I have been mulling this thought over and over regarding going to war...

[Ecumenist]

What if, in order to declare war against another country, there's a requirement that the president and his cabinet has offer up themselves AND a relative to a hot zone as a PREREQUISITE? This law would also apply members of congress, the Senate and anyone else who purports to declare war---
I wonder how fast wars would be declared then? I bet they'd think twice or more times before trying to start another war or runnup to war...What do you think?

[Just-plain-Kathy]

1. Sounds good to me.

:)

[John Gauger]

2. I understand the sentiment, but

Our leaders are not supposed to have a personal stake in the outcome of their official decisions. I don't believe war should ever be declared, but as a matter of principle leaders should not be personally interested in any decision, let alone one that important.

[Ecumenist]

3. Welcome to DU John Gauger!!

:hi: Right glad to have you. I have to respectfully and STRONGLY disagree...THEY NEED TO HAVE A PERSONAL STAKE IN IT, if, for no other reason than to think about the people they govern. It's all too easy to place someone else's in the line of fire and in the past, that's been, outside of political ramifications, safe for politicians BUT we now live in a world where the declaration of war, which is all too often done on a whim to get ahead politically and financially, could VERU quickly escalate into a situation where ICBM'S would LITERALLY bring the war to our shores and have catastrophic consequences for the planet. Therefore, I stand by my statement and reinforce and restate my proposal.

You know, in ancient times, the Commander in Chief went into active battle when war was declared, often on the front lines. I believe that we can take that page out of history and put it up on our own national wall. Wonder where Chimpy and his band of slobbering idiots would be now if we had such a requirement?

[John Gauger]

7. They most certainly would never have come to power.

If there was any danger of facing combat, we already know that Bush would have avoided the position. Now that I think about it, it isn't really that unreasonable of a proposition. Plenty of people want their kids to join the military. It's not implausible to think that someone would take the position. And if there is a time when such a conflict is permitted, that would cerainly be it.

[spag68]

4. I was born in 1942

and as an idealistic young man I thought war would be gone in my lifetime. I also thought pot would be legal, so don't listen to me.

[Flabbergasted]

5. You're still alive....

[Ecumenist]

6. God bless you, Spag68

My mom was born the same year and when this idiot announced that he was invading Iraq in March of 2003, she was horrified and said, Vietnam 2nd edition. This has to be one of the most horrible times in US history since the Civil War and from the rumblings that have been floating around, depending on what happens regarding the "war", we mat find ourselves in a situation where we have open rebellion and mutiny against this bunch. Civil war, is NOT that far behind, should that happen.

[No Exit]

8. WONDERFUL!! Napoleon led troops into battle; Caesar led troops

into battle, for cryin' out loud, GEORGE WASHINGTON led troops into battle!!

I have often wondered, since the beginning of the fraudulent Iraq war, why we no longer have as leaders those who successfully lead troops in battle.

In the 60's, there was an old TV commercial which went like this: "What if, the next time we decided to have a war, we let the LEADERS fight it out?" The ad showed two old men in suits and ties, standing in the midst of a group of onlookers, and they started swinging at each other and kicking up dust. You could hear their panting and heaving as they continued to swing.

It was beautiful. I thought so--even then, when I was a child.