That Time It was Proposed If You Vote Yes for War, You Automatically Join the Army
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 มี.ค. 2023
- In the video today, we're looking at the rather curious proposed law such that if you vote yes for war, you automatically join the army.
![หาทำ EP.41 : ผัดวุ้นเส้นที่รักกับนายกล้วยหอม “หลิง-ออม” [Eng Sub] | จือปาก](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/r2jrLOQRthI/mqdefault.jpg)
![แฉ [2/4] 12 ก.ค. 67 เจ้าของไวรัลดังในโซเชียล 'ลิลลี่ เหงียน' ฝันอยากเข้าวงการ โดนหลอกสารพัด | GMM25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/7zntQK2U8-8/mqdefault.jpg)
"Imagine if a king fights his own battles. Wouldn't that be a sight"
-Achilles, Troy
Well a lot of kings did join in battle and in the heat of it. Then the realized maybe they shouldn't.
That's how you end up with a queen and immediately after you're speaking another language
Kings often did, and that's how they began realizinf they shouldn't send the leader to the front and die quickly, have a civil war scrambling to become leader, have said leader die, have another civil war, etc. etc.
I've been saying this ever since the Iraq War. Lots of people who were cheerleading that war from behind their keyboards who would NEVER sign up to fight in it. I think this is a great idea, the "No Chickenhawks" rule. It's a lot more just than a draft.
But then women who vote yes for war would have to serve and we can't have women suffering for their suffrage now can't we!
*to be clear IMO women should have to sign up for selective service just like men.*
@@bodaciouschad No, there should be NO Selective Service, period. The government does not own your body, and to force unwilling people into the military is a fundamental violation of their liberty. We should be fighting to END the draft, not to force women into it too.
Let's just do it this way. If people want war, we take a non-secret vote, and if you vote yes, you HAVE to serve. If you vote no, you don't have to do anything, but if a majority vote no, the war doesn't happen. Simple. That way, the politicians CANNOT start an unpopular war.
Both of us know that a large quantity of the keyboard warriors wouldn't make it through the first week of basic training
@@ilajoie3 that's fine, they will make excellent meat shields.
@@ilajoie3 All branches of the military are FILLED with support jobs, cook, admin, supply, etc. They can still make a difference, even if they haven't been molded into something useful yet.
whenever I heard a politician say we need to go to war It was always my thought well get packing go on ahead if u want to fight than go bye Felicia
Ya I bet that went over like a turd in a punch bowl.
Neither of them passed, if that tells you anything.
I understood that reference
i think voters should be held to the flame more often tbh
For real. Similarly, anyone who voted against abortion should either raise the unwanted children they voted into existence, or pay the funeral costs for the woman who died in pregnancy/childbirth from avoidable problems.
@@CourtneyCoulson exactly. The same people who complain when we have MORE people to feed, and MORE housing problems than any other time in history. Can't abort, yet, also can't make the world inviting to the living either. With that said, f*** I hate political rhetoric and both major parties. Disgusting, mind-wrenching vampires sucking on both ends of a rotting carcass.
@@CourtneyCoulson or maybe be responsible and don’t have unprotected sex if you’re not ready for a baby. Not talking about rape victims by the way
@@dannyjay5118 hilarious to think that the entire "point" of anti-abortion rhetoric is for prudes to shun sex for pleasure. As if sex is not a beautiful thing to be shared between people in love and there must always be a costly, life-changing result from it. Hilarious to think you type only bang in the missionary position for procreation and then proceed to sleep in separate beds for the rest of the marriage. If boring is what you want, by all means have it, but please don't shame others for actually enjoying sex for what it is.
@@dannyjay5118 what!? You can't expect people to actually be held accountable for their actions, that's just crazy talk. (Note the tone of sarcasm)
Let's bring this back
Why is this not a thing?
It's not a thing because pacifists' prosperity and liberty shouldn't be guarded solely by those readily willing to risk life and limb. Fascist, communist and other forms of authoritarianism weren't abnormal then and they aren't today.
