Post by: Blakenzy on April 16, 2008, 08:13:57 PM
I think that IDEALLY, only congressmen, or "congress people" to be P.C.
, with next of kin serving as enlisted men should be able to plead and act in favor of armed conflict. Congressmen who do not have close relatives in the front lines of our armed forces should be excluded from war mongering. They should retain their ability to veto a war proposition, but lose the ability to vote in favor of declaring war. It would appear to be the most effective preemptive barrier to a war we don't need or shouldn't be fighting in the first place. Granted, it's our job as voters to make sure the people on Capitol Hill are the right ones. Those who will put the interest of the Country ahead of their own specific and private political/economic agendas, and not declare widespread war as a de facto response to every perceived threat abroad. But other than a nationwide referendum preceding every major war operation, the only way to truly make sure that the decision makers will be included among those who will have to pick up the Bill*, is by making sure that they are exposed to the same hardships as that sector of society from which the boots will be taken to be put on the faraway ground.
*by "Bill" I mean caskets
Insuring that the people who make the decisions that lead us to war will take into consideration the same consequences as those who will be over there, in body or in spirit, will be a big step towards making the US a little more in tune with what a America should be like.
What do you think?
Post by: Matthew Carberry on April 16, 2008, 08:46:53 PM
Having served or having a relative serving gives you a particular viewpoint but no particular special knowledge of geo-political or strategic concerns.
The "need special qualifications to be allowed a voice" concept quickly leads to the end of representative democracy.
Post by: HankB on April 17, 2008, 03:56:23 AM
For example, when resistance was met in Fallujah, perhaps an order to "Level it!" would go out without too much concern about political correctness or objections from congresscritters with family in harm's way.
Ultimately, we might even end up with a system that starts to resemble the one in Heinlein's Starship Troopers.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on April 17, 2008, 04:12:22 AM
Post by: roo_ster on April 17, 2008, 04:54:21 AM
I think that IDEALLY, only congressmen, or "congress people" to be P.C. , with next of kin serving as enlisted men should be able to plead and act in favor of armed conflict. Congressmen who do not have close relatives in the front lines of our armed forces should be excluded from war mongering.
...
What do you think?
, with next of kin serving as enlisted men should be able to plead and act in favor of armed conflict. Congressmen who do not have close relatives in the front lines of our armed forces should be excluded from war mongering. ...
What do you think?
I think we live in a representative republic and that such a requirement is hare-brained.
(Apologies due the hares.)
Post by: grampster on April 17, 2008, 05:09:52 AM
We are watching a presidential debate right now that if gaffe's were dollars, the national debt would be 0. In the past if candidates lied, obfuscated and weazled to the extent that we are seeing now, they'd've been long gone.
Yeah, candidates have lied about promises. But, we've never seen what we're seeing now; lying about what they've done or not done, said or not said, thought or not thought or associated with the whom they have associated.
Post by: charby on April 17, 2008, 05:25:03 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on April 17, 2008, 08:41:38 AM
Quote
Ultimately, we might even end up with a system that starts to resemble the one in Heinlein's Starship Troopers.
And that really is not such a good idea. Why?
Because we [the West] an individualist society, whereas the military by its nature is a non-individualist system. Making it the exclusive privilege of former drill sergreants and army officers to run a society that does NOT run on the same operating principles as the military is bound to mess stuff up.
Post by: Finch on April 17, 2008, 10:14:42 AM
Quote
I think that I expect my representative to have the ability to vote on all the issues that concern the nation, that's their job.
Eh. I expect my representative to take my concerns to the Federal Government, to represent me. Not the entire nation.
Quote
Granted, it's our job as voters to make sure the people on Capitol Hill are the right ones.
You have to remember that 9 out of 10 people in this country think that we are a Democratic style of government. Hell, I have heard all three of the major presidential candidates call our country a Democracy. Nobody cares anymore. If they did, we wouldn't Have a McCain, Obama, Hillary race.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on April 17, 2008, 10:30:49 AM
What do you think?
I think it's another in a long line of hare-brained anti-war schemes. The number of congressmen with children in the service will probably always be smaller than the number without. Under your proposal it would be nigh impossible to get a majority vote in favor of war no matter how necessary the war might be. I think your plan would make it impossible to defend the nation. That's your goal, right?
