When do we get to vote for or against war ?

[Peas Maker]

Most of the public cant understand anything beyond the sports pages of the Daily Mirror.

That said should such people have a voice in deciding what decisions should be made in the matter of highly complex world affairs? Or should decisons if it were the right to vote for or against war be left only to the highly educated and the nation's intelligensia?

 

So you saying majority of population too dumb to decide on the fine details about war or no war ?

 

Guess as long as thy can provide the sons and daughters as cannon fonder the decesions can be made by the "elite" politicians ?

[dosxuk]

So you saying majority of population too dumb to decide on the fine details about war or no war ?

 

I would...

 

Guess as long as thy can provide the sons and daughters as cannon fonder the decesions can be made by the "elite" politicians ?

 

And this is exactly why. No decision should be made based on whether you think people are being used as soldiers or cannon fodder.

 

Decisions like "do we go to war?" or "do we cut this much appreciated service in order to afford this more beneficial but unliked service?" need to be made based entirely on the facts and logic, not emotions, and unfortunately, a large proportion of the population (including the "elite") don't know how to tell the difference between the two, and allow their opinions to be manipulated based on those emotions.

[Harleyman]

So you saying majority of population too dumb to decide on the fine details about war or no war ?

 

Guess as long as thy can provide the sons and daughters as cannon fonder the decesions can be made by the "elite" politicians ?

 

Yes! A large percentage are too dumb to be allowed to vote on a matter of foreign policy and going to war is an act of foreign policy.

 

I can see it now: Flash back to the mid 90s

 

Mr Higgins. Should we go to war against the Serbian nationalists?

 

Eh! What?

 

I said should we go to war against the Serbian nationalists?

 

Dunno mate. What they been up to anyway?

 

There are reports of Bosnians being murdered and villages destroyed by groups of Serbian nationalists. The UN have declared it genocide. Didnt you see the news about it yesterday? It was on all the channels. The EU held a special meeting on the situation yesterday morning.

 

Cor ! didnt know anything about thaaaa''at.

 

Dont you follow the news?

 

Well yers sometimes. I heard Barcelona lost to Manchester two days ago

 

But as a voter Mr Higgins do you think we should go to war against the Serbian nationalists?

 

Blimey! That's a tough question. Let me talk to the missus on that one. She watches the BBC News once or twice a week :D

 

 

War is not all about making money and arms dealers. There are far more issues involved when deciding to send troops to a war. Unless you are a leading authority on global affairs and an expert on foreigh policy and diplomatic manoeuvring your best bet is to stick to the domestic bread and butter issues when voting and keep your nose out of things you dont even have a half assed idea about and let the officials you elected take care of foreign policy

[Quinnwok]

We need to keep out of all wars, until we are willing to fight wars as the given enemy fight them.

 

That way we would really only fight a war if we had no other choice.

[Peas Maker]

I would...

 

 

 

And this is exactly why. No decision should be made based on whether you think people are being used as soldiers or cannon fodder.

 

Decisions like "do we go to war?" or "do we cut this much appreciated service in order to afford this more beneficial but unliked service?" need to be made based entirely on the facts and logic, not emotions, and unfortunately, a large proportion of the population (including the "elite") don't know how to tell the difference between the two, and allow their opinions to be manipulated based on those emotions.

 

Right so we are too dumb to vote for or against war but are allowed to choose which party is allowed lead us ?

 

If war was given the vote I would bet it would get the no vote 9 out of 10 times , war never benefits the general population ( unless of coarse you have shares in haliburton which will then see a 500 fold increase )

 

War may not be given the vote however it is the population which after fierse protest may see a end to a conflict as was the case with Nam .

[Harleyman]

Right so we are too dumb to vote for or against war but are allowed to choose which party is allowed lead us ?

 

If war was given the vote I would bet it would get the no vote 9 out of 10 times , war never benefits the general population ( unless of coarse you have shares in haliburton which will then see a 500 fold increase )

 

War may not be given the vote however it is the population which after fierse protest may see a end to a conflict as was the case with Nam .

 

What war are you talking about now? Afgahnistan? That's the only one in the books that I know of where European/US forces are involved.

 

In case you didn't know there are plans to withdraw all troops sometime in 2014

[Arguendo]

Yes! A large percentage are too dumb to be allowed to vote on a matter of foreign policy and going to war is an act of foreign policy...

 

...War is not all about making money and arms dealers. There are far more issues involved when deciding to send troops to a war. Unless you are a leading authority on global affairs and an expert on foreigh policy and diplomatic manoeuvring your best bet is to stick to the domestic bread and butter issues when voting and keep your nose out of things you dont even have a half assed idea about and let the officials you elected take care of foreign policy

 

@HM bold;I take it the above statements you don’t include yourself, as you’re a leading authority on the issue; I do agree many people have little knowledge on a specific country which is deemed as being a threat to global stability, until that country hits the news/media. But as a citizen I rely on my government to give me information that allows me to make an informed decision in order to justify my countries involvement.

 

If we take Iraq as an example, pre 9/11 the relationship between Iraq & the USA was contentious to say the least, a failed attempt at ousting or bringing Saddam & his party back into line had failed, for years we were bombarded both in the US & here the UK of stories of humanitarian abuses, suspected threats to the west & Saddams support & sponsorship of overseas terrorism. This was emphasised significantly post 9/11. There was no direct evidence to even suggest Iraq had any involvement whatsoever in the atrocity which took place, but immediately the US went on the media offensive to suggest it had, citing financial, government & personal assistance to the terrorists, including the Iraqi government giving Bin Laden shelter & freedom to plan his attack. When the US went to the UN to request military action, they cited evidence that Saddam was in the process of manufacturing biological chemicals, many of which were stockpiled throughout Iraq, they were on the verge of missile technology which could send these biological warheads to the shores of the US, UK & anywhere else it wished.

