Tell me why the USA has to be the world police?

[Matt]

matt you ain't smokin that stuff are you..?

If you are talking about the last two on the list here is my reasoning:
In 2008 we had over 3.5 million people in federal prison on “simple drug charges” meaning they were end users not dealers. It costs the US tax payers on average 25k-30k per inmate per year for an estimated 80 Billion dollars per year. Now many of these are serving mandatory minimum sentences of 10+ years which when averaging at 27k per year is 270k per inmate and averaging the number of inmates at 3 million would put the total at 810 Billion for 10 years … To me that is insane there is no good reason for the tax payer to foot such a bill for a law that is questionable at best as well as un-constitutional.

But to answer your question if it was legal I would smoke it…
Matt

[slim rem 7]

 if i had my way matt we would quit paying much attention to pot..
 we attack that because we have been sold the idea its a gateway drug.. its a gateway drug because
 people have to go an get it from drug dealers an not at an abc store..at an abc store you would pay a hefty tax an thus up gov t funds..i honestly think tax on pot could take care of the elderly in this country..
 ive never seen a pot user do himself much good in my opinion.. but who am i to judge how he feels about it..
 ive also never seen a pot user beat hell out his wife or kid ,,as i have whisky or beer drinkers,, many times..
 jmo i respect all others opinions. slim..
 ps it just didn t help my arthitus like i had hoped or id use it anyway.

[Cabin4]

Can someone please tell me how these are bad things:

• Closing our northern and southern borders temporarily while we get the illegal’s out.
• Imposing exactly the same tariffs and taxes on imports as the originating country imposes on our imports to them.
• Make new laws that follow closer to the rest of the world when it comes to property ownership and immigration laws.
• Do completely away with a 2 party only political system and place major restriction on political contributions.
• Limit congress to 2 terms max per 10 years and do away with career politian’s as well as their retirement system and benefits.
• Reinstate the 10th amendment and live by it
• End welfare and other social programs in the capacity that they are and enforce a strict 6 month max on state assistance to healthy able bodied citizens.
• Abolish the FEDERAL RESERVE and realign the IRS to tax businesses only as allowed in the Constitution.
• Revisit the Interstate Commerce Act and clarify what does and does not fit into it if not doing away with it all together.
• Audit all lobbyist groups and find out which politians are on their payroll and pursue criminal charges against all of them if not treason charges.
• Open independent investigations into 911, WACO, Ruby Ridge, Oklahoma City, Gulf of Tonkin and many other “False Flag” and “Un-Constitutional” operations and pursue charges against all involved.
• Phase out the current dollar with a congressional issued GOLD backed one as required by the CONSTITUION.
• Recall our troops from most all overseas deployments where the hosting country has an established government and military.
• Eliminate the CIA, DHS, BATF and a few other alphabet agencies.
• Remove Federal restriction on Medical insurance and treatments.
• Promote healthy, free and  independent living free of social programs
• End Military involvement in domestic affairs.
• Offer businesses that generate their own power a federal tax break based on amount generated.
• Promote renewable energy for business, residential and government uses.
• Revisit the Controlled Substance Act and reclassify many of the “Drugs” covered under it
• Release all people in federal prison or jail on simple drug possession charges. (Federal Charges only)

 There is a laundry list of other things that need attention and change but I will save them for a later reply.

Matt

I agree with most all of these. There are a few I'm not sure what they are so I may be in complete agreement. I would add, eliminate all anti 2nd amendment legislation at the federal, state and local levels. I would also add that we NEED a reaffirmation of the Articles 1, 2, 3 & 4 of the Constitution, specifically sections 8 & 10 of Article 1.

[Matt]

I agree with most all of these. There are a few I'm not sure what they are so I may be in complete agreement. I would add, eliminate all anti 2nd amendment legislation at the federal, state and local levels. I would also add that we NEED a reaffirmation of the Articles 1, 2, 3 & 4 of the Constitution, specifically sections 8 & 10 of Article 1.

