Changing how the US goes to war (OT-Political)

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 1 - 13 of total 13 in this topic
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Topic Author's Original Post - Mar 1, 2008 - 06:57pm PT
The topic was mentioned in another thread. But there are simple measures which could be instituted relative to put how we go to war on a sane and rational footing:

 Allow the President to dispatch up to 20k troops to any two discontiguous conflicts for six months on their signature alone with a one week notice to Congress.

 Within that one week Congress can overide with the same margin required to override a veto.

 The day the President want's a third dispatch, a contiguous dispatch, one body more than 20k in any one conflict, or wants one more day past six months in any one conflict, they will need to seek a formal Declaration of War agreed to by Congress by the same margin required to override a veto.

 The day a passed Declaration of War is signed by the President the following will occur: non-exempt military draft lottery, freeze on wholesale prices, 15% national war sales tax, 15% war tax on capital gains.

 Those protocols would remain in effect until the day troop levels are below 20k and the Congress rescinds the Declaration of War by the same margin required to override a veto.

Do that, and there will be precious few wars started, corporations and republicans will become anti-war protesters overnight, and what wars do get past those hurtles will be staggeringly brief.
WoodySt

Trad climber
Riverside
Mar 1, 2008 - 10:03pm PT
It must be done through Constitutional amendment.
Chaz

Trad climber
So. Cal.
Mar 1, 2008 - 10:08pm PT
" The day a passed Declaration of War is signed by the President the following will occur: non-exempt military draft lottery, freeze on wholesale prices, 15% national war sales tax, 15% war tax on capital gains"

What sense does it make to ruin the economy? Isn't fighting a war dificult enough already?
Jaybro

Social climber
The West
Mar 1, 2008 - 10:15pm PT

"What sense does it make to ruin the economy? Isn't fighting a war dificult enough already?"

So now we are fighting a war? Maybe we should declare it?
pc

climber
East of Seattle
Mar 1, 2008 - 10:17pm PT
Chaz,

The point is not to fight them in the first place.

edit: Jaybro, Too right. I really wish the media would stop "going along" with the spin on this "action". It's not a "war" at all.
Mimi

climber
Mar 1, 2008 - 11:12pm PT
Joe, you advocate the possibility that we may need to go to war? I'm somewhat surprised.

Edit: Actually, I recall that you do advocate war under certain circumstances. Nevermind. I forgot you weren't a pacifist.

I don't agree with the tax structure. This conflict will be settled and oil flowing from Iraq will trigger the cycle again of increased supply vs. demand and the barrel cost will drop. This drop will not be as far thanks to the global warming movement forcing the prices up. And the continued pressure from China and India. This year will obviously remain turbulent because of pressures building on the upcoming change in the administration. Iran and Hamas are taking the bait proving how stupid they are. Recipe for disaster. Let's hope a nuke doesn't go off somewhere.
Chaz

Trad climber
So. Cal.
Mar 2, 2008 - 12:50am PT
pc writes:

"The point is not to fight them in the first place"

So we may be hesitant toward going to war if it might ruin the economy?

Since when?

healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 2, 2008 - 03:12am PT
Mimi, I'm very much an advocate of a strong military and wielding military might - intelligently. But now the troope of incompetent clowns running the country has so screwed the pooch it will be far more difficult to do so in future. And Iraqi oil? At this point the odds are way better over the the oil will ending up in China rather than the US.
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 2, 2008 - 03:19am PT
Oh and I forgot to throw the freeze in the Fed rate in there as well. The economy would not be ruined, wars would be short, and if we went to war under those conditions the economy would be secondary concern regardless and people would suck it in and deal for the sake of what we were attempting to do.
Chaz

Trad climber
So. Cal.
Mar 2, 2008 - 11:59am PT
If I didn't know better, I might be led to believe Healyje wants the enemy to win all the wars from now on.

Solution's already there. But it will require showing respect for The Constitution.
bob d'antonio

Trad climber
Taos, NM
Mar 2, 2008 - 01:19pm PT
Chaz wrote: If I didn't know better, I might be led to believe Healyje wants the enemy to win all the wars from now on.


When was the last time we won a war??
Chaz

Trad climber
So. Cal.
Mar 2, 2008 - 01:26pm PT
What's your definition of "won"?

That would answer the question for you.
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 2, 2008 - 02:10pm PT
And damn Chaz, I have to agree with you - once gas rolls over $4 bucks a gallon this summer, I'm sure every rural republican is personally going to feel like a winner in this war.
Messages 1 - 13 of total 13 in this topic
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta