If we have a Draft should the decision to make War be made Democratic?

[JanMichael]

"Democratic" in that the people doing the killing and dying have a say before we actually commit?

At least for Wars of Aggression, Defence is a different issue, beaches with hostile landing craft hardly give the opportunity for debate.

IIRC old Smedley Butler ( http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm ) proposed an idea like that. Hell he wanted those fortunate (The rat bastards that increase their fortunes off of the death and destruction of War) war profiteers to take the going military salary should their grand plans be implemented. Can you imagine the Halliburton folks taking a Private's salary?!

Better yet...Super Democratic with a 66% needed of active soldiers for Aggressive actions?

I've also been reading Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia" (About his experiances in the Spanish Civil War/Spanish Revolution) and his comments on the "patriotic" writers who never saw the front line, or the politicians who ignite the nation to War yet rarely take a bullet for their decisions, make me think he might agree. He held those "Chicken Hawks" in utter contempt as do I.

If we are a Democracy, if we indeed wish to be one, why not?

[lcordero]

1. better yet make the draft age people the only eligible

voters:D

[JanMichael]

2. Nah. Unless the draft age was 18 to infinity.

Which from what I've heard from the local retired blowhards might not be such a bad idea:evilgrin:

[laura888]

3. absolutely! In a true democracy, individual decisions would be voted on..

...rather than people.

[Cleita]

4. I have advocated this for a long time but no one listens.

I believe everyone should go into the military for two years, male and female, so that everyone in the country has military training. BUT, I think actually going to war should be voluntary. Americans now have proved in the past that they are more than willing to give their lives for their country when there is a real threat like WWII. However, I believe that neither Korea, nor Vietnam or either Iraq wars would have happened if serving in combat was voluntary.

My thought would be that training every young person out of high school or college makes a ready supply of trained soldiers, flyers, sailors, astronauts, whatever. So if one is needed for war it would be a matter of a few weeks training to catch up with the latest technology. So, just wars would be fought and wars for profit would die on the vine.

Maybe I'm just a crazy old lady to think this.

[Snappy]

5. Why?

Why are females from 18 to 26 not required to sign up for Selective Service?

[HereSince1628]

6. Seriously...

Defense from attack really can't wait for a vote...so something like the warpowers act has to be in place.

Having said that, giving the president a period of 60 days to respond and then requiring an unavoidable authorization vote would take things back to where the founders placed it.

The misuse of the war powers act and continuing resolutions for funding combat/hostile action without a declaration of war over the past 55 years is just how we ended up in a situation where a crazed-cabal can take the country into the atrocity of pre-emptive war.

[JanMichael]

7. I mentioned the defence situation, it's not plausible.

But the Aggression issue might have legs?

[Muddleoftheroad]

8. Nope

Direct democracy stops working when a nation gets large. We're well past the point where that is a viable form of government.

[Valjean]

9. Draft is UN-Democratic

In a just war scenario, people sign up to fight. If the war is rotten and stupid, people DON'T sign up.


This is the form of voting for war that we should use. Yea votes are counted as enlistments. Hawks should sign up FIRST since they want war so much. That might change the equation!!!!!