View Single Post
Old 05-20-2019, 08:15 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Charter Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,699
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Because it's incredibly important that we as a country avoid stupid wars of choice in the future, and I think this is a societal tool that could help dissuade people from advocating for stupid, unnecessary wars.
The problem is, 'stupid, unnecessary wars' is also completely subjective, except maybe in hindsight. Even then, with the lens of history it's not always clear what wars were necessary and which ones were 'stupid, unnecessary wars'. I'm not convinced we should have intervened in WWI, for instance. Many at the time and even today opposed the Korean 'war'. Vietnam seems pretty clear cut, but what about the first Gulf War?

This is expressly in conflict with what I advocate for. If fewer people are advocating for war (especially for stupid, unnecessary wars), then there will be less political support for stupid, unnecessary wars, and thus these stupid and unnecessary wars will be less likely to happen.
What about wars that might be necessary? Are we allowed to support those? What about ones that are definitely necessary? Who decides what wars can be supported, and which ones can't be and those who do (and aren't military) should be shunned or called names or have other verbal stones hurdles at them? Do you decide? Do I? Is it a poll and the people decide? And how do we even ask, since the default position you seem to be advocating for is that ONLY those in or former military can advocate without being called a coward.

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!