this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2023
626 points (93.1% liked)

World News

32328 readers
148 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] flossdaily 209 points 1 year ago (6 children)

How about a new rule that if you vote for a war, you are automatically enlisted. And if you're ineligible to enlist you must either abstain or vote no.

[–] [email protected] 76 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

Congress members get as many votes for war as they have draft-age family members. For each vote they cast, they must enlist 1 family member. Starting with their own children.

[–] [email protected] 47 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Some of em don't care about their kids. They can go fight, themselves.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 year ago

Some of em don't care about their kids.

As evidenced by their complete lack of concern regarding climate change.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 year ago

Nah just ship the congressmen/women off with the infantry. Then they can see exactly what they're voting for.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Given the low regard for their children and grandchildren they show when it comes to climate change, I doubt that would be an adequate deterrent.

[–] flossdaily 7 points 1 year ago

Senators are (with few exceptions) extraordinarily wealthy. When climate change is destroying crops and making some areas uninhabitable, these senators' families will still be living very comfortably.

[–] JJROKCZ 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Most of their kids are 55+, they can’t enlist lol

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

No different than having no kids.

No kids we can send to war? No right to vote for war.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

Why not?... Look at the Russian soldiers fighting in Ukraine, they clearly look like 60+.

[–] flossdaily 10 points 1 year ago

As if someone like Trump would even give a second thought to sending his kids off to war?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

I see an obvious exploit with this: congress members enlisting family members who would rather vote 'No' just so they can get more votes for their own choice.

You might think "nobody would enlist their child to fight a war that they're against" but I promise you, there are people like that.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

many have already gladly voted yes for both many times. I don’t think that will stop enough of them.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

We basically had that a century ago, before the nobility moved behind the scenes and became the 1%

Unqualified scions were sent to the battlefield to gain military merits, which was generally bad for everyone. I'm pretty sure it only really stopped after WWI, when the death toll from combat started getting ridiculous

[–] c0mbatbag3l 38 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Smedley Butler solved this issue back in the 1920's, change the vote from Congress to eligible draftees to solve us going to war for stupid reasons.

Then during times of war, lock down every individual's income and ability to earn money to that of the soldier. Keeping war profiteering from stretching wars on indefinitely.

It's radical, but would probably keep us from just "being at war" eternally. A reality we have had to live in since at least 9/11.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago

The problem these "add a meta policy" proposals all have in common is that they assume we have any control over the legislature... which we don't have; they don't work for us at all. At this point only organizing and other direct action will have any significant impact on actual policy.

In this particular case, legislators would continue to receive bribe income that they refuse to acknowledge as bribery.

[–] TheDubh 8 points 1 year ago

The problem is the us hasn’t had a formal declaration of war since WW2. Basically we’ve just had military engagements. Some haven’t even been authorized by congress.

Basically we’d need to fix that issue before worrying about the other suggestions. Else it’d just be military engagement not a war so don’t need to fallow them.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is the US even still involved in a war since 2021? At least through direct action.

[–] c0mbatbag3l 3 points 1 year ago

The Global War on Terror is what it's called, it's just a neverending operation of military sorties across the world to support whatever and wherever.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Unfortunately he was a Lieutenant commander in the Navy. Going back probably doesn’t concern him.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I think it would only make sense if that war actually happens.