 Yep those are on my list as well Cabin... But if you tell me which ones you are unsure of I would be happy to clarify them.

Matt

[Redtail1949]

matt;

my other answer was really uncalled for and i admit a bit childish...

you have made some very good points  and have given good food for thought. the drug stuff is so complicated  and a very difficult one. i have many conflicting views about it. i am not in favor of legal dope..why i have just seen too much over the years to ever agree that it would be good to do that. i have personal friends that have killed others while useing drugs i have friends that killed themselves taking drugs.

on ther other hand i had a friend that grew up next to me and we played together and basicly grew up alongside each other. when he was 17 years old he was caught with two i repeat two joints in his pocket in a routine traffic stop. think of the time and place early 1960's in South East Texas...the local police chief who was at odds with the boys father ( a city council member) took after this kid who i want to say was a very good kid respectful a good student and so on. this kid was certfied as an adult and charged and sentenced to 25 years in prison. this destroyed him has a human and destroyed his mother and father.

I visited him in prison at the sugar land prison farm many times over the years. he was always a frail weak kid. he told me of being gang raped many times unable to defend himself. so he joined in with the gangs in prison. he was set free in 1982 i believe and i flew down to texas to see him.

he was tattoed head to toe bitter and full of hate and rage. i got in the car with him and we just rode around for hours visting the playgrounds and things that he and i did as a kid. this man was as empty of human feelings as anyone i have ever seen or heard of. yet he cried like a baby and so did i. we visited his mother and father graves and i swear it was a life changing event for me. two months later he drove his car into a intestate overpass support piling. they claimed it was an accident fueled by cocaine and alcohol. i know it was not.

so i certainly see and have seen that there was no justice no reason to destroy so many people over two joints. the problem is knowing the circumstances of those joints ...I knew it was just a kid  just like me that was bowing to peer pressure and where I drank beer to be the big shot he took the dope. god only knows just how many lives have been destroyed because of over zealous procecutors trying to win big headlines at the expense of kids like that. so i am torn deep inside over tyhat issue i have seen first hand both sides.

[teamnelson]

Matt, philosophically I'm with you down the line. Practically you can't do any of those without a major culture shift in the heart & soul of America.

- Putting out illegals doesn't mean all the unemployed americans will show up in the fields the next day. Unions won't let 'em even if they weren't too proud already. Which means we will have to increase imports of food stuffs, as well as delay necessary construction projects unless you get everyone off of housing and into public works ... unions will love that, as will all the regulatory agencies.
- Can't negotiate a need for more food stuffs if you're equalizing tarrifs.
- Investigating and persuing charges into the past is costly and time consuming. Remember, I agree with you philosophically, but unless you can grow a new batch of human beings, investigations seldom accomplish their intent. Justice for past misconduct may be less of a priority than ensuring justice in the future; I think that's money better spent.
- Eliminating agencies does not eliminate the threat that they mitigate ... you will wind up replacing them in some form unless the whole planet drinks our Kool-aid. Isolation/non-intervention does not mean everyone else will leave us alone. We still have resources and ideas important to other people's plans. BATF sure, I'd add Dept Ed, Dept Energy and Dept of Ag to that as well.

I'm probably a minarchist myself, so your solution is still too much government for my taste. However, I recognize that elimination of government does not eliminate expectation of services once built up. The ramifications of your ideas will deprive alot of people of things they've come to rely upon. I'm for it, but with eyes wide open and a willingness to sacrifice ... there ain't many of us like that though, not enough leastwise.

