ATS Debate on War and Referendums

Question: Should the government be legally obliged to hold a national referendum on every war it commits us to?
If not for “small” wars (like Iraq) then shouldn’t there be a referendum to enforce “Subscription” (National Service)?

I’ve heard from a friend of a friend holding a senior post in the Bush Administration that there is talk to bring Subscription to the agenda in 17 months if the trend in under recruitment for the U.S military persists. Shouldn’t there be at least a referendum on that question should it arise?


[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

Of course there should be a referendum. Of course if it were up to me Congress would be out of the job, replaced by referendums instead. It's the only way to have a real democracy in which the people have direct control. But sadly it'll never happen, otherwise those in power would lose power.

This is a great idea!
If the Government is REALLY about the people....then they SHOULD be given a VOICE as to what the military is going to be 'up to'.

Maybe this would be possible in the UK, but it's completely unconstitutional in the U.S. since we are a true republic, not a democracy. These powers are fully vested in the Congress and the President.

Hmmmm.

On the one hand...being the admitted lefty liberal (I believe I've been called "Tulipwalker", before - though it's not nearly as pretty a name as Tinkleflower. Ho hum) that I am...it seems unconstitutional (and extremely unfair) to "force" a population into a military draft situation.

Having said that though, "National Service" might not be such a bad idea if there was a choice in how you served your country. If you don't want to join the military, then your service would be in another area - teaching, physical labour, a zillion other community-based positions. Many other countries still have this type of national service and offer a choice like this; not only does it encourage responsibility and community awareness, it serves to teach valuable skills to a younger population that might not be learned elsewhere.

On the other hand, if such a thing is to take place - then yes, absolutely, the public should have the absolute right to decide for themselves and to do so directly, not by proxy (ie, the President decides, the public voted him in, thus, the public "chose").

No, this is wrong. People's job is not to decided who we attack. People don't have the information that our Senators and President have. What would be the point in having a senate if we had such elections?

Originally posted by Frosty
No, this is wrong. People's job is not to decided who we attack. People don't have the information that our Senators and President have. What would be the point in having a senate if we had such elections?

Exactly. I bet the person who started this thread thinks it might stop wars, but in fact it could start more. What if Jacques Chirac says something stupid against Americans and we vote to attack France or something...dumb idea IMHO.

Exactly. I bet the person who started this thread thinks it might stop wars, but in fact it could start more. What if Jacques Chirac says something stupid against Americans and we vote to attack France or something...dumb idea IMHO.

Wouldn't the idea be more like...

The leader of the country puts together a proposal - and then the public votes?

That's not the same as having a public errantly voting for every cause that comes up, correct? It seems to be more about letting the people being involved in decisions made by leaders...not so much that the people are deciding willynilly what's going to happen (or not).

Any thoughts on the draft part of the original post?

Whens the last time the politicians acted in the interest of the common people? Remember the Iraq War, few people are supporting it, and yet we still went to war. It's not a real democracy if the people don't make the decisions. Think about it, right now if Bush wanted to he could in theory classify all lower class people as slaves. Will he do that? Probably not, but he could because he's got nothing to lose and he's still got about 3 1/2 years left. Putting people in power means these situations don't arise.

I beleive it was our first President Geroge Washington who said, "Beware the snare of foreign entanglements."
There's nothing wrong with fighting a war to defend yourself, but to constantly be the world policmen....sigh.

I don't think this would work. I'd like to think that we could put the power of the armed forces in the hands of the citizens, but I don't really trust the citizens. I mean, how much information do you think that the common people have about these issues? Most people know nothing about foreign affairs except what they see for 5 minutes on fox news or cnn. I don't know if I could trust them in making an important decision.

Besides, this voting would turn into senators and the president spending time spreading rhetoric in order for people to vote for their side anyway. I think that senators spend enough time roaming their states looking for votes and not enough time in the capital. Then they'd need to get more money to campain to promote their stance. This is inevitably what would happen.

Now, the arguement could be, how much do we trust the administration now making the decision? You don't, but you can vote them out in four years. (or six for senators).

All in all, I think that voting for military action will cause problems in the long run.