@@zoopdterdoobdter5743 they literally ARE only guarded by those readily willing to risk life and limb.
Didn't have the votes, apparently.
@@yodaddy4944 Let's not forget about the logistics tail. 😉 You don't want to sling a rifle, you can go tech, logistics, medical, motor pool, etc.
Because it violates the constitution....
I would settle for the leaders riding into battle like George Washington did. Put the leaders pushing these wars on the front lines.
Yeah imagine the Keebler douche or the mental patient in chief in cammies on the FOB. Hahaha
Our decripted 80+ year old politicians would die from a slight breeze and just being outside for longer than 10 mins
@@endersquid1132 solving two problems with one stone
@@endersquid1132 I'm not seeing a downside.
In 1836 Chile went to war against the Peru-Bolivian Confederation, but because the first expedition was so poorly lead the army got completely surrounded and General Manuel Blanco Encalada was force to sign a peace treaty return to Chile. The Chilean people were so angry that a second expedition was organized and, allegedly, the president General José Joaquín Prieto said that he personally would led the army…until congress reminded him that he was president first, general second and can’t leave the country to go to war. So his nephew, General Manuel Bulnes was given command of the army
This should be a thing now
I fully support this now. Let's see what people feel about war when they actually have to fight in it.
"...obliged to join the army as a volunteer"
Volunteer---back then, something to think about before you join.
Wow, it is, will pass the time for something like that to happen again .
I'm trying to remember the book, but I want to say this concept was featured in one of Heinlein's novels. I always kind of liked the idea, especially if you combine it with yhe Kickstarter model that you only get drafted if over 50% vote yes. (Not sure if that part was ever spelled out or the assumption was the "no" votes winning meant the additional soldiers weren't needed.) I have heard people praise sacrifice and rationing during WWII so how is this really any different?
In Starship Troopers you had to serve in the military or some similar civil service in order to become a citizen. Not quite the same but similar.
@@roberteltze4850 I looked it up and the one I'm thinking of that I believe has it was "For Us, the Living" where a guy wakes up 150 years into the future (into 2080s). Very strange book but it pretty accurately predicted Instagram and other influencers, which were somewhat financially supported by a Universal Basic Income system (my first exposure to that concept) with the tax piece applied to the AI that took all the jobs.
@@trumpetbob15 what about the part that involves some form of non-conventional sexual relationship? It wouldn't be a Heinlein book if it didn't have group marriages or something.
But more seriously, I'll have to look that one up. It sounds like he had some good foresight. Heinlein books a very hit and miss for me, loved Job and Moon is a Harsh Mistress, hated Stranger in a Strange land and some others I can't remember the titles.
@@roberteltze4850 Haha, very true. This was his first book so it was just very casual nudity if I recall correctly.
@@roberteltze4850 In certain countries a few years of service is mandatory for every citizen
Daveen, that beard's making Fact Boi nervous!😥
I was gonna ask why we don't do this but theni remembered the US doesn't legally go to war anymore at all so it'd be pointless
Yeah that's true, I don't think we've technically had a war since WWII
It'd be a huge step in the right direction if we could even get the U.S. to only fight wars declared by Congress.
That oversimplifies it quite a bit. The President is commander in chief, Congress declares war, but it's a little vague on what constitutes war.
The War Powers Act attempts to clarify some of this but it's kind of weird too. I'm not even sure it's constitutional and it certainly hasn't been challenged. Nevertheless, a President can use forces temporarily but to go for major things require Congress to approve.
So no, we don't have joint sections of Congress where we declare war on any given nation. But Congress still has to authorize it.
@@iLumberjack Under the war powers act the president can act unilaterally for I think up to 30 days. So while in theory Congress can refuse to provide funding for a war they don't like, in practice it is incredibly easy for the president to put the country in a position where refusing that funding will do more harm to the US than good
@@Rich-fr2yv Tldr: a declaration of war doesn't need to use the phrase "Declaration of War," to fulfill the Constitutional requirement that Congress does The declaring.
