WiggleMyDick
94176
2941
119
May 30, 2019 1:54 AM
WiggleMyDick
94176
2941
119
Pokedmeinthecoconut
If given the chance, most people would say no to war. They would do so up until they are being invaded and then would surrender.
Bizarkly
Curiously, *all* the major Presidential candidates that year claimed that they'd keep American boys out of the 'European War' : did not tho.
sigurd2
There was a similar suggestion once that the president would have to kill a man for the code to use nuclear weapons.
CorgisButtsDriveMeNuts
Should still be like that, everywhere. We'd be out of wars really quickly.
tastelessnessly
Ah, the great non-war of 1916...
TotallySaneScientist
That makes no sense. Voting yes doesn't ensure it will pass; meaning whoever the flip gets the remote has your number.
TotallySaneScientist
Not to mention the nation can't be held accountable for itself, and really neither can politicians. The only winning move is blah blah blah.
DontKissMeBro
People who voted no would likely get drafted as well
Ugly4ever
Unless you have money and/or bone spurs.
SydneySleeper
Those damn bone spurs. I couldn't enlist, so I had to join my college football team instead
Iwilleatyourchicken
Now the war pigs have the power .....
KeithE01
Service guarantees citizenship, would you like to know more? Heinlein has it right, serve or shut up.
DaisyfromDownunder
And their sphincter tightens.
neospor1n
And I’d like an amendment, if you have children between 18-25, they also have to enlist.
Shadoweclipse13
I like it. People are dumb, so the votes would probably go pretty badly for a while, but I at least like the idea of taking a vote to see...
Shadoweclipse13
/2 where the public stands on these issues. I think the biggest problem is that we need news sources we can absolutely trust, instead of...
Shadoweclipse13
/3 the hatred-fueled bile that the likes of Fox News, Breitbart, Info Wars, and trump are spewing out.
liebermandean11
So Hillary would enlist as a Privat
Rifneno
Terrible idea. Nobody wants to fight WW2, but that war had to be fought. We definitely need to find a way to cut back on wars, but not this.
mrprogamer96
Kind of, you see at the time America was isolationist but still got it self a few good wars, today America has troops all over the world.
SerenePrincess013
Pretty sure the enlistment numbers going up by something like 300% after Pearl Harbor makes your statement false.
Kingsdotter
Yeah, but they went after Germany first because they were the bigger threat and Germany didn't inspire those enlistment numbers.
CongratsYouAreHereNow
enlistment rates skyrocketed after pearl harbor
DaFinnishMan
True but would the amount of voluntary enlistments be enough to win the war
CongratsYouAreHereNow
only 20% of soldiers in ww2 were drafted, but you raise a valid point
Gawky
but the Us hasn't declared war in forever, its just "conflicts" now
lawideas
Yeah, we should be more like 1916. When women didn't vote so their ineligibility for the draft didn't matter.
nine11evo
Sign me up....again.
userfriendly19777
Oh no. All these brave homefront warriors being asked to go to war themselves instead of bellowing from the rear.
MartinStevel
Very interesting idea. Its always fat old men that decide to send young people into meat grinders to lose limbs, their minds, or their lives
Camelspotting
Plenty of people volunteer for it.
ThisNosoi
You would honestly rather our army consist primarily of fat old men?
MornieAlantie
It would amuse me to see Congress and/or trump in uniform attempting some physically demanding training.
ThisNosoi
ok yeah, that i would like to see.
sadstory
As we continue into a more equitable society it will also be fat old women also.
GeneralGinger531
I feel like "Non-defensive" should be applied to that title. You cannot really vote out of a war that comes to you.
NlessWonder
a Supreme Court decision in the 30s said that if a company can’t pay their employees a living wage they shouldn’t be in business.
NlessWonder
In business.
zenoshogun
But a police action is not a war, checkmate constitutional amendment.
FractalPrism
rule #2, all elected and appointed officials must vote on acts of war, no exceptions ever.
Jadora
The politicians that decide to start wars should pick up guns n go the fight they have such a boner for.
Callistan
I feel like the "put acts of war to a national vote" part is problematic too. 72% of Americans supported war against Iraq in March 2003.