[Dixie Dude]

I agree also.  We also have laws in place that are not enforced.  We had about 20-30 major oil companies about 50 years ago.  The government allowed mergers and eliminated many oil companies like Gulf, Texaco, Amoco, Mobile, Sinclair, Pure, etc.   Names are still used but they are owned by one of the 5-6 major companies.  We have anti-trust laws to break up monopolies.  This is wrong and non-competitive.  They justified it to be able to compete with "foreign" oil companies like Shell and BP out of Europe.  Capitalism works unlike what some people believe, and our good governments in the past passed laws to allow fair competition, and encourage private ownership of the means of production.  Socialism is nothing but a compromise between Communism and Pure Capitalism.  Yes, we need the government to provide roads, bridges, national defence, and to "regulate" commerce, but not "control" the means of production as in the old Soviet Union.  If you go too far to socialism, you will stiffle initiative, inventions, and any person becoming wealthy if they have a good idea or invention.  Utilities are strictly regulated because of the innefficiencies of duplicating powerlines, gas lines, etc.  However, they are much more efficient if privately owned.  For instance if I am a hard worker, but Joe is lazy, I expect to be paid more than him.  If I spent the time and effort, to get an education, I expect to be paid more.  Otherwise if Joe gets paid the same it will encourage me to become lazy and unproductive just like him.  This is why socialism and communism always fail in the past.  Too much government stiffles production.  Governments do not produce anything, they take and give to those who don't except where capitalism doesn't like roads, military, etc.  All capitalist countries produce more.  Look at South Korea vs North Korea.  Japan copied us after WWII, look what they became.  Also Germany.  Britian was the second leading producer after WWII behind us, but quickly dropped to 7th or 8th place when they adapted more socialism. 

[Oldshooter]

For instance if I am a hard worker, but Joe is lazy, I expect to be paid more than him.  If I spent the time and effort, to get an education, I expect to be paid more. Otherwise if Joe gets paid the same it will encourage me to become lazy and unproductive just like him. 

Sounds like what unions do to me.

[45-70.gov]

red tail it  is just that  simple

freedom  isn't  free
many  have  died for  it
many  have  died  from it

alcohol killed  my  dad
we  know  how prohibition  funded  the kenedys  and  copnes of the world
a  high percentage  of  members  here drink
little  crime is  associated  with  alcohol
much  tax revenues are assiaed with alcohol

that  story  of yours  was  a  good  one  for those that  think the war  on druds  is  so  great

i  had a friend  killed  by an  undercover narcotics  officer
just  to  proove  he wasn't  a  NARK

i  also  know of an  under cover cop  that  sold 3  pounds marywana  in a  private  school
in ARDEN  NC      his  name  is  tommy  james....look  him  up  the year  was 1973  or 74
this  is  just  what  i was  told at the time  i was not present

[Yankee1]

Matt
    Those all sound like great ideas to me. If only we could implement them.  We need to have a group of people that could implement them.
How do we accomplish this?  The people that are pulling the strings of our presidents today will fight us tooth and nail. Most of them keep their identities secret. We know some of them but not all. The last president that passed a law to allow congress the authority to print money  again was assassinated shortly after. Then Reagan quietly killed that law when he went in office. Your ideas are the correct way but difficult to accomplish. The people in office have  been violating the constitution they swore to uphold for years.
                                       Yankee1

[Redtail1949]

the war on drugs is a flop because the penalties are not severe enough..example when you catch the trafficers shoot them right there on the spot...it will be a great deterent for those whos heart is really not in it.  there will be some for the money that will still do it but i bet there will be a whole lost less of them.

send the army or special forces units in to kill the leaders wherever they are in any country.

then hard core users on street that COMMIT CRIMES to support habits ...life in prison no exceptions...that will provide many with the incentive to clean up.

the poor stupid teenage kids experimenting with pot like most here did with booze is just that a kid trying to be cool or whatever. he needs something to scare him but not life in prison not even the 25 years my friend served.

of course that will never happen we just do not have the will to do what needs to be done....we would not want to mistreat the head of one of the cartells or one of his big distributors heck you know thay had a bad childhood.

no i have seen to much tragedy from drug use i have never seen anything not one thing good come from any drug use recreational or otherwise.