Speaking of the War Powers Act - which no President has agreed to and The constitutionality of which has never have tested in court - says that the President can't unilaterally commit to military action lasting longer than 60 days plus 30 more days for withdrawal. The act is not invoked if Congress authorizes use of military force (AUMF) or declares otherwise war.
So yes, the Constitution gives Congress the exclusive right to declare war. It does not say that that such a declaration must follow a particular format or contain the magic phrase, "Declaration of War."
One thing that I think is interesting is that contained within the attache case that follows around the President (aka the football) are folders full of various war authorizations, orders, and war plans. You can think of these as all the bureaucratic forms needed to start and fight WWIII. It's kind of funny to think about, but part of the 15 - 30 minutes following the launch of nuclear missiles toward the US will be somebody doing paperwork.
If you find the minute details of things like that interesting, I recommend the book, Raven Rock by Garrett Graff. It's a well researched, recent, and apolitical look at continuity of government preparations at the Federal level.
Obliged to join as a volunteer. Impressive doublespeak
This would be amazing
The ultimate practice what you preach check... Problem is public opinion would then actually matter to politicians so of course this wouldnt go through
So I haven't seen hardly any of the shorts from Simon's channels, so forgive me for asking, but who is this guy, and where is Simon?
The part about voting yes obliging the voter to join the Army sound like a good rule to enforce on Congress.
i support this
Nah... not back then... the United States didn't go to a 100% volunteer military until 1973. Just about a decade too late, but better late than never. We still don't have that power today, but the United States *is* 100% volunteer. We are *not* forced to enlist currently in the United States... however... WWI & WWII forced conscription was *absolutely* necessary for defense of the United States & allied forces. In 2023?! I agree... the United States government *should* be held to the same strict standards they enforce across the globe
any senator who votes for war should also be enlisted.
well we know why it didn't go through, all those in favor of wars don't want to be on the front line. not the politicians, not their family, not the guys behind their keyboards. but overall it should be a law in every countries, we'd probably get rid of war pretty quickly
considering the modern US military makes up less than half of percent of the u.s. population, a 51% vote to go to war means that the military would increase a hundredfold. the US military is already the biggest in the world, do you really want to increase it a hundred times? even if you assume the standard ratio for every person on the Frontline there are 10 people supporting them, that would still increase the most sensitive part tenfold. that's not taking into account the massive damage to the economy by drafting half or more of your population.
Ignoring my personal beliefs on this matter, to address your argument, technically you could be "drafted" in and then told to go back to your regular job. Some individuals might get told to work elsewhere (such as now making munitions), but that wouldn't theoretically be too different conceptually from how the Defense Production Act is supposed to work. Unlike the draft during the Vietnam War, the idea would be the military would have a far larger pool of draftees to pick from and could use that to the best advantage - be that as a soldier or a Ford factory worker going back on the line to now make tanks.
@@trumpetbob15 fair enough
Makes sense. If you want a war you better also fight in it and not let others go to their death for something you wanted.
Not bad
*blue-yellow flags on Social Media down 99.999999999%*
Lol
Which one are you? AND HOW DID YOU GET OUT OF THE BASEMENT? RUN, YOU FOOL, RUN!
Awesome
I love this idea
Dude, cool shirt.
It should be a thing and some of the officials who proposed it should also be drafted
Think about it this way, you just sent every pro-war politician to die in WW2. Now the US has collapsed, and fascists and isolationists take power because they're the only anti-war politicians left. The Axis wins WW2 and America is economically crippled.
As it should be.
At least that's more fair than the draft
I don't like shorts, they belong on TikTok. Because this is TH-cam and I see something vertically filmed, I find this offensive and it clutters my feed.
Ohhhh, I like it. And I think if Congress votes in favor of it, every congressperson who votes yes has to fight on the front lines.
