Time to bring back the draft. Too many Americans sit at home their fat backsides complaining instead of fighting the enemy.

I hope your trying to be humorous, but if you are serious I'd like to laugh in your face at such an ignorant comment. I don't think we should have to fight a war President Bush started on false pretenses.

I question anyone's sanity who joins the Army at this time and I'm suprised that there still are so many people who do.

I'm in the military and I am proud of it. I also happen to be a libertarian. The libertarian should be in full support of the military while asking the president why we must fight in Iraq. Why must the U.S. military be the world police? Why must we be the go to for civil order and relief? The debate should be on the proper role of the military, not "You are insane if you join now." Yes, the military life is hard and it sucks, but I love it!
We need a military to defend a free nation from thugs who wish to impose thier whim on all. But we are a tool and only as "good" as the civilians' who lead us. Be the party of leadership and freedom.

And an all volunteer Army is a professional Army. Fights better than those who are forced to fight. Ask yourselves, would you like a surgeon who is forced to be a surgeon to work on you? I would not.

If Israel or the U.S. destroys Iran's nuclear reactor and Iran invades Iraq and attacks U.S. forces in retaliation, I think we will have a disaster on our hands. At the very least, U.S. forces would have to retreat to the south of Iraq and reqroup and concentrate in order to combat such an invasion. We are too weakened and overstretched to fight a war with Iran. We should leave Iraq NOW, but the neocons and zionists will never allow it.

Those who currently support the war or a military draft should be the first ones put on the front lines.

I would absolutely condemn any attempt to reinstate the draft. The U.S. Military should absolutely remain all volunteer. The foremost reason being that the draft is nothing more than slavery, the ultimate taking of personal liberty. The other major reason is an all volunteer force is much more effective and professional than draftees.

Another terrible part of the draft is not only that it is slavery, but it also forces an individual to kill others in order to survive and live another day. I think we need an Amendment in the Constitution that states there shall be no draft.

Well, along with all the other mismanagement, we can add this to that long line of governmental FUBAR plans, schemes, and operations. What we need is to chain up that Monkey in the Whitehouse, along with the rest of his Brown-Shirted Chimps!

I have proposed a peace amendment to the United States Constitution. A brief outline of its provisions.

1. Would require a two-thirds majority of the total membership of both Houses of Congress to declare war. Would require declaration of wars to be renewed by the same two-thirds majority every ninety days, otherwise such state of declared war would expire. Would only allow declaration of wars to be made against nations, not against groups.

2. Would absolutely forbid the basing of U.S. forces oversea's. Would require all troops to be returned to the United States and all overseas bases to be closed and returned to the sovereignty and control of the host country, including Guatanamo Bay in Cuba.

3. Would forbid covert operations of any kind, anywhere in the world. The only exception would be passive intelligence gathering operations.

4. Would forbid any sort of military conscription.

5. Outside of declared war, force could only be used in the immediate self defense of the United States and Canada, our border with Canada being so soft, essentially to defend Canada is to defend ourself. To a smaller extent, this umbrella would also be extended to portions of northern Mexico, for the same reason. Force would be limited to repelling any attack and to prevent any imminent attack but retalitory attacks would NOT be permitted.

6. Would abolish the office of Commander in Chief and replace it with the Council on Military Affairs. The Council would consist of the President, Vice President, Speaker, Senate Majority Leader, House Minority Leader, Senate Minority Leader and three additional members to be elected by joint resolution of Congress, one of which must be from the opposite political party from the President. A majority of the Council would be required for most actions, except where urgent action is needed to repel an immediate attack.

That is the gist of it, there are more details of course. Beyond time to abolish the Imperial Presidency.

Mark B. -

I'm with you on the overall peace amendment, but I have to take issue with you on a couple of things:

First, you said that covert operations would not be allowed under any circumstances. I don't understand why this is the case. If a situation involves Al Qaeda (since they attacked us), then I think it would be necessary to use covert operations to put these cells out of commission.

And second, I don't understand why no retaliatory attacks would be used. If a country or group attacked us, wouldn't it be necessary for us to retaliate?

Mark B. -

By the way, shouldn't the House Majority Leader be included in the Council on Military Affairs?