look now here in colorado they are all in on legal medical pot. applications for pot stores number in the thousands..some have already opened. any fool that thinks it will be on the up and up and no teenagers or others that are not in pain will not get dope from them is just plain ignorant of life.

anyone thinks the cartells will not have a hand in them are fools they just do not understand. yep it will take it out of the back alley and put it on main street and we will have potheads smoking up and staring at the sky all over. just another straw out of the morality stack another little harmless deal that will sink us and our nation to new lows.
so make no mistake i think it is wrong yet i have been torn in many directions over this issue but it still boils down to that cold hard fact nothing good can come from drugs.

[Cabin4]

I agree with most all of these. There are a few I'm not sure what they are so I may be in complete agreement. I would add, eliminate all anti 2nd amendment legislation at the federal, state and local levels. I would also add that we NEED a reaffirmation of the Articles 1, 2, 3 & 4 of the Constitution, specifically sections 8 & 10 of Article 1.

 Yep those are on my list as well Cabin... But if you tell me which ones you are unsure of I would be happy to clarify them.

Matt

Matt,

There are the ones I was not sure what they are:

Abolish the FEDERAL RESERVE and realign the IRS to tax businesses only as allowed in the Constitution.
Revisit the Interstate Commerce Act and clarify what does and does not fit into it if not doing away with it all together.
Remove Federal restriction on Medical insurance and treatments.
Promote healthy, free and  independent living free of social programs

[Matt]

Cabin,

Abolish the FEDERAL RESERVE and realign the IRS to tax businesses only as allowed in the Constitution.
Part 1 The FED

Ok, the Federal Reserve is not part of the government and is owned by the bank of England. If you Google:” Is the Federal Reserve unconstitutional” you will find some good info and may start to understand where it is I am coming from on this one. Here is a good example:

OK - let's keep it simple many say the "Federal Reserve acts as a regulatory agency". But there is no governmental control according to the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No governmental oversight = UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)
the court ruled that the Federal Reserve Banks are "independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations", and there is not sufficient "federal government control over 'detailed physical performance' and 'day to day operation'" of the Federal Reserve Bank for it to be considered a federal agency:

Congressional Attempts to Control the Fed
1937 Rep. Charles G. Binderup of Nebraska

1952 Rep. Wright Patman of Texas ( House Banking Chairman)

"In fact there has never been an independent audit of either the twelve banks of the Federal Reserve Board that has been filed with the Congress ... For 40 years the system, while freely using the money of the government, has not made a proper accounting."
Patman RE: Federal Open Market Committee "one of the most secret societies. These twelve men decide what happens in the economy ... In making decisions they check with no one -- not the President, not the Congress, not the people."

Patman also said:
"In the United States we have, in effect, two governments ... We have the duly constituted Government ... Then we have an independent, uncontrolled and uncoordinated government in the Federal Reserve System, operating the money powers which are reserved to Congress by the Constitution."

1971 Rep. John R. Rarick of Louisiana introduced H.R. 351: "To vest in the Government of the United States the full, absolute, complete, and unconditional ownership of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks." He said: "The Federal Reserve is not an agency of government. It is a private banking monopoly." He was later defeated for re-election.

1980's, Rep. Phil Crane of Illinois called for the repeal of the Federal Reserve Act. In 1980 congress passed the Monetary Control Act,it gave the Federal Reserve control of all banking institutions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 2 The IRS

Many think that the 16th amendment granted the Federal government the right to tax our personal wages but the SCOTUS said it did not. Here is the text of that amendment:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
Now if you know anything about law and for sure constitutional law then you know that wording and definitions are everything. So with this in mind lets look and see if we can find the definition of income

Income Subject to Taxation
Building upon definitions formulated in cases construing the
Corporation Tax Act of 1909, 14 the Court initially described income
as the ‘‘gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,’’
inclusive of the ‘‘profit gained through a sale or conversion
of capital assets’’; 15 in the following array of factual situations it
subsequently applied this definition to achieve results that have
been productive of extended controversy.

