ListNook

queuedUp Apr 1, 2026 +152

I mean... I guess it depends... One could argue that for the current US administration they would claim anyone who voted for Trump voted for no war (even if that's BS) and that all votes for Harris would be for war and they would send all those Harris voters.

152

Lvcivs2311 Apr 1, 2026 +83

That's definitely what the current US administration would argue. They spin everything around as they see fit.

83

Far_Introduction7468 Apr 1, 2026 +25

This wouldn't have happened if Harris was President.

25

WardedDruid Apr 1, 2026 +40

All of the shit that happened wouldn't have happened if she was president. Would things have gotten significantly better with her in charge? Probably not. But Pretti, Good, and the millions that have died from the USAID bullshit would not have died due to the US government's direct actions. We would not be in a war with Iran, and Ukraine would most likely be in a better position due to receiving actual support. Canada would still be friends, Greenlanders wouldn't be fearful for their future, NATO would be working as it should, families wouldn't have been torn apart by angry racists given a platform for their hate, all those pardons would not have happened, and most importantly, gas would still be at a reasonable price. F*** everyone that voted for this whether they think they voted for it or not.

40

Far_Introduction7468 Apr 1, 2026 +13

She was much more qualified and "SANE " than that crooked racist a******

13

ObamasBoss Apr 1, 2026 -5

Who was sent to smooth things over between Russia and Ukraine just prior to the invasion kicking off? So before anyone was locked into a position.

-5

WardedDruid Apr 1, 2026 +1

Dunno, who was sent to "smooth things over?" I know Harris was there a few days before the Russian invasion, but she was there to give them information of the pending invasion - not to mediate. Nice try attempting to flip the narrative.

1

Significant_Fill6992 Apr 1, 2026 +3

there is no stopping Putin at this point and war with russia is and will always be inevitable. Putin's world view nececitates limiting the border with the west and the only way to do that is to occupy everything east of and including poland what would be decided is if they are stopped in Ukraine or if we give them enough time to occupy Ukraine(if they can) and then also let them rebuild until they attack either poland or the balitcs edit to add any talk of peace is a ruse or a delaying tactic

3

NeighborhoodDude84 Apr 1, 2026 +3

Yeah, but Trump says it would if she was and wouldnt if he was President, while in office. So you're guess is as good as any one else's on what the f*** millions of americans are "thinking" if we can use that word.

3

queuedUp Apr 1, 2026 +4

100% would not

4

Anothernamelesacount Apr 1, 2026 -1

I checked out how much of the Congress is AIPAC-funded. Yes. It would have happened. And Listnook would be flooded with "we're doing it to liberate the women and the LGBT folks from that evil regime that is about to get weapons of mass destruction right now!" This isnt just about rep assholes (and they are assholes through and through, dont get me wrong), this is about petrodollar, artificial scarcity (Brent went STONKS) and the investment the US made on its beachhead in the Middle East.

-1

gracecee Apr 1, 2026 +7

It's hard to fight any war. The urge to run and flee is huge. The ability to kill someone is hard to overcome. It's why they always talk about lore and ethereal stuff like bravery, liberty, freedom the heroic soldier that wil fight for glory and remembrance. Why do they say the generations will talk about your bravery and Valhalla c***?? And this has been going on for thousands of years from Ancient Egyptians and Roman's and Greeks. So in the modern world how does one make someone fight a war? Poverty. Luring with credits for paying for education? A national service requirement like South Korea and Singapore. The rule should be the president and his cabinet and the senate and congress have to pledge their children or grandchildren.

7

StarChild413 Apr 1, 2026 +3

> The rule should be the president and his cabinet and the senate and congress have to pledge their children or grandchildren. then childless people or people who hate their kids just run and what about if kids are minors

3

gracecee Apr 1, 2026 +2

That if the kids aren't age they are required to serve when they are of age. This is a hypothetical. Never going to happen. There was a draft during the civil war. Rich people in nyc would have people at the docks grab any fresh off the boat immigrant to stand in the place of their kids. Most were illiterate and didn't understand what they were signing.