First, I wholeheartedly agree with the military service member above. I also second Tommy's remarks to Mark B. Also, I disagree with the council idea in the sense that, who is the opposite party? As a libertarian party supporter, and knowing others who support the Green or Constitution parties, an opposite party clause gives support to the two party system. I agree about the removing of military prescence overseas to a point. We do not need our troops in Japan, or Germany, or a host of other places. However, if there is a nessecary war, say in northern canada, and the canadian military is incapacitated, a military base there would seem needed.

Rumsfeld is not far from the truth. The Army today is head and shoulders above any current opponent. The only comparable force in history would be the Army in summer 1945. Far larger but not as advanced technologically. But that force may not have been the strongest of their time because of the Red Army. Thank the cold war warriors that kept us from fighting that! Today's force is under stress but has the advantage of being all volunteer. There is no opposition force capable of "breaking" it.

When we are speaking of the military, we must remember that our military budget is by far, the largest in the world, in fact, the U.S. spends more on it's military than the other top 100 nations combined. Our military maybe stretched out because it has been deployed in areas around the world where it simply does not belong, entangled in every sort of conflict and intrigue, and of course, in those so-called peace-keeping missions...or this so-called "Breaking-Point" could just be another ploy to increase the military budget to expand the Empire again.
Thanks to the Military Industrial Complex, we no longer have a Department of Defense, but one of Offensive Strategy, which will never be satisfied with mere defensive spending or posturing! Those within the Military Industrial Complex, along with multi-national corporations ,"Think-Tank Societies" are all pulling the same flesh hooks of the majority of the politicians in this country.
It is going to take more than an Amendment to the Constitution to restrain this Military Empire and those who promote it's expansion!

It's not our job to protect the Canadians or the Mexicans. Let them be responsible for their own defense.

I'll take my comments even further. Why should we protect Canada and Mexico? Those two countries hate us anyway and they view an American base in their countries as examples of American imperialism. If that's what they feel, then they should learn to defend themselves.

I liked the peace amendment Harry Browne offered. I copied the text, but it's also available here:

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/PeaceAmendment.htm

Section 1. The United States shall be at war only after a declaration of war, naming the specific enemy nations, is approved by the President and by a two-thirds vote of the eligible members in both houses of Congress.

Section 2. The members of the House of Representatives and the Senate eligible to vote on a declaration of war are those who are between the ages of 18 and 35, or who have children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren between those ages.

Section 3. In the absence of a Congressional declaration of war, the President may deploy the military to repel an armed invasion of the United States, but may not deploy troops or engage in hostilities outside the United States.

Section 4. The United States shall enter into no treaty with any nation or organization if such treaty could oblige the United States to be at war without a declaration of war by Congress, and the United States shall not be bound to engage in war by any action taken by any organization of which they are a member.

Section 5. Except in time of war, as specified in Section 1, the United States will provide no weapons or other resources to foreign governments, will engage in no military action outside the borders of the United States, and shall deploy no military personnel or weapons outside the boundaries of the United States except that at any one time up to one thousand members of the military may be outside the United States for no longer than thirty days.

Section 6. Upon any violation of this article by the President, Congress shall institute impeachment proceedings within 14 days.

48% of the budget is currently dedicated to the military spending. And thanks to obscene exemption passed by Congress - annual auditing that every government program must goes through does not apply. The GAO estimates that 1 trillion dollars can not be accounted for.

The Party Platform should be modified to:
1)Demand the military balance its books every year; and
2)Reduce military spending by at least 50%

Tommy:

I don't propose protecting Canada and Mexico for those countries interests, but only because protecting them serves the self interest of the United States. That is the ONLY reason that I propose extending the umbrella of protection to those two countries. It's only for the U.S.'s self interest to do this. BTW, Canada is now friendly to the U.S., as a result of the Conservatives victory in the elections and will remain so, at least until the liberals return to power.

Tommy:

On your earlier post concerning retaliation and covert operations.

Any retaliation, except for force used in immediate self defense, should be up to Congress and not up to the President alone. A lot of wrongs can, and in the past have been done under the guise of retaliation. I think Congress should have a role in the decision for retaliation and also the size and scope of the retaliation. This is to important to be up to the President alone.

