someones regard for life.
1. Adolph Hitler was a terrible man, and a great leader. He brought Germany out of a depression, and was smart enough to realize, if you feed people at your rallies, they will come and listen.
2. Losing respect for life, is NOT one of the things commonly brought on by killing people and the brutality that goes along with it. To the contrary, it increases your respect for life. It's not just the enemy being killed.
3. The Battlefield is full of harmful and bad feelings. So are any number of places outside of a battlefield. Being exposed to these "harmful and bad feelings" makes no one any better or worse of a leader because of it.
4. That sense of conviction you speak of, that goes along with War Heroes, can be found in any walk of life, not just in the Military. There are any number of people with a serious sense of conviction, and to suggest that a military War Hero is at a higher risk of being an extremist seems a bit, well, extreme, to me.
I'm fairly offended at, what I feel, is an insinuation that those that go into battle are a bunch of bloodthirsty killers with no regard for life. I don't know if that was your actual intent or not, or if it came across that way to anyone other than me, but that's how I saw it. Maybe I'm out of line here, I don't know.