14 Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399 (1913); Doyle v. Mitchell
Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179 (1918).
15 Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920); Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co.,
271 U.S. 170 (1926).

You can find the information yourself and much more on the 16th in the attached pdf which was pulled from : http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf/con027.pdf

The 16th did not grant a tax on wages it clarified a tax on income which is a product of business.  There has been several SCOTUS rulings that state the current income tax is unconstitutional but the lower courts are forced by or are in bed with the IRS so they ignore the SCOTUS rulings.  Do a little research on this one as well and it no time you will see that I am right but that don’t mean you can get away with not paying taxes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revisit the Interstate Commerce Act and clarify what does and does not fit into it if not doing away with it all together.
To start with here is how it came to be:

Approved on February 4, 1887, the Interstate Commerce Act created an Interstate Commerce Commission to oversee the conduct of the railroad industry. With this act, the railroads became the first industry subject to Federal regulation.
This is now more commonly referred to as the “Commerce Clause”  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
This is what the feds use to regulate things such as Medical Insurance which have nothing to do with the bills original intent.

------------------------------    -----------------------------------------------

Remove Federal restriction on Medical insurance and treatments.
The fact that you can not purchase your insurance in Georgia if you don’t live there is silly… what about Free Market?  and the laws as they pertain to treatments are written by big pharma lobbyist and are not focused on the health and well being of “We The People” but rather the bottom line of big pharma.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Promote healthy, free and  independent living free of social programs
This one should be easy but basically promote health not sloth as we do today and encourage people to be independent so as not to need social programs such as welfare and Medicaid and the like.
Hope that clears some things up and if not let me know and I will try again…

Matt

[Yankee1]

Matt
    I tip my hat to you sir. You are correctly informed.  I just wish most Americans were. Maybe you need to post more like this past post.
                                      Yankee1

[Cabin4]

Matt,

Thanks for the clarifications. You certainly know the details extremlly well. Very impressive. Based on those clarifications, you can put me in the "Agree" category on all the points you listed in the original list.

C4

[Matt]

matt;

my other answer was really uncalled for and i admit a bit childish...

Well to be honest with you I know that I come off as a “smartass” and a “know it all” most of the time even though I don’t mean too. No hard feelings on this end.

As to the topic of drugs, I think that there are pros and cons on both sides of the argument but I am not looking at it from either of the popular vantage points. On this issue as with every other I take the constitutional stance which in this case is,” it is not the governments place to regulate” but rather the states. The 10th clearly states that if it is not covered by the constitution then it is up to the states to decide and not for the federal government to dictate. If each state wants to enact the same laws the feds have now then so be it but then it would be the peoples decision not the federal governments. This would also open it up for states to later change their laws as the will of the people change. As it is now the federal government will not even entertain the idea of reclassification of any drugs considered a “Schedule I”. They also refuse to allow grants for research into the benefits and uses of some of the drugs to justify the reclassification and deter independent research with threats of federal prosecution. This is the big pharma lobbyist calling the shots and again is totally unconstitutional.

An example of how this country has lost out because of the federal laws and regulations is Hemp. It is one of the most versatile crops known and poses no danger or risk to the public but yet is considered to be a "Schedule 1" drug.

Final thought, if you take a constitutional stance on the war on drugs, the laws and regulations that it uses and the manner in which it is fought, then there is no choice but to repeal the Controlled Substance Act and all Treaties that it was modeled after and from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act

Matt

[Matt]

Matt
    I tip my hat to you sir. You are correctly informed.  I just wish most Americans were. Maybe you need to post more like this past post.
                                      Yankee1

Thanks....

