A president shouldn't be allowed to send people into war unless they have been in one themselves. Or possibly unless a real bonified legit genuine threat is imminent, and only then can they defend, not attack (unless the person sending them in has been in a war themselves). In fact, the further away that they have ever been from war, the less they should be allowed. If they dodged war while thousands died, they should be the frontline in any war that they declare.

[–] stink@lemmygrad.ml 15 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I'll do you one better.

The President, and any senators who vote for a war, must kill their eldest child for their vote to count.

[–] oliveoil@hexbear.net 2 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

Then as a corrupt politician, I'd adopt a few kids before having any of my own, have a nanny raise them - and then use their lives as downpayment to start the war Israel, Lockheed, etc - bribed me to start.

[–] Flyberius@hexbear.net 14 points 22 hours ago

Will the law is that he has to get it approved by Congress, but he's completely ignored that law and done it anyway with zero material pushback from the government. So any additional checks and balances would probably be equally pointless. Especially when this sort of action is secretly what the Dems want as well. They may not agree with the manner, but they certainly support the objective, which is securing US capital and the petrodollar.