Any Politician That Votes For War Should Get Draftet First

I don’t care if it’s the 91 year old Senator Chuck Grassley, 86 year old House Representative is Grace Napolitano, if any of them votes to send money to any war, be it US fighting it or a proxy war, the rule should be that they need to be draftet first and they need to fight on the front lines directly, with no time provided for any training.

This should be enough to make them all think twice about not always asking for peace!

13 Likes

The key problem with this proposal is circumstances where there are legitimate circumstances for war. It would basically result in the US being a de facto pacifist nation that isn’t even allowed to defend itself if a foreign enemy declares war on the United States.

Plus, nobody has voted for war since WWII

No. Because something else would happen instead: Politicians wouldn’t become CAREER Politicians because they know that if they FAFO, they are going to be strapping on some boots.

You would see a mass resignation of Senior citizens in politics and only those willing to “fight on the front lines” would dare take up the calling.

REAL patriots.

This idea is brilliant, the more I think about it.

Voting to send money to fund the proxy wars in Ukraine, in Gaza, the money for wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, congress votes for all of that. Then the rule should be simple, any congressman or senator who votes to fund war in like Ukraine, they need to be drafted and sent to fight on the front lines directly. Even when it’s proxy wars, they need to be sent there as independent mercenaries, to the front lines themselves directly.

1 Like

This resonates with the stance on child soldiers we presented as the youth caucus at the Hague Peace conference in 1999. That the only acceptable age of conscription for a draft would be equal to the retirement age so that productivity and contribution to society not be wasted on bloodshed.

I support the idea of having our public servants put their mortality where their mouth is, and it resonates with the American mythos of our founding fathers being predominantly revolutionary war survivors.

The sentiment is agreeable but the implementation is tricky. In particular the requirements of front-line deployment and no time for training feel like they are beyond fairness and into backlash territory. They wouldn’t make for sustainable policy.

All Americans should severe in the military for 2 years.

if a politician is above the retirement age, maybe we could allow them to send one or two of their children at war, let’s say that two children are the minimum requirement if they are too old to go to the war themselves, And it wouldn’t be okay to let them take time to train because that could be trick for them to escape, the actual conflict So if they want to launch a war they need to be trained before doing the actual launch/financing of that war.

what I really want to avoid is the disgusting situation where a bunch of incompetent and quite evil politicians seem to be gladly sending other people’s children to fight and die in their proxy wars, these politicians need to have a direct implication and consequence when they make such important decision that has to do with any type of war anywhere in the world and can be by proxy.

I would vote against this lol
If we get to repeal the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 it would be a lot easier to become a politician and I’d love to be a politician in support of georgeism

No, and also remove the draft.

If this ever passed (it wouldn’t) you would very quickly see a mass resignation of politicians into jobs with “charities”, and then it might actually be hard to get anyone to become a politician - a good thing.

Net result: Good. Do it.

Consider it from a practical standpoint - For the US to vote for war, it would require that at least half of Congress would then be sent to war, effectively crippling the government immediately after voting for war.

In World War II, for example, only a single person voted ‘No’ to declare war on Japan, an individual who was a strict pacifist. So with a system like this in place, you would have had either 1) required that the US look the other way after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and declared war on the US; 2) require that the government be left in the hands of people who would primarily be focused on ending the war rather than actually winning the war.

It’s an impractical system at best that makes it impossible for America to even fight a war of self defense.