NationStates Jolt Archive

Not every decision that congress or the president makes should be held up in debate against them. They should not have to assure support for every decision they make.

However, declaring war against a country is a major decision.

What are your thoughts about having a country-wide vote every time the nation wants to declare war? If a president wants to declare war on a nation, then he would announce his intentions and his backing to the populace, and ask for support. If the majority of the people would agree, then the president would get the green light, however if they wouldn't, he wouldn't be able to go to war.

Important notes to those who don't like to actually read posts:
- I said "declaring war", so if a nation would declare war against us, we wouldn't be declaring war; this applies to only nation-started wars
- I said just for this since it has such significant importance, and should need the population's support

In an ideal scenario it's a good idea. But then, can you trust the mob with this? Will the population know all necessary information? Can a government not easily influence the population (insert reminder about all those Americans who believed that Bin Laden and Hussein worked together)?

And is there a reason to declare war in the first place?

In an ideal scenario it's a good idea. But then, can you trust the mob with this? Will the population know all necessary information? Can a government not easily influence the population (insert reminder about all those Americans who believed that Bin Laden and Hussein worked together)?

And is there a reason to declare war in the first place?

The same argument could be placed in the presidential elections. Basically it's another chance at having informed voters. If the voters are all dumbasses, we're screwed anyways.

No. People would be stupid enough to vote for it on every occasion.

well believe something like that should excist, but a entire vote like that would be ineffective given how fast wars can happen these days, I believe it would be dangerous to nation to do that, and that kinda mass media attention would allow an enemy to prepare well in advance. No one should bring a the nation they lead into a war that they're people do not want, but I dont know how practical voting on it would be.

The same argument could be placed in the presidential elections. Basically it's another chance at having informed voters. If the voters are all dumbasses, we're screwed anyways.
In the case of the most recent Iraq adventure, the issue wasn't that voters were dumb so much as it was that they were lied to deliberately by the Bush administration. How do you defend against that?

No. If you held this sort of vote in 1941, Europe might be speaking German now. Not worth the risk during a major conflict.

No. People would be stupid enough to vote for it on every occasion.

Well then it wouldn't affect much and would be no harm right?
However, in the instance that people smarten up from the time they voted for their president, this could be a good thing.

well believe something like that should excist, but a entire vote like that would be ineffective given how fast wars can happen these days, I believe it would be dangerous to nation to do that, and that kinda mass media attention would allow an enemy to prepare well in advance. No one should bring a the nation they lead into a war that they're people do not want, but I dont know how practical voting on it would be.

This would be one of the disadvantages, but ensuring that the nation does not engage in an immoral war is more important than the actual war itself.

In the case of the most recent Iraq adventure, the issue wasn't that voters were dumb so much as it was that they were lied to deliberately by the Bush administration. How do you defend against that?

Like I said, then there's no hope anyways, since this is a democracy, and they'll follow the leader around like puppets.

I say go for it. it would show all these people screaming for "Pure Democracy" a glimps into what they are asking for.

Majority Rules.

I can just see months of "Recount" while the enemy closes in.

No. If you held this sort of vote in 1941, Europe might be speaking German now. Not worth the risk during a major conflict.

Incorrect, this situation would not apply then. The US was attacked and subsequently was engaged in war, whether they liked it or not. There would be no vote, because there is no other option than to take on the enemy.

In the case of the most recent Iraq adventure, the issue wasn't that voters were dumb so much as it was that they were lied to deliberately by the Bush administration. How do you defend against that?


DUMBASS!!!!!!!!!! did you never watch the news leading up to the war declaration? AMERICAN BRITISH RUSSIAN CANADIAN FRENCH ISRAELI INTELLIGENCE ALL SAID THAT SADDAM HAD WMD'S. IF EVERY ONE OF THE WORLD'S MOST POWERFUL AND CREDIBLE NATIONS SAYS HE HAS NUKES IT MAKES SENCE TO BELIEVE THEM. Bush didnt lie he simply told the american people what he was told BY EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD!!!