Wow your growing a blaze boy beard🎉
He’ll be releasing his own oil next
@@dwayne_dibley his own playboy Magazin
Sounds like a great idea.
Would only work if every country had this though.
Only one issue. You'd need a majority to say yes I want all the kids saying yes to take a second and think what would happen if 165 million people went off to fight the nazis. Keeping in mind that losing 5% of your population at any moment has a devastating effect back home. Quite litterally, not feasible.
And let's be real if this was pushed in, all that would happen is people would use this as a loop hole. You can't tell me some rich kid wouldn't vote no even if we where fighting the nazis. As the song goes
"they draft the white trash first round here anyways."
Is Simon leaving this channel to
Should be like this globally, then we would see a lot less wars.
It's a good thing this never happened. Can you imagine needing to take a vote as to whether or not to go to war after Pearl Harbor? That might have taken a year to do and well, good luck.
Well as a Vietnam survivor I would vote for the fact that if we go to war/conflict the leadership of the United States should don the uniform and put their asses on the front line
It should be this way. Public vote and go fight if it's that important to you.
Cool idea but utopian
Can we please move the Shorts to a different channel so I can stop thumbing them down and stop being encouraged to unsubscribe the channel? Thanks. And as the content provider, could you please let TH-cam know that people who want to watch Shorts are not necessarily the same audience as the ones who watch your regular VLOG? So TH-cam should add a way to un-subscribe only the Shorts.
I like this plan.
I'd vote no every time.
Then theyll just false flag our a$$es , but still a good idea.
We need it back. You shouldn't have the right to choose for young men to go to war without doing so yourself
Lol I would say this should be applied to congress but it's not like they have a say in war anymore since Bush
Umm... More like since Truman. The Korean War started the whole "let's go to war but bypass Congress by not actually ever declaring war" thing.
America would be the most peaceful nation in the world (as long as there are no loopholes for politicians or the wealthy).
YES.
Although I love this idea, I'll settle for ditching the single round winner-take-all voting system that birthed the two party system that is now attempting to shove US democracy into the shredder with both feet.
By the time they got everything organized and counted we would have lost the war.
I always vote Yes on no & No on yes
Sounds fair tbh
"Why are we going to the North Pole?"
"Fox News said there's a war on Christmas. We're recon. Add it to the list of silly wars voters approved."
This is what should be law. If you're an adult who can get to a polling station and push a button for yes, I'm sure there's a way we can get you to the front line and pull a trigger to vote yes on your enemy's death regardless of age, gender, ability, et al.
Well that was a stupid idea.
at that point what's even the point of calling ourselves a democratic republic anymore lol
Yes we wouldn't be going into war but we also might not of defended anyone else and let the rest of the world burn
Ww 2 it would have happened
Every one voting yes
This is the way
That it should be.
Totally fair actually 🤷♀️
Good idea
This is a bit childish!!! People used to feel compelled to defend their country or serve in any way!!! This idea you can pick a d choose what wars to fight is silly. Your either a homogeneous country or you aren’t!!!
KEK
Seems legit.
That was genius but only if the politicians are included
Imagine if everytime you had to defend your Geopolitical interests or global stability, you had to first spend months lobbying the public and holding a referendum. Would make zero sense.
This should be the war everywhere, this is brilliant. Let the warmongers fight each other.
Based!!
This is just plain logic. Send the politicians and their kids first!
LOL
If I get to choose to be a drone operator when I vote yes, why not?
This should totally not be a thing because there are enough crazies in this country that we would be at war all the time.
Not if they have to actually fight :)
And you have been for most of your history. Perhaps this would weed out the crazies, especially among the politicians
second.
Okay, cool. Let's also strip those unwilling to defend the guiding principles of their birth nations of the liberties afforded to them by those who are.
So join the military or lose your freedom? That doesn't sound fascist at all
So you admire Starship Troopers as a way of life?
Seems you only come out to remind us of important stuff!