Hypothetical Policy Question

[TNF]

Assume for a moment that you are a member of your national legislature. You have been elected on a platform opposing the use of force in a potential military conflict concerning your own nation and another in an election wherein this was the major issue at hand. The vote for war has come and you have already made your opposition to the war known by casting a resounding 'no' vote on entering the conflict, along with your fellow party members.

Unfortunately, you have been outvoted, and war has been declared. Now at question before the legislature is funding for the conflict. You voted against declaring the conflict and entering it, but now you must vote of funding the conflict and allocating troops for it. Do you vote in favor of funding the conflict and allocating troops for use in it, risking alienating your own supporters? Or do you vote in against funding the conflict and allocating troops, at the risk of said vote being turned into a bludgeon whereby your political opponents can attack you and your party when you run for re-election?

I would vote against funding for the conflict. Voting in favor of funding a conflict essentially makes any previous stand or vote against it meaningless, and ultimately shows a pretty shallow opposition to said conflict in the first place. Beyond that, I would actively try and corral members of my own party to defund the conflict in a bid to stop it entirely.

[ElectionsGuy]

No (I/O)

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The annoying thing is that what is done cannot be undone. Although I opposed the conflict initially, it would put my country in a tremendously poor moral position if troops had entered a foreign country, destabilised it and just ran away. I would grit my teeth and pass the bills (although I might also capitulate to national polls, assuming I wanted to get elected again).


I suppose it also depends on how destructive the war was. In this hypothetical example, did my country have a moron installed who (hypothetically) dissolved the entire army and dismembered the civil service? Because if that's the case, I'd vote to keep troops in for quite some time (unfortunately).

[Deus Naturae]

I'd vote no. I'm not an insane power-hungry type, so the only reason I would ever hypothetically run for political office in the first place would be to vote for stuff I support and against crap I don't. Voting in favor of something I oppose would defeat the purpose of me holding office in the first place.

[Deus Naturae]

The annoying thing is that what is done cannot be undone. Although I opposed the conflict initially, it would put my country in a tremendously poor moral position if troops had entered a foreign country, destabilised it and just ran away. I would grit my teeth and pass the bills (although I might also capitulate to national polls, assuming I wanted to get elected again).

You would rather they violently occupied the country for years?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wouldn't that create something of a moral hazard? If someone is a moron who refuses to defend himself, guaranteeing him long-term protection would likely just encourage him to continue his moronic behavior.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Depends on the conflict. If it is a trivilal matter like our last three interventions in Iraq ('91, '03, '14), than I would not vote for it. Yet, I wouldn't vote to defund a larger war like the Vietnam War as long as our armed forces were in arms way and would seek to reduce our role in the conflict before voting to tie the army's hand behind it's back. Does this make sense to anyone? I feel like I worded this poorly.

[DC Al Fine]

I would probably take an extra long bathroom break when the vote came up.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The annoying thing is that what is done cannot be undone. Although I opposed the conflict initially, it would put my country in a tremendously poor moral position if troops had entered a foreign country, destabilised it and just ran away. I would grit my teeth and pass the bills (although I might also capitulate to national polls, assuming I wanted to get elected again).

You would rather they violently occupied the country for years?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wouldn't that create something of a moral hazard? If someone is a moron who refuses to defend himself, guaranteeing him long-term protection would likely just encourage him to continue his moronic behavior.

1) Preferably not violently. I would try and refocus towards peacekeeping. I'd even accept the country easting humble pie, admitting they screwed up and asking for UN peacekeepers to be introduced. I'm not an idealist though. You can't just make problems and run away from them. It will just come to bite you in the backside/

2) Oh don't get me wrong. I'd want the moron we put in charge fired and his "work" hastily repealed. But some reforms are very hard to repeal. You have to remain to fix the mistakes of the blunderous oaf you put in charge IMO.

[IceSpear]

Yes (D)

[Goldwater]

Yes, although I doubt I would be elected on such a platform in the first place.

[With you in spirit]

No (D)

If I vehemently opposed a conflict, I wouldn't want to fund it just because I'd been outvoted.

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

No (D)

If I vehemently opposed a conflict, I wouldn't want to fund it just because I'd been outvoted.

[SPC]

Yes, although I doubt I would be elected on such a platform in the first place.

You could not even envision a hypothetical military conflict that you would be opposed to involvement in?

[Goldwater]

Yes, although I doubt I would be elected on such a platform in the first place.

You could not even envision a hypothetical military conflict that you would be opposed to involvement in?

Of course I could. I was merely trying to be humorous by exaggerating my own political views.

[Redalgo]

I cannot vote in the poll because there is no suitable option for my response. What matters is not who wins the next election so much as the issue at hand. The type of conflict is important to deciding what would be in the People's best interests moving forwards.

Where is the war to be fought, how do threat analyses suggest the belligerents compare each other in their capabilities, and what are the anticipated outcomes of abruptly reversing course before the war is either won or lost? All of these considerations are relevant.

[SPC]

Yes, although I doubt I would be elected on such a platform in the first place.

You could not even envision a hypothetical military conflict that you would be opposed to involvement in?

Of course I could. I was merely trying to be humorous by exaggerating my own political views.

My apologies for not catching the

[Cory]

Yes (D)

[BaconBacon96]

I'd vote no. If I'm being outvoted anyway, why should I compromise my principles?

[Maxwell]

I'd vote No, since voting Yes is, in a big way, means supporting the conflict in question.