Would you support a law

[Dissent]

That bans congress members from voting to send the military into ANY actions unless they themselves had served? Maybe then they would know what its like to go to war and it would stop a good bit of this needless war mongering...yes or no? Why or why not?

 

[AmyNation]

No.

Should we also demand that any member of congress voting on a budget, provide their bank records to prove they balance their checkbook?

We don't want a goverment made up of only soliders. While I think the idea comes from a good place, it's not something I would support.

 

[Avatar4321]

That's the dumbest thing Ive ever heard.

 

[Ernie S.]

Of course not! I have to agree with Amy, above

 

[Ernie S.]

That's the dumbest thing Ive ever heard.

You expected more from indecent?

 

[Dissent]

Typical. Lets just let draft dodgers and hippies send our sons and daughters to war when they were afraid or they cheated their way out of going...makes perfect sense.

 

[Dissent]

And I wondered why the country was dumb enough to elect Clinton twice,Bush twice and Obama....yeah...not hard to see why...

 

[Leweman]

By that logic then no member of congress should be able to vote on any law unless they are personally experienced.

 

[Ragnar]

That bans congress members from voting to send the military into ANY actions unless they themselves had served? Maybe then they would know what its like to go to war and it would stop a good bit of this needless war mongering...yes or no? Why or why not?

No.

1 - I would not support any law that limited the voice of one elected representative over another under any circumstances concerning a given issue.

2 - Prior military service is no guarantee against poor military policy.

3 - Such a law would encourage military service as a means to Congressional authority as opposed to the defense of one's family and Country.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Not at all. The flip side to your dumb poll is that congress also has the option to vote against sending our troops to war.

 

[Dissent]

I was thinking in the context of the idiotic kind of government we have now. Preferably I would want very little to no government over me. I don't see what is so wrong about making sure the people who send boys and girls to die in pointless wars should have served themselves so they know what its like maybe they would not be so quick to do so when they know what its like...but of course....we are dealing with sheeple who don't want a smart law passed...they pass laws restricting the people yet we can't do the same to them....just another reason I recognize no government,no flag,nothing over me...I control my life,my body,my property and home, and my children until they are 18 years old.

 

[healthmyths]

I was thinking in the context of the idiotic kind of government we have now. Preferably I would want very little to no government over me. I don't see what is so wrong about making sure the people who send boys and girls to die in pointless wars should have served themselves so they know what its like maybe they would not be so quick to do so when they know what its like...but of course....we are dealing with sheeple who don't want a smart law passed...they pass laws restricting the people yet we can't do the same to them....just another reason I recognize no government,no flag,nothing over me...I control my life,my body,my property and home, and my children until they are 18 years old.

You really think very little of politicians as human beings it appears?

I'm trying to understand your rationale in that past congresses were flippantly sending troops to their deaths.. willy nilly... no justifications whatever ..just because they were stupid!

You have succumbed to that cliched, worn out "make love not war" meme haven't you?

Evidently you think if some group just comes over with 3 hijacked planes and kills 3,000 civilians destroyed billions of property in the worst attack on this country we should just say oh hum... another day in america!

Would that be your response?
Or maybe when the French asked the USA to honor the SouthEast Asia Treaty Organization that the USA signed to help in case a member country was invaded as was Vietnam.. we should say..oh hum... sorry we didn't mean it when we signed that treaty.

Or When Saddam signed the 1991 Cease Fire to save his life and he continued to break it dozens of times murdering his own people in far worse fashion then current Assad is doing in syria for which the current administration wants war with syria.. you would say "Saddam that's ok.. we didn't mean the Cease Fire that stopped you from invading other countries in the middle east if we hadn't kicked your butt"!
And You probably it sounds like were cheering with Saddam when 9/11 occurred were you cheering?

Finally I'm sure when England/France were involved in battling Hitler.. why you would have said..hey
so what? Am I my brother's keeper " to all those relatives in Europe of Americans in the USA?

But of course YOU being the chicken shit that you are.. you would SAY hey we don't need to get involved!
It's NOT our fight! Over and over again.. THE USA has been involved for ONE simple reason that MANY traitors like you seem to ignore..
THE USA is made up of millions of people from all over the world that had families,relatives in Europe Asia etc. that were suffering and their relatives were telling US Americans...begging us as one family member to another "Please help"!!!

AND fortunately there were millions of Americans that unlike chicken shits like you that understood when their relatives needed help THEY WENT and DIED to help their European/Asian relatives!

What is wrong with that... are we not as Obama keeps preaching (except when it comes to his brother!!) our brother's keeper????

 

[Pasco08]

No that is kind of ludicrous.

 

[Sherry]

I was thinking in the context of the idiotic kind of government we have now. Preferably I would want very little to no government over me. I don't see what is so wrong about making sure the people who send boys and girls to die in pointless wars should have served themselves so they know what its like maybe they would not be so quick to do so when they know what its like...but of course....we are dealing with sheeple who don't want a smart law passed...they pass laws restricting the people yet we can't do the same to them....just another reason I recognize no government,no flag,nothing over me...I control my life,my body,my property and home, and my children until they are 18 years old.

Our service men and women do not hold the same perspective...as long as there is not forced military service, I can respect the choice and risk that people who choose to join are willing to accept.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Whether they served or not Age and Wisdom is supposed to stop Men from "War Mongering".

 

[g5000]

That bans congress members from voting to send the military into ANY actions unless they themselves had served? Maybe then they would know what its like to go to war and it would stop a good bit of this needless war mongering...yes or no? Why or why not?

For decades after World War 2 you could not get elected unless you had served. In fact, that is the genesis of the attitude you are expressing now and why we make a big deal out of Presidential candidates and their service, or lack of it, to this day.

And yet, with a Congress jammed with combat veterans, we still got involved in Korea and Vietnam.

.

 

[Ernie S.]

By that logic then no member of congress should be able to vote on any law unless they are personally experienced.

Let's go through the vote on ACA and disqualify all votes by Congressmen who are not MD's
In the current Congress, there are 16 medical doctors. 12 are Republicans.

 

[Pasco08]

By that logic then no member of congress should be able to vote on any law unless they are personally experienced.

Agreed

 

[MikeK]

I understand your thinking in the matter and your intentions are clearly positive. But the more I think about the idea, under existing circumstances, the less inclined I am to agree with it. Mainly because having served in the military is no assurance of competence or honorable disposition and such a law would exclude competent and honorable persons who for one reason or another have never served.

However, if the draft were active I would agree with assigning preference to someone who fulfilled his military obligation vs an opponent who managed to circumvent it.

And I am very much in favor of activating the draft.

 

[Noomi]

That bans congress members from voting to send the military into ANY actions unless they themselves had served? Maybe then they would know what its like to go to war and it would stop a good bit of this needless war mongering...yes or no? Why or why not?

Yes, because it is fucking pathetic that they claim that war is necessary but will do everything to prevent their own kids from serving.

Hypocritical tools.