As for covert ops. I empathize with your position, but I cannot help but consider the long train of abuses committed by the U.S. under the shield of covert ops. The countless petty dictatorships set up and supported by the U.S. If we do maintain covert ops, then, at the very least, I would insist on a very strong oversite and control role for Congress, with Congress being able to stop any abusive operations. Its not so much covert ops itself I am opposed to, but the abuse of covert ops.

Tommy:

As to the structure and membership of the Council on Military Affairs. I would be agreeable to the House Majority leader being on the coucil rather than the Speaker. I would also be agreeable to these officers being able to designate another member of the House or Senate, respectfully, to serve on the council in their stead.

The other point made by another poster concerning the nature of the opposition party. As a matter of reality right now, the Democrats are the only opposition party that would likely obtain membership on the council. I would like to see Libertarian and Green membership as well. A membership that is not a rubber stamp to the President is a must.

I have seen Harry Browne's proposal. My only problem with it is I cannot agree with Section 2, for the simple reason is it would leave many sections of the country unrepresented in the decision to go to war. ALL duly elected members of Congress as a matter of principle must be allowed to vote on so important an issue.

The United States has it's military in 140 countries. For example, it has 40,005 troops in Japan; 37,000 in South Korea; 70,000 in Germany; 15,000 in Italy; and another 15,000 to 17,000 in Great Britain.

Most of the countries that U.S. Troops are in are not a threat to U.S. Security. Nevertheless, this has been the case since the end of World War II and the Korean War. Now they say that the army and other military is overextended to the breaking point?

It is time for a new foreign policy. One that protects the United States,its people, its interests, and make the framers proud.

Mark B. -

1) The Conservative Party of Canada is not conservative by our standards. They believe in big government, just like our two major parties and all of the other major parties in Canada. Plus, they only hold a plurality of the seats in the Canadian House of Commons [125 seats to be exact]. The Liberal Party holds 102 seats. The Conservative Party is in such a situation where they must form a coalition with either the left-wing New Democratic Party [28 seats] or the left-wing Bloc Quebecois [52 seats] in order to get legislation passed. There is also one other member of the House of Commons (an independent from Quebec).

2) I agree that the Congress should maintain oversight over covert operations.

3) I think it would help if a Libertarian, a Green, or a Constitution Party member (real conservative) on the Council on Military Affairs.

I am aware of the Conservative Party's lack of conservativeness. :) Actually, quite similar to the Republican Party's lack of conservativeness. The point is that there should be a cordial tone between the U.S. and Canada, even if not a lot of agreement on substantive issues. On a side note, I was quite happy to see the Liberals get spanked. They need a few years timeout on the minority benches. I think the Conservatives and the Bloc will be able to effectively govern together. After all, many of the Bloc were former conservative party members.

Also, on another side note, permit me to LMAO after watching Hamas get elected to power in Palestine. I will quite enjoy watching the U.S.'s contributions to Palestine get funneled through the hands of a prime terror group. Serves the Neocon's and Zionist's right. Continues to LMAO.

Mark B. -

1) I was watching the election on C-SPAN on Monday and the reporters there were reading e-mails from Liberal Party voters who said that the scandal involving Paul Martin and the Liberal Party disgusted them to the point that they voted for someone else. in fact, one even said that the Liberal Party needed to be spanked and spanked hard. That persons words, not mine.

2) I didn't know that the Bloc had former Conservative Party members. How is it possible for the Conservatives and the Bloc to form a coalition when they have such different views?

3) It disgusted me that the Communist and Marxist-Leninist Parties each had more votes than the Libertarian Party in Monday's election in Canada.

4) Do you think the Conservative Party and the Bloc Quebecois will be able to co-exist? And will the NDP and the independent member join them and form an anti-Liberal Party coalition?

5) The Palestinian elections must have had President Bush dropping 20 pounds, all of it brown.

I heard that the Bloc (as well as the NDP) have social democratic views. How will they be able to work with the right-of-centre Conservatives?

I need to make a correction: Canada's Conservative Party holds 124 seats while the Liberal Party holds 103 seats.

