If staying out of it means trying to cripple Japan by cutting them off our oil, sending planes and pilots to help China, and breaking the neutrality act to trade ships and weapons to Brits.
But it's the same story with the other countries from WW1. The people who fought, going on to vote for more. Politicians are good at convincing us it's necessary.
you dont know history very well. After WW1 the Germans were forced to sign the Treaty of Versailles, which forced Germany to pay reparations which crippled their economy. The Allied commander, Foch, knew what would happen, he said "This is not peace. It is an armistice for twenty years."
The public doesn't vote on going to war. And why on earth would I need to participate in war to know it's terrible? I'm against all wars unless every other option has been exhausted.
That's completely different. People voted in Bush. There was no vote taken whether to invade Iraq or not, nor should there be. We have a commander in chief for a reason.
But that's how representative republics work. If someone has an attitude where they're likely to go to war over things and that person is voted in, in essence, the people who voted for that person voted for whatever wars they get in. Obviously it's not a direct voting thing where we specifically vote to get into this war or that, but again, that's how a representative republic functions. You vote in the person that most aligns with your values in the hopes that when they get into office, they make the same decisions you would. It's not perfect, but it's better than direct democracy.
of course you would say that. You think someone who went to war would want to vote for more war in the future?
You'd think not, but WW1 -> WW2
You think that decision was made lightly? The US stayed out of it for as long as possible, until Japan attacked and forced them.
If staying out of it means trying to cripple Japan by cutting them off our oil, sending planes and pilots to help China, and breaking the neutrality act to trade ships and weapons to Brits.
But it's the same story with the other countries from WW1. The people who fought, going on to vote for more. Politicians are good at convincing us it's necessary.
you dont know history very well. After WW1 the Germans were forced to sign the Treaty of Versailles, which forced Germany to pay reparations which crippled their economy. The Allied commander, Foch, knew what would happen, he said "This is not peace. It is an armistice for twenty years."
The public doesn't vote on going to war. And why on earth would I need to participate in war to know it's terrible? I'm against all wars unless every other option has been exhausted.
People vote on the people who vote to go to war. Can you really not see this?
That's completely different. People voted in Bush. There was no vote taken whether to invade Iraq or not, nor should there be. We have a commander in chief for a reason.
But that's how representative republics work. If someone has an attitude where they're likely to go to war over things and that person is voted in, in essence, the people who voted for that person voted for whatever wars they get in. Obviously it's not a direct voting thing where we specifically vote to get into this war or that, but again, that's how a representative republic functions. You vote in the person that most aligns with your values in the hopes that when they get into office, they make the same decisions you would. It's not perfect, but it's better than direct democracy.
lol, do you know why the US pulled out of Vietnam despite technically winning every battle?
Protesting and voting are not the same. You make it sound as if people can just go to a ballot box and check the "go to war" or "don't go to war" box.
lol, i never said that. And you dont understand the not nuance of how public opinion affects government actions.