Country is always important, for almost everyone loves their country very much. Because of patriotism, we don't want to leave our country. No country can be considered perfect and provide all the facilities. In the case of a rich and peaceful country, it's understandable why people don't want to leave the country, but people of poor countries also don't want to leave their country, instead of having many difficulties and insecurities. The development of a country mostly depends on the government as well as the leader of the country. If a leader of a country wants to develop the country, he or she can do it, which is just a matter of time, but if the leader is not good, it may bring negative consequences on the country.
The fate of a country, as well as the people of the country, depends on the decision of the leader. The logic behind it is very simple. If a leader made a good decision for a country, then it's very helpful for the development of the country. If the country becomes developed, the lifestyle of the people automatically improves, and the citizens receive better facilities compared to the past. On the other hand, give a leader the ability to make decisions that directly impact the country, and the people will also suffer the consequences. When the leader does well and people receive the facilities, there are no issues. But when a leader makes a wrong decision and citizens need to face negative consequences, a question arises in the mind: Is it ok for citizens to bear the consequences of the decision of leader? War can be such a situation where citizens suffer the most.
If we see recent wars in the present world, we can easily understand that the conflict usually happens between leaders, and because of their disagreement, it leads to war. Naturally, the soldiers are affected by the war, but almost every time, the general people receive the backlash in different ways, including losing their lives. Is it fair? Before answering it, I think it's necessary to know if the leader is selected in a democratic way or not.
If the country is a democratic country and the leader is selected in a democratic way, that means the people are the ones who selected the leader, and they believe that the leader will do better for the country, and naturally, they will benefit if the leader does well. On the other hand, it is justifiable that people suffer for it if the leader doesn't carry the responsibility well and makes unreasonable decisions, as citizens are the ones who select the leader. From this perspective, it is okay, but I think it's not fully reasonable, also because people trusted a certain person, but that does not mean the person will give the value of the trust of the people after getting elected. Again, as far as I know, if the citizen receives any harm or loses life, it does not give benefit to the opponent either. So I don't think it's necessary to inbox citizens for facing the negative consequences of a leader's decision, especially something related to war. And if the leader is not selected by the people, then I don't think there is any reason to involve citizens because it was not in their control to choose the leader.
I believe that if there is any war, then it should be fought between two military forces or soldiers or those who are directly related to it. Involving citizens brings no benefit to anyone, and they don't do any harm to others either, so it's better if they can keep aside from the negative consequences of the leader's decision.
If you think that I violated any rules of this platform or my word hurting you or I made any mistakes here , let me inform about it through comments or my other social network . I will try to correct it if I made any mistakes.
Find me in social media : Telegram Twitter/X
