BS: Presidents, PM's and 'Sacrifice'

Subject: BS: Presidents, PM's and 'Sacrifice'
From: The Walrus
Date: 28 Aug 05 - 05:23 AM

While half asleep at 'Oh-Gawd hundred hours this morning, I have vague memories of a news report in which President Bush was reported as warning of 'further sacrifice' in Iraq.
This set me thinking (in a vague, half asleep fashion) - can anyone think of a President or Prime Minister who actually had children involved "in harms way", in war while they were in office?
The only one I can think of, off hand, was British Prime Minister Asquith, his son was a Guards officer, killed during the Great War (I've seen his grave).
David Lloyd -George appealed for mass recruiting in Wales, but tried to discourage his son from joining up (I'm not sure if he was successful).
I can't think of an American President in such a situation (I know 'Teddy' Rooseveldt's son was ashore on D-Day, but by the it was a different Rooseveldt in the White House).
Please accept that this is NOT an attack on any person or Office, just an idle enquiry on a Sunday morning after a poor night's sleep.

Walrus

Subject: RE: BS: Presidents, PM's and 'Sacrifice'
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Aug 05 - 02:28 PM

I searched through Google and Jeeves and found nothing on the subject. It appears that the concept is unheard of.

Subject: RE: BS: Presidents, PM's and 'Sacrifice'
From: *daylia*
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 09:23 AM

Well, does the offspring of royalty count? How about Prince Andrew's service during the Falklands War?

At first the British government were apprehensive of allowing Prince Andrew to remain on Invincible, and wished to move him to a desk job. The prospect of the son of the Queen being killed in action was a possibility, and the government wished to avoid such a circumstance. However, the Queen insisted that Prince Andrew remain with his ship, and so he joined the Invincible as it sailed south, as a Sea King helicopter co-pilot.

In ancient Europe, monarchs were expected to LEAD the people into battle; to sacrifice themselves for the people in the process, if need be. Joan of Arc sacrificed her life in the 1400s because her king would not lead his people in their own self-defense. Another example: even in the 1600s the Kings of Denmark/Norway (Frederick IV, Christian V) were still personally leading their forces into battle.

If this were the case today, do you think war would be still be such a popular sport?

Subject: RE: BS: Presidents, PM's and 'Sacrifice'
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 09:40 AM

It would be less popular AND different people would be elected, for sure. No-one would have voted for Bush if they thought he might have to lead people in battle!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Presidents, PM's and 'Sacrifice'
From: artbrooks
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 09:41 AM

The "other" Roosevelt, FDR, had a son who served with distinction in the Pacific during WW2.

Subject: RE: BS: Presidents, PM's and 'Sacrifice'
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 01:29 PM

George W Bush said right after the last election that "the ULTIMATE SACRIFICE for serving ones country, as Vice President Cheney will attest, has been the loss of privacy.

ultimate sacrifice means something different to George.

Subject: RE: BS: Presidents, PM's and 'Sacrifice'
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 03:26 PM

The "loss of privacy" caused by Kerry in mentioning that his publically lesbian daughter was just that, in a statement defending tolerance of diversity. Wow, how invasive. This is typical of the kind of intentional distortion and spin that is the specialite de la maison of our freedom-from-truth administration.

A