NationStates Jolt Archive

If a President decides to push for military action, they would be required to either go to war themselves or their children must go. By that I mean either The President can decide to go himself/herself and actually serve in an INFANTRY position, or his/her children can serve. That way wars would only be fought if TRULY neccessary. Would you approve of this?

...We all hate President Bush, but is this really smart to let the President get into the line of fire while he's dealing with domestic issues?

If a President decides to push for military action, they would be required to either go to war themselves or their children must go. By that I mean either The President can decide to go himself/herself and actually serve in an INFANTRY position, or his/her children can serve. That way wars would only be fought if TRULY neccessary. Would you approve of this?

Want to motivate the government to avoid/stop going to wart so quickly?

Pass a bill that states during any wartime or police action, no elected official above the position of state governor gets paid at all.

I bet they won't be so quick.

...We all hate President Bush, but is this really smart to let the President get into the line of fire while he's dealing with domestic issues?

He doesn't deal with any issues. He just sloughs everything off and goes "on vacation" . He has spent more time "on vacation" than performing any political/governmental functions.

...We all hate President Bush, but is this really smart to let the President get into the line of fire while he's dealing with domestic issues?

Let the Vice deal with domestic issues, bam solved.

Want to motivate the government to avoid/stop going to wart so quickly?

Pass a bill that states during any wartime or police action, no elected official above the position of state governor gets paid at all.

I bet they won't be so quick.

That's a pretty good one actually.

Hmm, I don't know about having them go to war themselves, but I think that any government that takes their country to war should, after the war is over, be forced out of office (if they were not voted out during the war) and disqualified from holding political office for the rest of their lives. In addition, they should also have any tax-payer sponsored pensions they would normally get after serving in office revoked.

I tend to think this would make them think about whether it's really worth it to engage in a war, and not do it for frivolous reasons.

...We all hate President Bush, but is this really smart to let the President get into the line of fire while he's dealing with domestic issues?

check "we all"

i don't hate him, and if i did, i wouldn't admit to such an irrational, emotionally-driven view of someone I don't know.

I disliked Clinton for the sleaze he was, but I didn't hate him.

As for the initial post, that is a horrible idea.

First of all, we don't have a draft -- everyone in the US military made a choice to join. They knew that -- how could they not? -- they might be called on to fight their country's wars. They should be honored for their sacrifice, not whined about. I'm sure they appreciate the renewed hippie force in America.

check "we all"

i don't hate him, and if i did, i wouldn't admit to such an irrational, emotionally-driven view of someone I don't know.

I disliked Clinton for the sleaze he was, but I didn't hate him.

As for the initial post, that is a horrible idea.

First of all, we don't have a draft -- everyone in the US military made a choice to join. They knew that -- how could they not? -- they might be called on to fight their country's wars. They should be honored for their sacrifice, not whined about. I'm sure they appreciate the renewed hippie force in America.

Everyone's constantly talking about how protestors lower the morale of troops and all that nonsense, but I think it would be much better if it were like in the good old days when the leaders went off to war WITH the troops. When you have a leader fighting alongside the troops and being treated no different, THAT would be a huge morale boost.

By not fighting with the troops, that to me signifies cowardice, unsure decisions, and the inability or unwillingness to grieve over the death of soldiers. I'd probably have more faith in Bush's decisions if he actually got some balls and went over there to fight.

If a President decides to push for military action, they would be required to either go to war themselves or their children must go. By that I mean either The President can decide to go himself/herself and actually serve in an INFANTRY position, or his/her children can serve. That way wars would only be fought if TRULY neccessary. Would you approve of this?

I don't like it. Here's why:
1) There's the potential for a President not to go to war when it is necessary, just to protect himself or his children.
2) A President would be more or less unable to fulfill the other duties of his office while serving as an infantryman.
3) Most Presidents are well beyond the age at which they'd make competent infantrymen.
4) Most children of Presidents have no military training and would be liabilities in combat situations. Some (probably including most of history's First Daughters) will be unable to meet the Army's physical requirements. Some will be too young to serve.
5) The President is the commander in chief of the American armed forces. It wouldn't make much sense to put him under the command of some lieutenant.

check "we all"

i don't hate him, and if i did, i wouldn't admit to such an irrational, emotionally-driven view of someone I don't know.


mm agreed.


As for the initial post, that is a horrible idea.


yes


First of all, we don't have a draft -- everyone in the US military made a choice to join. They knew that -- how could they not? -- they might be called on to fight their country's wars. They should be honored for their sacrifice, not whined about. I'm sure they appreciate the renewed hippie force in America.

we don't whine about the soldiers, dear, we whine about the president and his machiavellian schemes and power games. most of us respect the soldiers, but not the war. there IS a difference between shunning the war as unnecessary, corrupt, etc. etc. and blaming the soldiers for it.

the post was about reducing the likelihood of war, so these men and women would not be called upon to sacrifice their lives in vain for some frivolous cause.

and the 'hippie force' has a purpose : to play the balance against perpetual states of war. i dont think the soldiers all support the war, but are in there anyway. and i think, some of them probably do appreciate the 'hippie force' for trying to get them out of the warzone and back home with their family.

we're not complaining about the soldiers, friend, we're complaining about the war we're in, the war that does not benefit or protect us, and the president who initiated it .

I'd vote yes.

If this were a law 2 years ago, 2 things could have happened:

-First, you never went to Iraq.

-Or, second, Bush democratically and in the name of National Security abolished that law, to send only the 19-year-old poor black guys.

Want to motivate the government to avoid/stop going to wart so quickly?

Pass a bill that states during any wartime or police action, no elected official above the position of state governor gets paid at all.

I bet they won't be so quick.
Most of those people are absurdly wealthy already, their benefits come in the form of power brokering, not wages.

4) Most children of Presidents have no military training and would be liabilities in combat situations. Some (probably including most of history's First Daughters) will be unable to meet the Army's physical requirements. Some will be too young to serve.
I get the impression that the current First Daughters might well be interested in meeting the Army's "physical requirements". Just give them access to liquor, they'll find their own way to the barracks in short order.

we elect a president to lead

should a CEO have to sweep the floors of his office building? would that make the company's business any better?

I think it would be a bit of a morale disaster if the president get's killed

leave Bush alone you damm terrorists !!!! :p

He doesn't deal with any issues. He just sloughs everything off and goes "on vacation" . He has spent more time "on vacation" than performing any political/governmental functions.

Not true, thats just something Michael Moore has had you believe.

check "we all"

i don't hate him, and if i did, i wouldn't admit to such an irrational, emotionally-driven view of someone I don't know.

I disliked Clinton for the sleaze he was, but I didn't hate him.

As for the initial post, that is a horrible idea.

First of all, we don't have a draft -- everyone in the US military made a choice to join. They knew that -- how could they not? -- they might be called on to fight their country's wars. They should be honored for their sacrifice, not whined about. I'm sure they appreciate the renewed hippie force in America.

I don't hate Bush either and I didn't dislike Clinton. I think everyone has personality issues to resolve. But I think that Bush and his régime have done horrible things both in the USA and abroad. But the list is too long to mention in this forum.

It is true that the USA has no 'draft' but the sneaky ways the military has of targetting the poorer citizens for induction is shabby at best. I agree that those very brave young people should be honored for their sacrifices, but the Bush régime should be driven out of power for lying to the American people and for appealing to the American chauvism - oops, patriotism.