War with Iraq - Do you think 'we the people' should VOTE for the war?

[Ziroc]

Just wondering (for our American viewers here)

Do you believe we the people of the United States should vote for going to war?
This would be like an election vote, but instead, the question would be:

Do you want the United States to Invade Iraq YES | NO

(Make Florida abstain, since they don't know how to vote) j/k.

If you agree with this, why? If not, why? Do you feel that congress should be the one to vote, or us, the people of the United States?

Comments?

[ 01-27-2003, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: Ziroc ]

[Timber Loftis]

I disagree, Z, because I think your average man-on-the-street incapable of making this decision. Further, I think even those of us who care enough to read the papers/watch the news everyday are incapable of making this decision - because all of the pertinent information is held secret for national security.

But, even if we had perfect knowledge of everything, I still think it should be done through the Representative Republic that is our elected leaders. Now, I know that reality leaves something to be desired in our leaders. But, in theory we elect them to run the country because they have an expertise we don't. If I want to build a bridge I call an architect, a specialized one at that. I don't put it to a vote amongst the population, because they simply don't understand bridges.

Plus, the decision of whether or not to go to war has ramifications - immediate and future. IMHO, our leaders are supposed to do what is best for the Nation-State, in the long run, which will sometimes be an unpopular decision at present.

[johnny]

Do you think saddam let his people vote when he decided to invade Kuwait ? Or if he asked his citizens how they'd feel about firing scuds on Israel ?

I don't think so. This is something only the militairy, AND the government can decide.

[skywalker]

No vote. The decision to go to war was given to the President by the Senate and Congress. The decision is therefore out of our hands. We are just going to have to trust Mr. Bush to make the right choices for us and deal with what happens afterwards.

Mark

[Ziroc]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I disagree, Z, because I think your average man-on-the-street incapable of making this decision. Further, I think even those of us who care enough to read the papers/watch the news everyday are incapable of making this decision - because all of the pertinent information is held secret for national security. But, even if we had perfect knowledge of everything, I still think it should be done through the Representative Republic that is our elected leaders. Now, I know that reality leaves something to be desired in our leaders. But, in theory we elect them to run the country because they have an expertise we don't. If I want to build a bridge I call an architect, a specialized one at that. I don't put it to a vote amongst the population, because they simply don't understand bridges. Plus, the decision of whether or not to go to war has ramifications - immediate and future. IMHO, our leaders are supposed to do what is best for the Nation-State, in the long run, which will sometimes be an unpopular decision at present.

I agree 100%. The normal 'joe' does have all the facts, and the intel that the US Gov. has. I just saw people talking about this on a newsgroup, and wanted to see what you guys though.

Z I think you already know this, but "We the People" already did vote for this....we voted for it in 2000 when Bush was elected, and we voted for it again in 2002 when for only the second time in history the sitting presidents party not only did not loose seats in the house and senate, but actually gained....that is a truely historic and momentous fact that the Libs have been quietly ignoring ever since.

[Timber Loftis]

Good plug, MagiK. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

I just spoke with Andrew Card and he says your check's in the mail.

[Thoran]

Agreed 100% with everyone else. We elect these guys to make the tough calls, and that's what they're doing. That's not to say I'm not going to bitch mightily if we go to war without giving diplomacy every chance to succeed. But that's the way the system works, they make the call, and we get to bitch about it. [img]smile.gif[/img]

My real worry is that I can't imagine how the benefits of a war in Iraq could outweigh the international political damage that would surely result from actions taken outside of UN Sanction.

[Horatio]

No vote. For every one person who knows the facts and balances them up, there's a slack jawed Guss McClain who's totally hell-bent on kicking a country into submission for the fun of it. Fact of the matter is, some people are stupid.

Also, I'd just like to put in that all the facts are generally hidden from the public. There's probably something in White House files at the moment that would totally turn the tide of the public view, but we can't see it.

Originally posted by Horatio: No vote. For every one person who knows the facts and balances them up, there's a slack jawed Guss McClain who's totally hell-bent on kicking a country into submission for the fun of it. Fact of the matter is, some people are stupid. Yeah, some can hardly even figure out how to mark a ballot Also, I'd just like to put in that all the facts are generally hidden from the public. There's probably something in White House files at the moment that would totally turn the tide of the public view, but we can't see it. Unfortunatley what you say is 100% on the money, we even now are occasionally surprised by some bit of secret info that was pertinent to actions taken 60 years ago. There are reasons things are not told...like exact locations of stored weapons, if you make their location known, they can be moved in mere hours and then later used if you make an attack...where as if the enemy doesnt know you know where they are, your cruise missiles and stealth bombers can take out the storage areas before they can be used....nice trick that.

[ 01-27-2003, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]