CrusherOfCities
Also, what good is it gonna do if Roseanne Barr is drafted to fight? MAYBE 10-15% of the US population is fit for service. Probably less.
changedusernamecosmykiddiscoveredmyrudeone
The people were hurt, angry, and misled. The need for revenge and action was particularly strong at the time.
othelloinc
While this is an explanation, it is not an excuse. Feeling a "need for revenge and action" against a 2nd unrelated country was inexcusable.
Findrek
They were also led to believe Iraq was responsible by people we are suppose to be able go trust.
WorthEveryPenny
We should have known when Bush's ear was getting whispers from Kissinger. A blatant warmonger. Just like Bolton for trump now
CityYeti
It's a wonder how Kissinger is even a person. How did he ever get a gal like Ann Fleischer?
graffr
So 72% of muricans should go to Iraq ;)
QueenCousland
I'm ashamed to say I'm one of them. I thought the government knew what it was doing. I think about that a lot.
MightyMorphinPowerPenguins
Cool, so 72% of Americans actually gain an understanding of what war is and does to people.
Duraxis
Pretty sure the majority of Americans wanted to side with Germany in WW1 too
GlassSword
There were "sources", that only news outlets were privy to, that said Iraq potentially had WMD's and more than likely DID have WMD's.
TK421isAFK
We know they had them and the technology to make certain large-scale weapons because we (the US) fucking gave them to Saddam Hussein to 1/2
TK421isAFK
fight the Ayatollah in Iran in the early 1980s. The problem was, Saddam started using them to commit genocide on his own citizens, and 2/3
TK421isAFK
there was credible evidence Saddam was going to provide WMD to bin Laden. Don't forget the WTC was bombed in 1993, which was perpetrated 3/4
TK421isAFK
by Ramzi Yousef, the nephew of Khalid Mohammed, a senior al Queda leader and the architect of the Sept 11th attacks. 4/4
Foxsayy
What sources? If I recall correctly the UN repeatedly informed us they were currently deployed there and saw no signs of nuclear weapons
swanglemydangle
That's not what the u.s. government told it's people repeatedly. The movie "Fair Game" was based on this.
CplReiker
WMD includes chemical and biological, Iraq had used chemical before.
Howbowdaht
Read it again, it was tongue in cheek
GlassSword
Exactly, there weren't any, if you recall correctly you'd remember news coverage about WMD's in Iraq that we know were unsubstantiated /1
GlassSword
And for which we didn't even get so much as an, "oops, my bad", once the smoke cleared. /2
Sumtinstink
Chemical weapons.. not just nukes. Which those CWs were sent to Syria. Even CNN reported that.. years after.
TK421isAFK
Weapons of Mass Destruction is a broad category; nuclear weapons are only a small part of that big group.
Nalianna
More like, " WMD is an intentionally vague category, so when you're called out on it, you can fall back on something else."
TheManInTheWall
While you are correct, there was no WMD evidence either
TK421isAFK
The evidence were the chemical weapons we (the US) gave him, and the ones he used against the Kurds to commit genocide.
PigsWeGetWhatPigsDeserve
After an intense, month long campaign full of lies in wich the upper echelon and main stream media gladly participated.
bobon123
No acts of foreign policy can be put to vote, it would just be crazy. What if the day after the vote it becomes clear it is a bad idea? 1/
othelloinc
Q: "What if the day after the vote it becomes clear it is a bad idea?" A: They'd call it Brexit.
jimmyhowlett
Then maybe you should do research BEFORE you vote. It would be a good learning experience for the ones who survive
bobon123
Yes, because nothing ever happens of unexpected in war situations. Everything is very easy to research, nothing is complex and unforseen. /s
bobon123
What if we start the war and we are immediately losing it? Is a couple days of war OK, or we have to fight for at least a week? You 2/
bobon123
cannot tie foreign policy to a one shot vote, removing any negotiating power from your head of states (that cannot say anymore: do that 3/
bobon123
or we will attack, since he is not the one deciding). Without thinking to the foreign propaganda to affect the vote. Most countries 4/
bobon123
forbid referendums for foreign policy matters for this reason. When you don't forbid it? Just look at Brexit. 5/5
ShortArmOfTheLaw
Support would be a lot lower if by supporting you had to enlist.