 

The world was sent into panic mode fearing the worst, when inspectors contested the US evidence they were silenced & accused of not having done their jobs correctly. The same evidence was used in the UK to persuade a very indecisive parliament that war was necessary. Post Iraq conflict that evidence given to NATO has now proven to be false, in fact it has also emerged some it was fabricated, as some suspect within the walls of the pentagon to appease the Bush administration & his desire for conflict. Many politicians within the UK have since stated that if they had known the full & truthful facts they would not have voted to go into a conflict, many people now believe that the UK, because of false evidence given to us by the US & with the assistance of Bushes pet Brit, Blair we entered into an illegal war.

 

So your statement that most people are to dumb to understand is not only patronising & offensive but wrong & misleading, the fact is people can make a decision if the information given to them is honest, not fabricated & enables an individual to become well informed in order to make an informed decision, a process the US purposely failed to do & with questionable reasons, the main one being the control of oil. As for your statements or inferences, regarding the necessity to take action to stop or prevent humanitarian disasters or in fact to bring countries to account for their war crimes, for the US this is like pot calling kettle, I’m not anti American but anti-American foreign policy, I believe the US has far more war crimes to answer for than the likes of Saddam, Bin Laden, Gadafi or any Middle East Dictator, but as history as shown; history is written by the oppressor not by the opressed.

[erebus]

Democracy is a sham, as you have no real say or control over what the voted can or cannot do. War is a practice that is never that straightforward, as Iraq and recently Libya show. Both we were told, were to help the people from a tyranny, but the reality was that we were the real tyrants. In Iraq 1.5 million dead and rising, the country in ruins, the infrastructure ruined, but now with the right sort of democracy, a puppet government, dancing to western corporate interests.

 

Libya was in better shape, free education, $1000 a month to adults, and the greening of the deserts through aquifers rebuilt and modified, as well as a heath service. So we have bombed all of that to pieces, just like Iraq, so they will be forced borrow from the IMF (western banks) and we get oil deals on the cheap. The Un regarded Gaddafi as a benevolent despot and a model in his class.

 

Both leaders upset corporate interests, Saddam through wanting being paid for oil with euros, and Gaddafi wanting payment in gold bullion, and NOT petro dollars. Worse for Gaddafi he wanted to introduce a gold currency within African states, and we all know what that would do to western interests, who like using paper money, easier to produce and manipulate it’s value than gold.

 

So there are Just wars, but mainly just for our corporate interests, as we do not in practice give a sod about the populations involved, so stop pretending we are actually helping anyone but our on corporate and to a lesser degree these days strategic interests.

 

Who does Libya and Iran sell their oil to....China. A bad move, as we want to grind China down, what real democracy, actually likes practicing free market economics, when its all normally cartel controlled by western corporate interests.

 

So pretend all you like, the reality is not democracy in practice, but an ideal we worship instead, as who likes real competition when the resources of the world have been regulated by a cartel who can fix prices to what they like. What do you think inflation is all about????????

[Jeffrey Shaw]

What war are you talking about now? Afgahnistan? That's the only one in the books that I know of where European/US forces are involved.

Not a war; UK did not 'go to war'.

HM The Queen is the only person who, as Head of State, is legally competent to declare war.

[Bing'o'Merry]

Yes! A large percentage are too dumb to be allowed to vote on a matter of foreign policy and going to war is an act of foreign policy.

 

Too dumb to be allowed to vote? So you don’t believe in "democracy" then. Democracy means the people, that’s everybody, gets to decide things. You think only those intelligent enough or just better, should make all the decisions. A bit like Hitler and the criminal ruling elite of today.

 

I think those who are in the know about particular issues should present their opinions before the people. Then the people benefit from their expertise. If people don't chose to pay attention they can abstain. If they do feel one way or another they can vote.

 

War is not all about making money and arms dealers. There are far more issues involved when deciding to send troops to a war.

 

Yes there are more issues when sending our troops to war, like our sons and daughters getting killed. If we let the arms dealers, those at Lockheed Martin, or at the Carlyle Group, or oil giants like Exxon or BP, or the money guys at Bank of America or JP Morgan, or any of David Rockefeller’s other mate's, then the issues that get priority are not our troops but their wallets and their power and the rest of us can go to hell.

 

Unless you are a leading authority on global affairs and an expert on foreign policy and diplomatic manoeuvring your best bet is to stick to the domestic bread and butter issues when voting and keep your nose out of things you don’t even have a half assed idea about and let the officials you elected take care of foreign policy

 

Our elected officials are not representing the people at all. They are corrupt and have sold us all out. Wake up and smell the banking dictatorship. Your best bet is to stick your nose firmly IN and start paying attention to what's going on. WE are quite capable of avoiding war and getting rid of war forever. The only thing stopping us is a corrupt super elite. There are far MORE of us. There are also democratic alternatives that would work if we tried them. They might not be perfect but I'm sure we could avoid wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Pakistan (yes, they are getting bombed too) false flag terrorism, recession, runaway debt, hyperinflation and economic parasitism. These things come from centralised power and authority.

 

There are distributed, decentralised, open source type solutions to almost anything and certainly the question of whether we send our troops to war can be easily and quickly put to an informed vote of the majority, without the bias of our corrupt politicians or Rupert Murdoch. We don't need other people and certainly not people like this, deciding on whether our children should go to war.