But to me it is part of my duty as an American to not take anything the government does or says at face value. If it is not for the greater good of the people then I feel that it is my duty to speak up and let it be known. I know that many and probably most cannot spend hundreds of hours researching everything we are told. But collectively groups of likeminded people can pull together and get the job done then share the findings with the rest. If those that the information is shared with will take just a little time and verify the main talking points then they might change their mind about many of the things that we are told that is out right misinformation.

There have been so many things that over the last 10 years I have had to re-evaluate and change my stance on because I was misinformed by the media and others. I now take everything I see on TV with a grain of salt until I have the time to research it. I know that we are programmed from an early age to “go with the flow” but to me that is just silly and dangerous for us as a nation. We have allowed the super rich to put in place almost everything they need to "herd us" like cattle to the slaughter house.  Though that was meant metaphorically it may also have some literal truth to it as the powers that be have made it clear there are too many people and they want many of us gone.  Just something to think about…

Matt

[Redtail1949]

Matt:

i was taught as a young man if someone you had a fist fight or disagreement with offers his hand you take it and let bygones be bygones. Even though we will certainly will disagree. i hold no animosity nor grudge for your views as a matter of fact i respect that you can have them. i accept what you have said and if i offended you i offer you my hand.

Redtail1949

[Matt]

Matt:

i was taught as a young man if someone you had a fist fight or disagreement with offers his hand you take it and let bygones be bygones. Even though we will certainly will disagree. i hold no animosity nor grudge for your views as a matter of fact i respect that you can have them. i accept what you have said and if i offended you i offer you my hand.

Redtail1949

Ditto... We are all in the same boat and the sooner we see that the better IMO. I am sure we will disagree but as long as we can agree to disagree I see no problem if you know what I mean.

Matt
    Those all sound like great ideas to me. If only we could implement them.  We need to have a group of people that could implement them.
How do we accomplish this?  The people that are pulling the strings of our presidents today will fight us tooth and nail. Most of them keep their identities secret. We know some of them but not all. The last president that passed a law to allow congress the authority to print money  again was assassinated shortly after. Then Reagan quietly killed that law when he went in office. Your ideas are the correct way but difficult to accomplish. The people in office have  been violating the constitution they swore to uphold for years.
                                       Yankee1

Yankee, well believe it or not it is not that hard to do. All it takes is a little research into each candidate that you plan on voting for. If they have any ties to lobbyist, CFR, Tri-Lateral Commission or any other NWO  related group DON’T VOTE FOR THEM. Next if they are an incumbent then look at the voting record and if they voted against the people and for big biz or big government then get them out.  I think after one or two cycles you would find that most everything I listed would be a snap to make happen.

Many say that it can’t be done but I disagree, If you could get the conservative thinkers on both sides to drop party affiliations and vote for the person who really is looking to make a difference for the people and stop the whole lesser of the evils crap then all that would be left in the ranks would be those that want socialism in some sort and I really think there are more of us than them right now… not for much longer but right now…
We allow the media to control the debates the candidates partake in but why? I think that the town hall is the best place for a debate where the people get to ask the questions. I also don’t think the candidates should get to have the questions up front… I don’t want a scripted answer I want the answer from the heart and mind of the person answering. If they have time to script an answer then most likely it is not a truthful one but rather what they think we want to hear.  I could go on and on about this but I really don’t want the flames that will come from the peanut gallery so I will stop here.  But feel free to PM me and I will give you some more “How’s” and “Whys”.

Matt

[Dixie Dude]

We actually used a gold standard from the begining of our country until 1917 when Woodrow Wilson signed into law the begining of the Federal Reserve.  A $20 gold piece was the same value in 1800 as it was in 1900.  After the Fed Res was formed we had the Roaring 20's boom.  It was modeled after Germany's banking system.  Then we had the depression. Kennedy wanted to go back to the gold standard shortly before he was killed.  Makes you wonder.  Our founding fathers warned us about banks and the banking system.  With gold going up in value, it really has remained constant, dollars have actually gone down in value.  

