Wars should be voted on...

[outsider]

Wars should be voted on by every American old enough and able to raise arms. Then those that vote for it should be sent to fight that war.

[TheZenMan]

So then what is the military for?

[outsider]

Defense in case of an invasion of America. Rapid response to natural disasters.

[TheZenMan]

Hmm.

I don't think we'd be very good at wars then. In fact, we'd probably lose all of them.

[outsider]

That or we wouldn't get into wars. If there was massive support of a war then we'd have a huge army for it. If there was little support of a war than there'd be a small army for it.

Mostly I think, I would hope, that it would mean that people actually put some time in thinking about the war and it's repercussions. I'm also sick of chicken hawks who are so pro-war and want to kill everything in the middle-east but who want to send other people off to do it while bitching about how some soldiers don't want to go to war in Iraq or soon Iran.

[TheZenMan]

Hmm.

These ideas seems to come with the precondition that wars are always wrong.

And consensus doesn't equal truth. Plus the civilian population is untrained, they have no business in a war. Soldiers belong in war.

It's a doomed idea.

[outsider]

If the precondition is that wars are always wrong than the thread would be "War should be outlawed" rather than saying they should be voted on.

And you are correct that consensus doesn't equal truth. It does equal accountability however. We can't just say "don't blame me I voted for so and so". You get to say "damn, I voted for it and got my leg blown off" or "damn I voted against it the Germans committed genocide."

Now don't suggest the precondition that able bodied people shouldn't be trained for war. That was one of the founding principles of this country and part of the reason for the 2nd Amendment.

[TheZenMan]

What about time though?

Once everyone votes and gets the proper training, well, it could be too late.

Plus people are fucking stupid, and many of the smart ones aren't capable warriors.

[outsider]

What about time? Everyone able should be capable. There is no good reason for everyone who could fight in a war whether enlisted or not to not be able to.

Yes people are stupid, that's why I think we still would have been at war in Iraq and likely Iran as well. However it would have been the armchair generals soaking up federal school grants right now who would have been fighting and dying rather than those who recruiters target and lie to. If someone is "too smart" to be infantry put them in a command position. Most people are at best average and if they want the war to be fought they may just have to fight it.

[TheZenMan]

But people who want to fight wars already are.

The men and women of the US Armed Forces didn't enlist by accident or force, they know how it works.

And yes, what about time. If we're attacked, and then have to go through an extensive voting process, then properly train all in favor, we're fucked. The government can't even make the DMV run smoothly.

Warriors fight and leaders lead. We just need a leader, we have everything else in abundance.

[Kewl]

voting is so 1920. have an inner country war to determine if going to war is a good or bad idea/

[Wagonburner]

i think for war we should go back to swords and battle axes. And archers, just because I always wanted a crossbow.

[outsider]

But people who want to fight wars already are.

The men and women of the US Armed Forces didn't enlist by accident or force, they know how it works.

And yes, what about time. If we're attacked, and then have to go through an extensive voting process, then properly train all in favor, we're fucked. The government can't even make the DMV run smoothly.

Warriors fight and leaders lead. We just need a leader, we have everything else in abundance.

Well that isn't very true. There are plenty of people who say they're in favor of the war but who would never think of enlisting in any of the armed forces. There are also plenty who enlisted who figured if we sent them to war we'd actually be at war for something important rather than imaginary WMDs or whatever the flavor of the week is.

Then again as I've said every person able to fight a war should be capable to fight a war. I'm very strongly in favor of 2 years of civil service for everyone, say in return you get free or cheaper college education. If wars were voted on and those in favor were to be sent off I'd be in favor of that 2 years also to include training to follow orders, to shoot, to duck and keep cover and every other skill needed to fight and win a war. We'd have a massive amount of people off unemployment, we'd have a preparedness for war that maybe only Switzerland and Israel would come close to matching, we'd have a huge civil force to spring into action in case of natural disasters or other natural emergencies and we'd also have a bunch of people who were capable of effectively using a gun in war or otherwise say for home/personal defense.

[HaloGuardian]

I kind of agree with outsider but I kind of don't. We would still have endless propoganda campaigns by the government backed by corporate media. The people would have no say how the war was run after it started.