...Europe might be speaking German now...
The European Union commissioners have announced that agreement has been reached to adopt English as the preferred language for European communications, rather than German, which was the other possibility. As part of the negotiations, Her Majesty's Government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a five-year phased plan for what will be known as EuroEnglish (Euro for short).
In the first year, 's' will be used instead of the soft 'c'. Sertainly, sivil servants will resieve this news with joy. Also, the hard 'c' will be replaced with 'k.' Not only will this klear up konfusion, but typewriters kan have one less letter.
There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year, when the troublesome 'ph' will be replaced by 'f'. This will make words like 'fotograf' 20 per sent shorter.
In the third year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments will enkourage the removal of double letters, which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horible mes of silent 'e's in the languag is disgrasful, and they would go.
By the fourth year, peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing 'th' by 'z' and 'w' by 'v'. During ze fifz year, ze unesesary 'o' kan be dropd from vords kontaining 'ou', and similar changes vud of kors; be aplid to ozer kombinations of leters.
After zis fifz yer, ve vil hav a reli sensibl riten styl. Zer vil b no mor trubls or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi tu understand ech ozer. Ze drem vil finali kum tru.

... WMD'S ... NUKES...

Not the same thing.

DUMBASS!!!!!!!!!! did you never watch the news leading up to the war declaration? AMERICAN BRITISH RUSSIAN CANADIAN FRENCH ISRAELI INTELLIGENCE ALL SAID THAT SADDAM HAD WMD'S. IF EVERY ONE OF THE WORLD'S MOST POWERFUL AND CREDIBLE NATIONS SAYS HE HAS NUKES IT MAKES SENCE TO BELIEVE THEM. Bush didnt lie he simply told the american people what he was told BY EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD!!!
You can calm it with that calling me a dumbass shit anytime you like, or we can take it to the mods. What's it going to be?

As to the rest of your rant, I suggest you stop listening to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, and start re-examining what actually happened in late 2002 and early 2003.

And as to your question, the answer is yes, I did watch the news, and I read even more of it, which is why I was calling bullshit as early as October of 2002. The case was never convincing unless you wanted to believe it.

DUMBASS!!!!!!!!!! did you never watch the news leading up to the war declaration? AMERICAN BRITISH RUSSIAN CANADIAN FRENCH ISRAELI INTELLIGENCE ALL SAID THAT SADDAM HAD WMD'S. IF EVERY ONE OF THE WORLD'S MOST POWERFUL AND CREDIBLE NATIONS SAYS HE HAS NUKES IT MAKES SENCE TO BELIEVE THEM. Bush didnt lie he simply told the american people what he was told BY EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD!!!
shhh... Nazz wants to believe the Ebil that is Bush... no one will convince him otherwise.

Not the same thing.


so your saying a nuclear explosion wouldnt create mass destruction...riiiight...lay off the mary jane buddy we all know liberal hippies do it

so your saying a nuclear explosion wouldnt create mass destruction...riiiight...lay off the mary jane buddy we all know liberal hippies do it

Weapons of mass destruction are not the equivalent of nuclear weapons. If I were the average forum regular here, I'd add a denouncing remark here at the end of my post.

Sure, it's a good idea. Another check on state power, especially a democratically-based one, tends to be a positive change.

The problem is that it would be ineffective. Most of the time, the population supports a war when it begins. It's only a few years later that that begins to change.

Sure, it's a good idea. Another check on state power, especially a democratically-based one, tends to be a positive change.

The problem is that it would be ineffective. Most of the time, the population supports a war when it begins. It's only a few years later that that begins to change.


see this guy gets it.

shhh... Nazz wants to believe the Ebil that is Bush... no one will convince him otherwise.
You might want to take another look at your sig--you've got a touch of hypcrisy hanging out there and you probably want to tuck that back.

DUMBASS!!!!!!!!!! did you never watch the news leading up to the war declaration? AMERICAN BRITISH RUSSIAN CANADIAN FRENCH ISRAELI INTELLIGENCE ALL SAID THAT SADDAM HAD WMD'S. IF EVERY ONE OF THE WORLD'S MOST POWERFUL AND CREDIBLE NATIONS SAYS HE HAS NUKES IT MAKES SENCE TO BELIEVE THEM. Bush didnt lie he simply told the american people what he was told BY EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD!!!

Okay. Let's say all of that is true.

Now, wouldn't the sensible thing to do in such a circumstance to let the weapons inspectors continue their work, instead of going to war before their task was completed?

Isn't that what was advocated by the French and the Russians - to wait to make sure that there were in fact weapons of mass destruction, and if there were, to destroy them without war?

Wouldn't that have made far more sense than going to war against a country with WMDs that certainly, if it had them, would have used them to defend its survival?

see this guy gets it.

Um, I disagree with every substantive post you've made on this thread (except for the one I'm quoting here, naturally.)