Here were the complete results in Canada's elections:

Conservatives (the new government) - 124 seats
Liberals (the new official opposition) - 103 seats
Bloc Quebecois - 52 seats
New Democrats - 28 seats
Independent - 1 seat

Let's worry about the Political follies of the US of A before we worry about the Canadians, eh?

Al Queda should be called al CIAda since they were (are) founded, funded, and trained by the CIA and are in fact still CIA assets to this day. 9/11 was government sponsored terrorism. Not from some foreign government but from our own government. They needed a Reichstag Fire (see Nazi Germany) type of incident in order to get the American sheeple to support wars of aggression abroad and an increase of the domestic police state. The REAL culprits behind the 9/11 attack are sitting in the White House, the CIA, and the Pentagon. All of the evidence points back to our own government. For those of you who are not familiar with the evidence the following link is a good place to start...

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/911_redux.html

Also check out these sites...

www.infowars.com

www.prisonplanet.com

www.911truth.org

Funny how Osama and his cohorts always seem to appear with another diatribe of some sort JUST when W has his onions in some sort of political wringer; and then they just seem to elude capture.

Bring our army home and put them on the Mexican border! That’s where they are actually needed.

I, for one, will dodge any draft put forth at any and all costs. I am not willing to die for George W. Bush. He is a man that has not earned my sacrifice nor does he represent America.

Obviously, the silent majority shares my opinion, or they would have enlisted as Bushy has begged them to do.

I have a few comments I'd like to make.

First off, I am in the army, have served in Iraq (who hasn't these days), and am proud of said service. I don't support Bush politically, but he is my C-in-C, duly elected, and I will go where and when he tells me. I am by no means a "gung-ho" soldier. Quite the opposite really, but I understand my RESPONSIBILITIES, ones that I took on voluntarily. And it is responsibilities which I want to talk about.

A "Council on military Affairs" instead of a CinC would not work. Authority only works when it is tempered by responsibility, and neither can truly be shared. In a council situation, no one would feel truly responsible, but all would have equal authority. In the end, someone has to be responsible, especially in the military. I want a person in charge who will realize that my life is in their hands, that they are responsible for my well being. Anyone else will throw my life away. The people did elect Bush, and he has deemed Iraq a useful expenditure of our troops. If the people were that strong against it, Congress could do something about it, even with a Republican majority.

Now, I don't support the war, far from it. Iraq commited no act of aggression against us, or our allies, and, unlike Afghanistan, there were no people within Iraq asking for our help.

Now, as for the "military abroad" issue. We keep troops in Germany, and Japan, yes. They are relaxed environments that offer terrific training opportunities, exposure to outside veiwpoints and cultures, and maintaning bases there honors agreements we have with these countries. As for South Korea, we, as a country, made a decision long ago that the defense of South Korea was in our best interest. Now, whether it still is is debatable, but they have grown from a protectorate to an ally, and should we pull out of Korea that ally's sovereignty would be lost immediately and irrevocably to N. Korea. S. Korea WANTS us there, and we are honoring our commitment, willfully made, as a member of the community of nations. We are not alone, and we can not pretend that all the problems facing us with other countries will go away if we just keep inside our own borders.

Keith, your last comment about the majority not enlisting and thus showing that they do not support the war is a bit erroneous. Those who would have enlisted for the right reasons (unlike me, who enlisted on a "what the hell, why not" basis) have still enlisted. War will not stop a person from enlisting if that is what they were truly going to do anyway. It has shaken out the "college money" enlistees, and kept them out. We are losing numbers, yes, but those that are left are the ones truly dedicated to the ideals inherint in serving and defending our country. However, the war is taking it's toll on morale, and stamina. Hardships are increasing, but in reality the only MAJOR conflict our military has ever faced that was easier was the Spanish War at the end of the 19th century.

Definitely need to protect that Mexican Border though. :)

This looks like a good spot to add a quote from Robert Heinlein,
"No state has the right to survive through the use of conscript troops and, in the long run, no state ever has. Roman matrons use to say to their sons, 'Come home with your shield, or on it.' Later on this custom declined. So did Rome."