2

Just_another_gamer3 Apr 1, 2026 +1

I feel like that would lead to defectors

1

That_OneOstrich Apr 1, 2026 +1

Or it would just be illegal to not be combat ready, and they'd still talk us into going to war with propaganda. The biggest issue I see with this is it would force elderly folks to vote "against war" or die on the battlefield, but the military wouldn't want people incapable of fighting to be sent to the battlefield as it would just be a financial and personal loss.

1

StarChild413 Apr 1, 2026 +1

wouldn't they have to do the kind of obviously-looking-like-a-bad-guy thing they wouldn't want to do despite being bad guys and break the integrity of the secret ballot as I don't think you can even tell that via gerrymandering that universally

1

evantom34 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Sending us to die and raping our kids.

1

ShimmiShimmiYah Apr 1, 2026 +1

My whole family told me if I voted for Harris, I was voting for war. Well I voted for Harris and we are at war. Thanks Obama.

1

Key-Rough-8346 Apr 1, 2026 +49

Trump did run as an anti war candidate. Then again, people weren’t voting for Kamala thinking she’d be the pro war candidate. It raises another question: should politicians be held accountable for misleading their voters? What should be done about the John Fettermans and Donald Trumps of the world?

49

Lvcivs2311 Apr 1, 2026 +17

It's currently almost as if he started a war so that he could stop it and call himself a man of peace again.

17

Sir_Lemming Apr 1, 2026 +5

Only I can solve the problem I created!

5

CaptchaSolvingRobot Apr 1, 2026 +2

That would be true if he wasn't so incompetent.

2

AleksandrNevsky Apr 1, 2026 +6

Yes. The issue is enforcement. There's no way they'd willingly enact a law that would punish them for spewing bullshit.

6

ObamasBoss Apr 1, 2026 +2

Other nations get a vote in your foreign policy. I won't pretend for a minute that I have the same knowledge on these items as the administration. For all we know any president would have authorized the current operation.

2

StarChild413 Apr 1, 2026 +1

what counts as misleading

1

Key-Rough-8346 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Portraying yourself as anti war then being belligerent when you take office. Or portraying yourself as left wing then supporting Israel.

1

Far_Introduction7468 Apr 1, 2026 +1

They should be charged with purgury.

1

Glass_Scar4888 Apr 1, 2026 +39

Absolutely. When the consequences hit personally, politics becomes a lot less abstract.

39

matlynar Apr 1, 2026 +8

Just look at the difference between how often people say we should kill the rich, burn stuff or something on Listnook, and how many of them are actually willing to put their lives at risk for doing so.

8

ThrowawayITA_ Apr 1, 2026 +2

I dunno man, powerful lobbies would just get kamikaze politicians instead.

2

Far_Introduction7468 Apr 1, 2026 +8

It ain't me. I ain't no Senetors son.

8

Rowmacnezumi Apr 1, 2026 +5

That's the idea, isn't it? You want war, pick up the rifle.

5

DoubleCyclone Apr 1, 2026 +4

People in the United States gotta remember, we are spoiled. It has been more than 160 years since any major combat happened on this continent. We don't have anyone in living memory that remembers the desolation of war on our own land. That makes it really easy to talk big about it wanting to go into combat, because it isn't in our backyard. Anyone that was 20 at the very end of WWII is in their 90s now.

4

RecommendationUsed31 Apr 1, 2026 +6

There is no draft. There wont be a draft. If there was a draft there is a bigger problem then this question.

6

qpgmr Apr 1, 2026 +1

Every male in the u.s. is required to register with the Selective Service at age 18 so that they can be drafted into military service whenever required.

1

-PMYourTastefulNudes Apr 1, 2026 +2

I think the only way to clearly solve that would be to require a vote for each war by the citizenry. If that was the case, I could see that requirement working. And if that was the case, I could see there being less offensive war by the country that implements such voting.

2

MatthewHecht Apr 1, 2026 +2

No, they would just change the rules.

2

AleroRatking Apr 1, 2026 +2

You'd have more conquerors and the growth of warrior countries since there wouldn't be anything stopping them.

