How do we prohibit future presidents from starting needless wars?

Question

Do we instantiate laws that give the governing party difficulty in starting a war, establish a more rigorous process to prove war is necessary, etc? Do we allow the people to vote on the decision of going to war? Do we enforce laws that require the media to show both sides of the argument for starting a war?

Answer 1

Congress has to declare war. The President is just the commander-in-chief. He can't start wars.

Doing so is against the law, it's absolutely unconstitutional, and the best way to put an end to this is to right your congressmen and tell them to do their job, or you'll do everything you can to make sure they are never elected to any office again.

Punishment is the best deterrent.

Answer 2

Do we instantiate laws that give the governing party difficulty in starting a war

Why? It's not like it's easy now. We have three branches of the government that have to sign off on a war declaration. It's not like the President has the authority to start a war by hemself.

Again, you have to have approval of three branches of government, that's pretty rigorous. At what point do you decide war is necessary,.once you've already been attacked?

Do we allow the people to vote on the decision of going to war?

That's why we hold elections, and elect representatives. Why not just let the entire country vote on each and every decision the government makes. Yea, what a great way to show the troops the entire country supports them, hold an election so a few million hippies can vote "NO" removing the feeling of support that drives most of our men and women in uniform.

Do we enforce laws that require the media to show both sides of the argument for starting a war?

You can't enact a law that "forces" the media to do anything, that would violate freedom of speach.


Bottom line, the President didn't start this war. The bad guys started this war. The president didn't sign off on the war declaration w/out gaining the approval of both the house and senate.

Answer 3

Wow, I can't believe these answers.

First off, we do allow the people to vote on the subject of war, we elect Presidents and Congress. This is a representative republic, not a democracy. If we took every decision to the people we would constantly be in a voting booth and this country would go down fast.

I suspect the question is because the person asking it thinks that we shouldn't be in Iraq. I disagree and don't even accept the premise that we started this war. Does anyone remember 911? How they felt that day and week? We were attacked by terrorists who were supported by Iraq, trained in Iraq (and Afganistan) and who have attacked us before. It is time to strike back and win this battle the same as WWII.

There was an immediate set of warnings to Saddam for about a full year letting him know what would happen if he didn't cooperate. There was a decade of his thumbing his nose at the world and even his own people. (gee, I wonder where the WMD went when a year was spent shipping them to neighboring countries or dismantling them?) America is not the agressor, we will simply be the victor after a costly war. A victory that will make the middle east and the world a safer place.

Someone mentioned that the troops should be the ones that decide if we go to war. I feel very strongly that if it were put to a vote of the troops, we would still have gone. Our troops know the good that is happening in Iraq, it isn't reported on the 6 o'clock news because good news isn't what the media wants to portray. Dig a little, listen to a vet or soldier being interviewed from a different source other that abc, nbc cbs or cnn.

Freedom isn't free. It costs the blood and lives of brave men and women in battle to defend it and hopefully spread it further around the world.

Answer 4

Hell No But When We Win Lets Keep The Spoils,Give The President More Flexibility To Do What Has To Be Done,But Lets Quit Fighting The Same Wars Over And Over,We Have A Nuclear Arsenal Lets Not Be Afraid To Use It,And The Rest Of The World May Wake Up

Answer 5

Of course, that would depend on how one define's "needless war". The U.S. joined the Second World War mainly because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor-- but that didn't stop us from taking out Hitler's machine in Germany as well; also, Germany and Japan were considered the "axis" powers-- not "allies". Germany and Japan were about only as friendly with each other as was useful. Of course, even back then there were plenty of critics of that war who thought that the U.S. had no business sending its sons to die in Germany even though it had not much to do with Japan. But the truth is that we ended up helping friends--Great Britain and France-- and cutting the Nazi holocaust short.
If people don't believe that war in a foreign nation is in the best interest of the U.S., then fine: such are called "isolationists"-- no harm there; if one wants to play word games about reasons given, fine; I can play wordgames about reasons had. But I don't want to hear this monkey crap that American soldiers died in vain in Iraq. Sacrifice is, in the end, just that-- sacrifice; and regardless of ones stance on the issue, whatever happens today has to be weighed against what took place during great conflicts such as World War II. It is after that is done that you can make a clear decision as to what you believe.
As for the Yahoo question, the answer is: With a little luck.

Answer 6

First: what needless wars are you talking about? I don't know of any needless wars. Second: We already have guidelines for war. Third: War isn’t a democracy. It is a necessary evil. Fourth: The media isn’t going to show both sides of the story. They will show you what they want you to see. Fifth: If you want to think war as needless, then fine I will step out the way while your enemies trample and kill you for being stupid. I will go to war to defend my way of life any time. That isn’t stupid. Sixth: If you think all wars are fought with guns and knives, then you better think again and educate yourself. Seventh: Your liberal viewpoint is flawed from the beginning. Do your own research from two or three different sources and not all from the same viewpoint. You won’t ask those questions again.

Answer 7

the prob is the presidential war powers act that slid through congress ,,,before that it took an act of congress to declare war,, thats why our last three or five wars where called police actions and were technically illegal ,,korea, viet nam ,and panama ,and granada , and haiti, and so the prez's have all been pirating around the globe with no congressional acts to justify force being used in many countries ,, an old dude

Answer 8

Presidents are by-products and a reflection of the nation. Essentially, when the working person becomes a better human being and follows the greater good, then they, as a majority, will in turn elect a just ruler. Until then, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

Answer 9

OK well lets never listen to anyone who Capitalizes The First Letter Of Every Word cuse thad b juzz duum. Who really knows if we have nuclear weapons? Who even knows the proper nomenclature of a nuclear bomb? Who even knows.......I'm sorry im getting off the subject. What defines a needless war? Do you have several different intelligence agencies? I think not! Guess who does. Pres. Bush!!!! He knows what we dont. that is why it is his job to start wars you dumb dumb people!!!

Answer 10

We allow the people to vote on going to war.