If the draft was re-instated we would be out of Iraq in a year. Not that I support it, but if more people were effected we'd be outta there. Oh, and hell no to civil service. That is slavery.

[TheZenMan]

Well that isn't very true. There are plenty of people who say they're in favor of the war but who would never think of enlisting in any of the armed forces. There are also plenty who enlisted who figured if we sent them to war we'd actually be at war for something important rather than imaginary WMDs or whatever the flavor of the week is.

Then again as I've said every person able to fight a war should be capable to fight a war. I'm very strongly in favor of 2 years of civil service for everyone, say in return you get free or cheaper college education. If wars were voted on and those in favor were to be sent off I'd be in favor of that 2 years also to include training to follow orders, to shoot, to duck and keep cover and every other skill needed to fight and win a war. We'd have a massive amount of people off unemployment, we'd have a preparedness for war that maybe only Switzerland and Israel would come close to matching, we'd have a huge civil force to spring into action in case of natural disasters or other natural emergencies and we'd also have a bunch of people who were capable of effectively using a gun in war or otherwise say for home/personal defense.


Then again as I've said every person able to fight a war should be capable to fight a war.

This part I don't get. Are you saying that if you aren't capable of actually fighting in a war, then your vote doesn't count?

What about a 63 year old woman with cancer? What if she supports the war and wants to vote in it's favor? Is she excluded because she's not battle ready?

Or how about a 56 year old small business owner, who's responsible for a handful of employees livelihood? What if he wants to vote in favor of the war but isn't willing to leave his business to enlist? Plus he's 56. Will his vote be counted?

And yes it is true. The enlisted men and women knew they couldn't pick which wars they want to fight in. They joined the armed forces, not a club.

[outsider]

Yes, I'm saying if you aren't capable of fighting in the war you have no vote on the war. It's time to stop old men from sending young men off to die. If you are a business owner who supports the war but aren't willing to risk everything you have than you aren't justified in having a voice in the war and forcing others to risk everything that they have.

Yes they joined the armed services. Congress hasn't declared war since WW2 and they are the only branch of government allowed to make that decision currently since there haven't been any amendments passed that grant that authority to anyone else. So it would be a reasonable expectation that when you enlist you shouldn't off across the world shooting at brown people unless congress votes to move on that nation by declaring war. And since we as a nation seem to be unwilling to actually pay attention to the law of the land we should make those willing to support such actions liable for such actions.

[fibula]

If they were allowed to vote I think people would just vote to nuke countries, especially if it was their asses on the line

All well and good for US citizens and your army, but not so good for the nuked countries

[HaloGuardian]

they probably wouldn't but who can trust the voting machines?

[TheZenMan]

Yes, I'm saying if you aren't capable of fighting in the war you have no vote on the war. It's time to stop old men from sending young men off to die. If you are a business owner who supports the war but aren't willing to risk everything you have than you aren't justified in having a voice in the war and forcing others to risk everything that they have.

Yes they joined the armed services. Congress hasn't declared war since WW2 and they are the only branch of government allowed to make that decision currently since there haven't been any amendments passed that grant that authority to anyone else. So it would be a reasonable expectation that when you enlist you shouldn't off across the world shooting at brown people unless congress votes to move on that nation by declaring war. And since we as a nation seem to be unwilling to actually pay attention to the law of the land we should make those willing to support such actions liable for such actions.

So then those that vote against the war would also have to enlist and fight.

Right?

You're saying only the votes of people willing to risk their lives for what they believe in will count.

So by what means will you measure those against the war? Can the elderly woman with cancer chose to vote against the war? Or is she only denied if she votes in favor?

[outsider]

There is a stark difference between being capable of fighting in a war and supporting the war in any way.

If you aren't able to fight a war you should have no say in whether war is waged. You can have you opinion but you should have no say.

I'm saying, and I said this very clearly I thought, that if you vote yes for war that you will go out and fight that war. I in fact did not say that if you vote against the war that you will also go out to fight the war. In fact it was my second sentence in the very first post of this thread.