2

Rhedkiex Apr 1, 2026 +2

No they'd just stop calling wars "wars". Which has already happened. We're aren't at war, we're "engaged in major combat operations"

2

chosen40k Apr 1, 2026 +3

In his interview with Sean Ryan, former Director of the US National Counterterrorism Center Joe Kent talked about how if the US had mandatory military service (which he disagrees with because as a veteran he didn't want to go to war with unmotivated draftees), we would be in less wars because people would prefer to vote for politicians who wouldn't carelessly send them to a battlefield. And that the US military's volunteer system leads to civilians and politicians who are happy to go to war because someone else volunteered to go for them.

3

Freemee2929 Apr 1, 2026 +2

honestly yeah, politicians would think twice about sending people to war if their own kids had to be on the front lines instead of just poor people.

2

StarChild413 Apr 1, 2026 +1

politicians are capable of hating their kids

1

AttSvcs Apr 1, 2026 +3

As Ozzy so eloquently put it: Politicians hide themselves away They only started the war Why should they go out to fight? They leave that all to the poor, yeah Time will tell on their power minds Making war just for fun Treating people just like pawns in chess Wait till their judgment day comes, yeah

3

paranoid_70 Apr 1, 2026 +1

That song will never not be relevant. Oh Lord Yeah

1

thenasch Apr 1, 2026 +4

In the US, the only people who could vote for war are the members of Congress. Is that who you're talking about?

4

Odd_Common2677 Apr 1, 2026 +2

The thing is no one votes for war. Politicians lie and manipulate and make false promises and then once they are in power they do whatever they want.

2

MistaFANG Apr 1, 2026 +2

Didn’t Kamala say one of her biggest priorities if elected would be Iran?

2

Hot_Way_1643 Apr 1, 2026 +1

If that includes members of governments then yes.

1

MedusasSexyLegHair Apr 1, 2026 +1

Nope. You'd have just as many wars except they'd be labeled "police actions" or "special military operations" or whatever and the draft wouldn't be initiated.

1

Possible-Importance6 Apr 1, 2026 +1

No. Wars have happened constantly through human history when leaders fought in them first hand. Across pretty much every culture.

1

Suitable_Vehicle9960 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Everyone who signs up to the military signs up to be drafted first. If you don't like it don't join the military.

1

Munkeyman18290 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Make the people who **start** the wars participate in them. I also think every CEO and executive benefiting from government war contracts, like Northrup and Lockeed, etc, should have mandatory minimum boots on the ground time every time they win a contract to dream up ways to kill people with tax dollars not being used for healthcare and education.

1

Krow101 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Duh ! Of course. Everyone can't be rich enough to have fake bone spurs.

1

1stMammaltowearpants Apr 1, 2026 +1

It's a shame that we don't vote on wars anymore

1

SalesGuy22 Apr 1, 2026 +1

For certain it should require 51% approval from active duty military

1

Cam095 Apr 1, 2026 +1

if politicians were forced to fight in the front lines, there'd be nearly zero wars, i bet. these old fucks dont care about other people's lives

1

StarChild413 Apr 1, 2026 +1

A. by that logic why not do that for everything B. who governs while they're fighting

1

_chubby-puppy_ Apr 1, 2026 +1

No cuz they’d find imaginary bone spurs and scurry out of it with their rat money

1

StarChild413 Apr 1, 2026 +1

wouldn't bone spurs mean each of those people had to become a Republican demagogue? /s

1

AleksandrNevsky Apr 1, 2026 +1

What happens in countries where the draft is restricted based on criteria like able-bodied or sex? Would women and the disabled not get a vote?

1

Medium_Passenger6160 Apr 1, 2026 +1

yet they know there is an age limit for the draft before they vote.

1

Enigma_Beery Apr 1, 2026 +1

they'd solve world peace by tuesday. main character energy hits different when its your own ass on the line

1

Girthw0rm Apr 1, 2026 +1

Nah. Like we currently do, they’ll just say “ACKshually… this is not a war, lol”

1

firstlordshuza Apr 1, 2026 +1

My uncle would vote for every war. Weirdo's dream was always getting to go to war for some reason

1

Thatsidechara_ter Apr 1, 2026 +1

I've always thought that the draft was the thing that made Americans actually care about what our military was doing overseas, it forces people to care. Look at the response to Vietnam versus the GWOT when everyone could see they were going badly and we had no reason to be there. The difference? One had the draft, one didn't. So... I don't know if we should draft people again. Maybe just for noncombat roles? I would be okay with getting drafted if that was the case.