Falkornn
It's easy to say what "we" should do when we is somebody else.
HoboStabWound
So only healthy middle-aged people could vote? Or is my grandmother going to go through combat training?
Falkornn
Don't think Grams could hang?
PoppaBigBear
No, 72% supported other people going to war against Iraq. That's why 72% of people didn't voluntarily enlist to go fight themselves.
sadarax
Since women don't have to serve in any capacity in any drafts for war, should they be allowed to vote in such a thing?
HanesForMen
Women have to serve in the draft now
HanesForMen
Why would someone downvote that, it’s true. Look it up.
Waitihavesomething4this
Men don’t serve in any capacity of childbearing should you be allowed a vote in that?
CocktailSnobTilImDrunk
Women weren't allowed to vote in 1916 you dumbass.
derekjohn
did in Britain during WW2
0masuk0
Unmarried women and childless widows. Yeah, in modern age there are things to think about this.
derekjohn
Why has this been downvoted ? I'm just stating a fact.
Kingsdotter
Americans don't want to learn from other countries.
jebstat59365
I vote we require all potential adversaries to enact similar laws first... Then I'm all for it...
dafawkudoin
Coyote8
Because you can tell your bullies how to act XD
CongratsYouAreHereNow
wut?
OppoQuinn
They're suggesting that it would put the US as a disadvantage, as the voting process would limit ability to preempt wars compared to others.
CongratsYouAreHereNow
ah, that's not actually a bad point. thanks for the clarification
AtsaMattaForMe
orivalx
WART WART WART
PicassoCT
No Shoes, no shirt, no service, no citizenship. Exhibitionism gets you to the badlands!
xKaraKx
Im down
MerToo
er...I would like to know more
Larrimus1
I kind of agree,but if America were to do that,they better make becoming a citizen without serving in our military much easier than itis now
END3RW1GGIN
Serving already guarantees citizenship. https://www.uscis.gov/military/naturalization-through-military-service
END3RW1GGIN
I knew a few Filipino men who served in WW2 that were granted citizenship because they joined while we were over there.
TheRelevancyOfMyNameIsRelativelyIrrelevant
not anymore, trump administration has denied naturalization to some who are/were military, and attempted to deport others.
END3RW1GGIN
Source?
xKaraKx
Service was never exclusively military in the book. You could be a lot of different, difficult jobs to gain citivenship
Arnoxthe1
This. They were usually really bad jobs, but yeah, it wasn't just military.
TheRelevancyOfMyNameIsRelativelyIrrelevant
in starship troopers, there was a minimum amount of service to become a 1st class citizen, otherwise you were 2nd class.
mumumumumysharona
buttbuttpartywagon
I would like to know more
Arnoxthe1
Very basically, in the book, if you signed up for a horrible govt job for a set amount of time, you'd get voting rights.
buttbuttpartywagon
Well, there was far more benefits to being a citizen vs civilian.
AmateurCaulkRingEnthusiast
Im a fan of service of some kind for all (barring disability), be it medical, conservation, first responders, military etc. In return free
AmateurCaulkRingEnthusiast
Education and medical etc should be provided.
LizardEnterprises
Something else to consider: Imagine if this had passed, then Pearl Harbor happened, and we'd need to organize an entire national ballot
JHawke
AIGHT PEOPLE CAN I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION, EVERYONE WHO VOTES YES MOVE TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF COLORADO PLEASE.
LizardEnterprises
before we could respond. "Shame about those dead sailors, but we need to wait three months for Bumfuck Montana to send their ballots back"
[deleted]
[deleted]
LizardEnterprises
Pretty sure we started redeploying assets immediately. It might have taken us that long to launch an attack, but that's hardly the same.
amglasgow
1916 was well after the telegraph made it easy to get information from remote areas.
LizardEnterprises
It takes a *long* time to set up a vote. Months sometimes, and it can take a long time to count too. It took California ~two weeks in 2016
amglasgow
I'm just saying it won't take remote parts of the country any longer than highly populated parts.
Arnoxthe1
Acts of defense do not count as acts of war.
FartyMcDumpstein
The department of defense used to be called the department of war.
Tikityler
The best defense is a good offense.
Kingsdotter
Some Saudis flew into our buildings so we will defend ourselves by attacking Iraq.
