Originally posted by Simon Appleton
Well, I might share your regret at this particular instance but more generally wars are probably the kinds of decision where politicians should be "leaders" (i.e. do what they think right) rather than "representatives".

If we were talking about what to kinds of public services to provide etc. then I can see a case for giving the people what they want (don't give them opera if they want football stadiums etc). But when talking about moral and especially life and death issues, I would rather they went with their conscience.

Gladstone was one UK politician who famously tried to keep out of foreign wars despite a jingoistic popular mood. The despicable rulers are those who start wars to try to bolster their domestic support (e.g. the Argentine junta in 1982).

Another example of an issue best left to conscience is capital punishment. For some time, Britain's avoided legislating it because MPs have voted by conscience regardless of popular opinion. The idea that US governors decide whether to reprieve people on death row with one eye on re-election is rather repellant, IMO.
Seems these days in the U.S.A. almost all of the leaders we ellect are looking towards the next ellection when voting. It would be nice if we had some true leaders in congress right now. They might actually get something done. I mean just look at what their doing in there now, trying to slip the port deal into the militarys budget . IMO its about time we instituted term limits to congressmen. Though considering the law would have to get the law through the same congressmen that would be losing their jobs.