Who wants to form a movement to send government to actual war?

Since none of our elected officials fought in the wars they voted for over the last couple of decades, who of you would support a measure to send all who voted for wars to finish off what US military could not in Afghanistan etc?

 

lol. Yes, let's send Bush and Obama to guard poppy fields in Afghanistan.

 

OK, but there is only one such movement which can actually make that happen without lolling. the movement is pvsi.net

 

No! Diplomatic immunity you know?

 

Why don't presidents fight the war? Why do they always send the poor? -- System of a Down

 

This is insane. A person should not be sent to fight a war they support.

 

Is this the same movement that demands more taxation so people can get a taxpayer-funded bailout on their student loans?

 

President? I disagree. All the politicians that voted in favor to the war. If they want to start a war, they must go a while, too.

 

Agreed, but also if they pass healthcare measures they have to work as doctors for a year, or education reform? they have to go back to school!

 

We have a volunteer military. Until they institute the draft and force people in to the military I see no problem with elected officials who have direct access to foreign policy issues making choices for our military. Everyone I have ever met in the military, which is a lot being in Alaska... knows what they are getting in to. I'm sure the resident forum military members will say the same.

 

And keep in mind these elected officials are being advised by military members who have served for decades. It's not like President Bush drafted up the Iraq War in the bathroom. He had military intelligence and military officers advising him on what to do.

 

No. where the hell did you get that idea?

 

Fine, but do you have a problem when politicians lie to people to get elected and then do the opposite?

[video=youtube;F9SOVzMV2bc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9SOVzMV2bc[/video]

 

Yeah, but if every nation did it there wouldn't be enough war, or potential for it, to justify a $700 billion defense budget. Since government spending is such a wonderful economic vitamin pill, we might suffer from military malnutrition as a result of the policy.

 

???? Eh?
Is this a serious argument or some kind of sarcasm that I don't get.

Seriously, the war budget(more correct than defense) is not necessary for anything.

 

heh - it was some kind of sarcasm that you didn't get - my bad. My sarcasm was directed several areas through a warped combination of of those areas. To be specific, I combined the notions that - 1. we are strapped to a huge expense of defense preparation when threats to our survival are believed (whether correctly or incorrectly) to exist almost everywhere; 2. we entertain the strange belief that more government spending (e.g. defense, et al) results in more benefits to more people; 3. it would seem that since wars would be less likely if the very politicians that voted for them would have to serve "on the front lines", then war would tend to go out of style, thus damaging an economy so heavily invested in it, as well the political careers of those that are empowered by its once constant threats.

 

It was a matter of honor in the ancient world that the leader lead in war time. How could you ask more of your people than you were willing to give yourself? And what does student loan bailout have to do with the topic at hand which is the lacking of honor?

 

Because rich (old) men wage wars, poor (young) men fight wars.