LizardEnterprises
Thats debateable and definitely depends on your definitions of defense and war.
VodkaReindeer
I think everyone else just assumed that this would only apply to situations where you're not already in a war.
DunkinDugnutts
We had not joined the war at that time. Presumably this post refers to joining wars as well as starting them.
VodkaReindeer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_declaration_of_war_on_the_United_States_and_the_British_Empire
LizardEnterprises
Regardless of who blows up what, we're not in a war until we declare one.
LizardEnterprises
The Republic of Artsakh could declare war on us tomorrow, but we would not be at war, and *could* not be, because we don't recognize them.
LizardEnterprises
BTW If anyone doesn't know who or what the Republic of Artsakh is, or thinks I made it up, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unBdquVfnug
VodkaReindeer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_declaration_of_war_on_the_United_States_and_the_British_Empire
LizardEnterprises
It takes two to play war. Japan may have been at war with us then, but we weren't at war with Japan until we declared war back.
fpsnoob
As someone that voluntarily joined the military, this sounds really dumb for me.
obzelite
you think its dumb that people get to send you to war while they sit at home?
fpsnoob
No
RichHammond
Do you think it's dumb that you have to do a job you voluntarily signed up for, knowing the risks, while others just sit at home?
Tikityler
Do you think its dumb babies and elderly stay at home while young adults go to war for them? Not arguing if the war is just only the concept
Larrimus1
Why?
HoboStabWound
Because the whole country benefits from being safe, including unhealthy and young/elderly people that can't serve.
fpsnoob
Because punishing someone for voting undermines the whole process.
TheSecondPiewackit
Because those are the kind of shitbags you don't want to serve with. A SM should be fighting for the obsolesence of their job.
PorneliusHubertII
If you vote is pro war then you damn well better support the war effort.
Dancal5
What about vital jobs such as in education, medicine, industry and agriculture. They are non combat but support the war effort nonetheless.
PorneliusHubertII
Military needs field medics. They can enlist the farmers and the factory workers and use as reserve units.
icecubetray
Agreed. Don’t think America would’ve helped in wwii with this and god knows what would’ve happened
TheManInTheWall
America wouldve 100% joined after pearl harbour. Nobody would let a foreign power attack them and simply roll over
CongratsYouAreHereNow
i don't think so, enlistment skyrocketed after pearl harbor
PorneliusHubertII
America wasn't going to help until we were attacked. Pretty sure we would have still voted for war given the opportunity.
sadstory
Pretty much only if the Japanese took it into consideration for their attack plans on pearl harbor.
VodkaReindeer
If joining the military is a punishment and you did you it voluntarily, does that make you a masochist?
fpsnoob
Joining by choice and being required to join are two very different things.
humaneffigy
The fact that you joined the military and call this punishment is funny.
fpsnoob
Joining by choice and being required to join are two very different things.
humaneffigy
Fighting a war by choice and being forced to are proba lypretty different too.
Sumdumguy42
It’s not punishment. It’s “put your money where your mouth is” or “you voted yes, now help to ensure your vote will be executed.”
benm421
Playing devils advocate, should only those who increase spending, say for education, be forced to pay for the increase? The choice one makes
benm421
in voting ought not change one's responsibility to upholding the outcome. The purpose is to choose the direction for the entire electorate,
sadstory
I'm sure there are some out there, but I'm having a hard time thinking of other issues where this would also make sense.
Sumdumguy42
And why does “this” need to be applicable to other issues?
mrsnigh
As horrible as war is, what about when it's inevitable or necessary? Isolationism is a good policy most days but I'd be afraid that (1/2)
Sumdumguy42
I’m living in a country that hasn’t gone to war in close to 75years now. My neighboring countries also didn’t wage war in that time.
mrsnigh
Fear might stagnate our reaction. I think that part of the reason why the decision to go to war is left those that won't fight (2/3)
qazxswedcvfrtgbnhyujmkiol
I agree this is not the correct way to do it, but it would be nice to have people be accountable for making major decisions often without ¹
qazxswedcvfrtgbnhyujmkiol
weighing the consequences because they themselves won't be affected. ²
fpsnoob
Every male in us 18+ is already required to sign up for selective service and can be called upon in a draft.