1

StarChild413 Apr 1, 2026 +1

so make the draft a nothingburger people don't know is a nothingburger so people end all war?

1

Thatsidechara_ter Apr 1, 2026 +1

It still means drafted are forced to be involved in America's wars, being deployed into combat zones and potentially putting their lives at risk. Just not pulling triggers themselves. I'm not an expert on this sort of thing, thats why i said i dont know, but it's a potential idea.

1

StarChild413 Apr 1, 2026 +1

I meant more starting a draft just to make people fight against war so the draft doesn't end up meaning shit

1

Thatsidechara_ter Apr 1, 2026 +1

It would mean shit by forcing our military to think more carefully about the conflicts it enters, such as this one, as they weigh it against the potential backlash of conscripts being potentially killed. And failing that, make people way more willing to take action themselves to put a stop to such unpopular wars, like in Vietnam.

1

freedfg Apr 1, 2026 +1

I believe the ancient texts explain this perfectly. "Why don't presidents fight the war? Why do they always send the poor?

1

PuzzleheadedWaltz835 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Who got to vote on this one?

1

I_Enjoy_Beer Apr 1, 2026 +1

The problem with this one is that nobody voted for it. Congress, as the body representing the citizens' will in this country, did not get to vote on whether or not to go to war. This whole f****** thing is illegal, and quite honestly, the entire Executive branch should face some serious goddamn consequences for it.

1

Kulthos_X Apr 1, 2026 +1

They got rid of the draft to keep wars popular with voters.

1

New_Photograph_489 Apr 1, 2026 +1

This is Nassim Taleb's concept. If the politicians who declare war and the citizens who passionately support it knew that their children or they themselves would be on the first landing craft, the threshold for starting a conflict would skyrocket. War would cease to be an abstract game of cards on a map and become a matter of personal survival.

1

StarChild413 Apr 1, 2026 +1

the problem with the children part is politicians can hate their children (those late-night-talk-show jokes about Eric Trump aren't based on nothing) and the problem with the them serving part is who governs in their absence and are those people subject to some sort of deadline that not ending the war by would mean they're as guilty as if they started it

1

SteadfastEnd Apr 1, 2026 +1

I understand the concept, but where do we end this logic? By this logic, does everyone who favors law and order have to don a police uniform themselves and patrol a neighborhood as a cop? Do a stint as a prison guard? etc.

1

PigeonsOnYourBalcony Apr 1, 2026 +1

Bet votes would be pretty low but the people who said they voted for it would be really high

1

tomatrixhd Apr 1, 2026 +1

I think it might make people think twice and people tend to be way more careful when the consequences hit close to home but I don’t think it would eliminate wars. Some leaders or voters genuinely believe certain wars are necessary, like for defense or protection. In those cases, even with personal risk, some would still say yes.

1

RadiantEnvironment90 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Yes. I always believed never give an order you yourself wouldn’t do.

1

tossedAF Apr 1, 2026 +1

Nope; because they all think they’re Billy badass.

1

bobroberts1954 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Have people sign up to go to war. When enough of them sign up we send them off to fight. Can't/won't fight, can't sign for war. Now, just because we get enough doesn't mean we have to send them, what mathematicians call necessary but not sufficient; still need an actual reason.

1

Ok-Upstairs-6844 Apr 1, 2026 +1

the people voting for wars are almost never teh ones actually affected by them, which is like... the entire problem right. they get to make the decision from their air conditioned offices while working class kids die overseas, so of course theyd vote differently if skin was in the game. its such an obvious conflict of interest that it almost feels stupid to point out

1

provocative_bear Apr 1, 2026 +1

Yes, but in reality it’s going to be those who opposed the war and the regime that governments will target for the meatgrinder first.

1

StarChild413 Apr 1, 2026 +1

or maybe that's just what they want us to think so we pay lip service to supporting them

1

Sir_Lemming Apr 1, 2026 +1

NATO is kind of like vaccines I think. They’ve been so effective at keeping war away, like vaccines with diseases, that several generations have gone by with no major, peer on peer conflicts, so people don’t see the value of keeping it around.

