A law stating who goes to war first

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

In my opinion, there should be a law that states: If a president is going to declare war, then his children and all the politicians' children should be sent off to defend the country before civilians' children.

What do you think of my suggestion? Pros, cons, all hypothetical situations welcome.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,191 • Replies: 27

No top replies

Sounds good, initially. They sure would make handy hostages, if captured, though.

How about a draft determined by lottery within age groups. No deferments. None.

0 Replies

Re: A law stating who goes to war first

riddler wrote:

In my opinion, there should be a law that states: If a president is going to declare war, then his children and all the politicians' children should be sent off to defend the country before civilians' children.

What do you think of my suggestion? Pros, cons, all hypothetical situations welcome.

Not much.

The children of politicians are individual human beings. How is it fair to them that if their parent's support a war, they must fight in it?

The people who decide that we will go to war are too old to effectively fight in any such war. There is no moral founding what-so-ever to force the children of these politicians to fight in the wars of their parent's choosing.

Frankly, this is the worst kind of ideas: appealing at a base emotional level, but morally reprehensible.

0 Replies

Re: A law stating who goes to war first

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

The children of politicians are individual human beings. How is it fair to them that if their parent's support a war, they must fight in it?

The people who decide that we will go to war are too old to effectively fight in any such war. There is no moral founding what-so-ever to force the children of these politicians to fight in the wars of their parent's choosing.

Frankly, this is the worst kind of ideas: appealing at a base emotional level, but morally reprehensible.

He hit the nail on the head. You can't force anyone to do anything, basically (unless its forcing them to serve a prison term). It would be nice to see politicians back up their tough talk by having their kids involved (lord knows I would love to read about the Bush twins serving in Iraq), but it just won't work.

People have rights.

0 Replies

It's a volunteer service. If they are dumb enough to sign up, they're dumb enough to be sent to places like Iraq! If they don't want to be sent to Iraq, don;t sign up!

0 Replies

The idea of the guys who started it leading the charge is very appealing indeed! Very Happy

0 Replies

StSimon, I'm glad I read your entire post. The second sentence summed up my entire feeling about the military.

I think only people who have served in the military should be president. I give more of a nod for those who have actually served in combat. I give no credit for someone who served and then throught their medals away. Or was that ribbons? Or was that somebody elses ribbons?

I do agree however, that during an absolute draft, there should be no deferments.

I also agree that females should be drafted as well, and that the only restrictions placed on them would be realistic lifting requirements.

0 Replies

How about we solve all international conflicts that would result in war by a duel between the two leaders?

0 Replies

What kind of a duel, though?

It could be a series of contests -- all the better if it tested skills actually needed to govern, though I'm sure there would have to be some actual bloodletting to appease the testosterone contingent.

0 Replies

how about society matures enough to realize that all war is stupid and to be avoided.

0 Replies

How about if each is armed with plastic picnic knives and forks.

0 Replies

sporks?

0 Replies

It could not possibly be more obvious that this will never happen.

Furthermore, even if such a rule were enacted, it would probably prevent presidents from declaring wars that were vitally necessary to their countries' safety.

0 Replies

Makem mud wrestle for it!

0 Replies

we all do realize that leaders of countries have not battled each other for about 2000 years or more

0 Replies

devo

0 Replies

Let women negotiate treaties. So we will sit down, have a nice piece of cake, some hot coffee, and talk about how we can create a peaceful situation. The guys have been playing Rambo for much too long, and look where it has got us. I think that women are much better at coming to peaceful conclusions.

0 Replies

ralpheb wrote:

we all do realize that leaders of countries have not battled each other for about 2000 years or more

What a pill! :wink: You have no imagination at all! Razz

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Let women negotiate treaties. So we will sit down, have a nice piece of cake, some hot coffee, and talk about how we can create a peaceful situation. The guys have been playing Rambo for much too long, and look where it has got us. I think that women are much better at coming to peaceful conclusions.

We gave Madeline Albright a chance with North Korea and look how that turned out.

0 Replies

I think all parties should drop ecstasy prior to negotiating treaties.

0 Replies

A law stating who goes to war first

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know