What we can do:
1) Grow a garden, not just veggies, but herbs and spices.
2) Hunt and fish
3) pay off your debt
4) try to become energy independent, wood, solar, wind, semi-underground home, hydro if you are near a creek or stream.  
5) Stockpile food, ammo, consumables.
6) Learn to make your own things like soap, clothes, hand weaving fabrics, blacksmithing, gun powder, pottery or steam engines, and even anti-biotics.  
7) Buy books on how to make things like mentioned above.  
Visit an Amish community on vacation, learn from them.  
9) Learn how to take care of draft animals and farm animals for food and work.  
10) Learn about wild plants for food and medicine.  

Might be more primitive, but you can survive with some comfort.  What money you make on the side, pay your property tax and use for medical care and things hard to come by.

[Redtail1949]

i sure some of you have noticed that there is a bill out demanding an audit of the Federal Reserve sponsored by Ron Paul I believe. There have many calls for just that. however, I bet all I own it will never happen..they do not want us know nor see all the backroom deals being cut involving trillions of dollars.

[Cabin4]

i sure some of you have noticed that there is a bill out demanding an audit of the Federal Reserve sponsored by Ron Paul I believe. There have many calls for just that. however, I bet all I own it will never happen..they do not want us know nor see all the backroom deals being cut involving trillions of dollars.

Your right it will never happen. The super rich & the socialists pull to many strings in congress to let any common sence legislation pass.

[Dweezil]

Somehow I suspect that if we had a universal draft, for all 18-26 year olds for 3 years with NO exceptions, much of this would change. When Jane Soccer Mom has to look forward to her own precious baby going off to play Global SuperCop, she's going to look much more closely at the type of military actions our government thinks is necessary. Brings it home, y'know.

[Dee]

Didn't work for the draftees in the Vietnam era. Two months after I graduated in 1968, I was standing in the Dallas Induction Center and had some class mates there as well.
Everyone but a few hippies were doing the usual flag waving with not a clue what Vietnam was really about. About ten years and 55,000 deaths later, we got ran out of Vietnam. That theory don't fly.

[Dweezil]

You were there.  I wasn't even born until a year later.  You said it was mostly flag waving etc when you first left.  How long did it take before the war protests started in earnest, on the grand scale that they did later in the war? I'm just wondering how fed up with a war Americans have to be or how many of our guys have to die before they decide enough is enough.
Also, how many deferments, loopholes, waivers etc were in effect at the time of the VietNam war.  It seems most of our congressment, of draftable age during VietNam, got out of it somehow. Funny how that happens.

[teamnelson]

A distinct difference between vietnam and now is how we view those who serve. The vietnam generation saw draftees as babykillers ... huh? And today we are supportive to a fault of volunteers (rightfully so). Protests against both wars had valid points, but the hate was directed differently. This generation seems to recognize the appropriate target of anger over war is the government. Exceptions noted, I'm speaking in general terms.

A draft is a horrible thing. My own take on the framers of our nation is that they saw the military not unlike what you see in Switzerland today; everyone's civic duty when necessary. You don't have to force a willing nation to come to arms in defense of a commonly recognized cause. Our nation is too fragmented to come together over anything today. If we tried to force the military back into a state militia structure, I think you'll find rampant apathy and non-participation.

[Oldshooter]

I have a little more confidence in the young and old here! maybe not if there was a new draft cause We know what can go on with political "struggles" and all. But in the event of an attack or declared war. There would be more men come out of the woodwork than you could imagine. An maybe that's enough and all there needs to be!

[Dweezil]

Oldshooter,
I think you're right.  I think if we had a national crisis of the type envisioned by our founding fathers when they wrote the oath soldiers have to take upon enlistment, a lot of Americans would step up to the plate and do the right thing.  At least I hope so.  Perhaps most Americans truly don't believe in the wars we've gotten ourselves into lately...certainly not enough to make a personal commitment to fight them.