1

StarChild413 Apr 1, 2026 +1

so what do we have to have periodic wars or pandemics engineered for the sole purpose of reminding us why they're bad?

1

Sir_Lemming Apr 1, 2026 +1

No, just continue using/funding both, with confidence that we’re being protected. People don’t think vaccines work because no one has had smallpox or polio in like 70 years so some ‘do your own research’ types decided that vaccines didn’t do anything and now measles is on the rise. Same as with NATO, we reached a state of ‘detente’ with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, then the USSR collapsed and we had like another 20-30 years of peace with Russia. The ‘crisis’ that prompted the formation of NATO never manifested, so people never got to saw NATO in ‘action’, despite the umbrella of protection it provided. It’s like saying, well my house has never caught on fire, why should my taxes pay for a fire department that I don’t use

1

StarChild413 Apr 1, 2026 +1

the point of my ad absurdum is how do we convince these people those things are worth it without subjecting them to this bullshit on purpose

1

bzee77 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Ha! Count on it.

1

SquareDiscussion9163 Apr 1, 2026 +1

They usually are, we call ourselves adult men.

1

SOUTH_11 Apr 1, 2026 +1

100%. When people have to act on their opinions (especially when it comes to war), they will tend to back down

1

FauxReal Apr 1, 2026 +1

It depends, would they be evaluated fairly? But it really doesn't matter when members of Congress are in their 70s. Nobody is trying to draft people that old.

1

Julianalexidor Apr 1, 2026 +1

Should have been just Trump vs Khomeini. One on one.

1

tm80401 Apr 1, 2026 +1

I think all eligible relatives of elected officials should be drafted into front line combat positions when the official is sworn in. Kids, grand kids, nieces, nephews, etc.. as far as can be traced.

1

StarChild413 Apr 1, 2026 +1

and will they also be given barely any protection and old faulty weapons or w/e and be sent especially if they're minors but not if the elected official hates them? /s All dark-joking aside how far does that go

1

Flimsy_Listen_5851 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Absolutely. If the people who decide to send others to war had to face the same risks themselves, I think the calculus would change completely. Decisions made from a distance, behind a desk, often ignore the human cost. Personal accountability could make leaders and voters, think twice before supporting conflict. Right now, the disconnect between policy and consequence is what fuels unnecessary wars.

1

Sleekgiant Apr 1, 2026 +1

We should send the billionaires, two birds one around etc.

1

Fit_Raisin3092 Apr 1, 2026 +1

A lot fewer wars would get approved once the people cheering from a podium had to stand in the mud too.

1

windyw2 Apr 1, 2026

I think the politicians who get us into wars and the people that support the wars...especially this stupid war...they/their children/their grandchildren must be the first ones drafted and sent to the war - no office duty for them.

0

StarChild413 Apr 1, 2026 +1

what do you do about politicians who have no children or hate their children, what about if the children or grandkids are minors, what do you do if someone's wife is pregnant other than pause the war to solve the abortion debate and who governs while politicians serve

1

Suitable_Vehicle9960 Apr 1, 2026

How privileged of you

0

SvedeLS2 Apr 1, 2026 -1

Only if people that voted pro immigration had to house and feed a homeless family.

-1

StarChild413 Apr 1, 2026 +2

A. telling conflation between immigrant and homeless B. only if every person who does that and the family doesn't, like, steal all their resources or kill them in their sleep or w/e you're gotcha-ing means one anti immigration person has to change their stance or at least can't needle their opponents like this C. what happens if someone's pro both does that family just essentially house-sit while they're drafted

2

XxCotHGxX Apr 1, 2026

This is like asking: If people who fart in public places had to fart in their mother's face when they did it, do you think they would still rip a grinder in Taco Bell? It's a nonsense hypothetical.

0

Proof_Situation8475 Apr 1, 2026

This “action” will likely succeed in making at least the Middle East a lot more stable and possibly push a larger scale conflict back 20 years or more and may actually help the Iranian people

0

If people who vote in favor of a war had to be first in line for the draft, do you think fewer wars would happen?

💬 Send a Message

106 Comments