Post by: MicroBalrog on April 17, 2008, 11:21:30 AM
Post by: HankB on April 17, 2008, 11:38:38 AM
HTG, you think someone would vote against war when a clear and present threat was imminent?
There was at least one vote against declaring war on Japan by a member of the U.S. House of Representatives on December 8, 1941. (Google "Jeanette Rankin")
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on April 17, 2008, 11:58:08 AM
HTG, you think someone would vote against war when a clear and present threat was imminent?
I don't know the exact number, but I bet there are less than a dozen current members of Congress with a child in the military. Under Blakenzy's plan, that means that less than 12 would be eligible to vote 'yay' on a war resolution. The other 500+ congressmen could only vote 'nay'. How do you think that kind of vote will turn out?
Post by: MicroBalrog on April 17, 2008, 12:00:40 PM
HTG, you think someone would vote against war when a clear and present threat was imminent?
There was at least one vote against declaring war on Japan by a member of the U.S. House of Representatives on December 8, 1941. (Google "Jeanette Rankin")Well, a point.
What I mean is, if America were attacked, any Congress, even made out entirely of Democrat war veterans, would vote to authorize the defense of the nation (though there might be dissent, but it's not a healthy country if there's no dissent).
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 17, 2008, 12:13:28 PM
Quote
I think that I expect my representative to have the ability to vote on all the issues that concern the nation, that's their job.
Eh. I expect my representative to take my concerns to the Federal Government, to represent me. Not the entire nation.
Response does not relate to comment cited. Please clarify.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on April 17, 2008, 06:59:56 PM
Quote
I think that I expect my representative to have the ability to vote on all the issues that concern the nation, that's their job.
Eh. I expect my representative to take my concerns to the Federal Government, to represent me. Not the entire nation.
Response does not relate to comment cited. Please clarify.
Thank you fistful. Wow you can be polite.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 17, 2008, 08:49:55 PM
Thank you fistful. Wow you can be polite.
OK, another compliment. Who are you people, and what have you done with my APS
Post by: roo_ster on April 18, 2008, 05:28:44 AM
They'll be back next week.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on April 18, 2008, 06:03:11 AM
The brow-beaters are off on vacation off the coast of Somalia, indulging in hard liquors, bawdy acts, lewd behaviors, and making the sea lanes safe for nubile French tourists.
They'll be back next week.
What?! They left without me! Those bastiches!
They'll be back next week.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 18, 2008, 01:40:28 PM
Post by: rocinante on April 19, 2008, 05:36:37 AM
Post by: Archie on April 19, 2008, 07:09:31 AM
So, you want to make decisions regarding national defense based on emotion, and limit that emotion to protecting one's own family? Do you really think emotional responses are the best way to run a country?
How about limiting the members of Congress who can vote on a tax increase to those who have an income within the middle thirty percent of Americans AND actually pay income (and other) taxes?
As mentioned, we should limit the members of Congress who can vote on gun control bills to those who own more than 'x' number of firearms with a minimum of semi-automatic pistols with magazine capacities over 12 rounds and at least one semi-automatic rifle with a plastic stock.
Perhaps we should redirect our efforts at getting reasonable and intelligent, pro American members elected to the House and Senate? That is already hard enough.
Post by: taurusowner on April 27, 2008, 07:40:50 PM
Quote
So, you want to make decisions regarding national defense based on emotion, and limit that emotion to protecting one's own family? Do you really think emotional responses are the best way to run a country?
That basically sums it up.
Post by: seeker_two on April 28, 2008, 01:20:16 AM
only representatives that own EBRs can create and vote on gun control bills.
Kinda like they're doing in Chicago?.... (see the M4 thread)....
Post by: wideym on April 29, 2008, 06:32:43 AM
You are not un-American for not having served in the military, it's not for everybody. I also would not approve of any parent who would pressure their child to serve only to heighten their own political agenda.
Although I loved Starship Troopers and expecially their form of goverment, remember it was always vollentary and hard earned.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 24, 2008, 04:08:56 AM
Quote
As mentioned, we should limit the members of Congress who can vote on gun control bills to those who own more than 'x' number of firearms with a minimum of semi-automatic pistols with magazine capacities over 12 rounds and at least one semi-automatic rifle with a plastic stock.
Some of the most pro-gun Representatives own no guns.