Who should fight US wars?

[BurtWorm]

[BurtWorm]

1. Why is no one voting?

This is a serious question. Everyone should be able to answer it.

[ejcastellanos]

2. Other - the children of the rich SOBs who start them

[BurtWorm]

3. That's reasonable.

:toast: And the rich SOBs who start them should lead the charge.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

5. hell yea

damn fat cats...

[VelmaD]

26. I hear this argument all the time and...

I don't think it's right. The kids didn't have any control over who their parents are. Don't punish them. Make the people who start the wars go FIGHT THEM THEMSELVES.

[MAlibdem]

71. how about the rich SOBs who start them

and not their children? Like...sure, Mr. Vice President, we can go to war, but you have to fire the first shot in your new Bradley Fighting Vehicle, good luck, sir!

[BurtWorm]

4. What's the difference between choice one and choice two?

As far as the infantry is concerned, there doesn't seem to be any difference.

[nickinSTL]

6. 1& 2?

What's the difference between a volunteer army and mercenaries?

Uh, about $80,000 a year in salary.

[BurtWorm]

7. An entry-level mercenary earns how much?

Assume the government contracts out its infantry, not just security services but actual combat services. In other words, all the government does is hire private companies to run its wars. This is the Milton Friedman dream. I don't think companies would be offering much more than the volunteer army, so the grunts would be getting as little pay as possible--enough to entice them to join, but as little as possible to maximize profits.

[nickinSTL]

14. mercenary pay

I don't know how much an entry-level mercenary makes.

However, my understanding is that the mercenaries in Iraq right now make a LOT more than the average soldier.

[BurtWorm]

15. I'm wondering what a mercenary would make if all military tasks

were contracted out. I don't think it would be much different from what the average grunt now makes, considering the contractor would be looking to keep a profit for himself.

[camero]

17. mercenary=killing for profit

Plus they are not bound by the US Constitution. So not only are there ethical dilemmas in a mercenary force but also a constitutional one.

[environmental wakko]

27. ha ha

right-on

[Lavalamp]

43. A merc

usually has independent training and experience to start with. (read: there is no need to train them)

A merc can be from any nation, where as volunteer soldiers are usually citizens or permanent residents.

Mercs are more independent from the hiring nation compared to standard soldiers. Because of this they can take the fall for blunders rather than the nation hiring them. Though they also can be less reliable in this way should they chose to disappear and forget the job on whim.

You don't need to expend resources on mercs. Because they may not even be from your nation, and are not closely affiliated, you need not provide them with training, food, housing, meds, etc. Many times they are expected to handle that themselves.

[BurtWorm]

8. Can someone who voted for the volunteer army please justify your vote?

Essentially you're voting for the status quo. What's good about it?

[parkening]

9. History bears out

that the volunteer army is the only good long-term answer for the defense of a nation. They are better disciplined, trained, have higher morale, etc.

When you buy a mercenary army, you need to remember that if you bought them, someone else can buy them off, too.

There is a long history of governments using conscripts to fight wars. Their results speak for themselves. Poorly disciplined, poorly trained, low morale troops do not a fighting force make.

Just about every country you can name has a fighting force. Even countries without a defense force of their own usually have an agreement with some other country to protect them. Human nature being what it is, it is fool-hardy, although wonderful in a peacey/groovy kind of way, to think that any nation with any natural resources of any kind could survive without an army.

"Other" is a tempting option to consider. If we could just master the Jedi mind control thing, we could use that as a national defense strategy. Maybe we can get a government grant to do some research in this area.

[BurtWorm]

10. World War II was fought with conscripts.

They did an exceptional job, didn't they? Are volunteer armies immune from morale problems?

PS: Thanks for your thoughtful reply, by the way. :toast:

[parkening]

12. They did do an excellent job

but looking at the big picture of history, WWII was an anomaly. Wars before that time and wars afterward have been fought with conscripts with generally bad results. It's not that they can't do a good job, it's just that the odds are against it.

Volunteer armies are not immune to morale problems of course. As a general rule, their morale is higher than any of the other choices.

[BurtWorm]

13. My problem with using volunteer armies.

The government has less compunction against using them capriciously, to wag the dog or look tough before election. The volunteers tend to come from a particular class, usually an economically needy one. And they tend to create a class with a particular political outlook. A democracy is better served when its military reflects the democracy as a whole.

[parkening]

16. There certainly is the temptation

to use the military as a political tool by the party in power. Which is why "we, the people" must exercise our civic duty and vote for folks (or against folks) that we can (cannot) trust as the CIC of our armed forces.

Just a word about the "class" of volunteers. In the 200+ years of this country's history we've been at peace for the majority of the time. My brother (who was a college graduate and not poor), entered the Navy, served his term, was educated as a nuclear engineer, saw no military action, and then left to join the private sector. I think this is the experience of many if not most military folks. So these volunteers do benefit personally from their time in the service of this nation, giving them the potential to move out of the "class" they are in.

[MAlibdem]

76. But this is mitigated by GI Bill and other benefits

That allow soldiers, after service, to better themselves economically.

[TahitiNut]

19. Nonsense.

A professional ("all volunteer") military is the transitional hallmark of countries that fall to militaristic dictatorships.

Lest we forget, the very notion of 'democracy' wasn't dreamed up as an axiomatic "good" ... it has underlying principles and values that lead to its legitimacy. Concisely speaking, the rationale has to do with the allocation of benefit and investments in the "common wealth." When there's a ruling elite, the benefits go to the elite and the investments come from the poor. "Democracy" exists under the principle that the allocation of benefits should fairly match the allocation of investments. Those who've historically argued for some kind of elite "ruling class" (whether it be monarchical or autocratic) have rested solely on the idea that they possess some "special" right (divine right of kings) or ability (breeding) to govern and thereby have some greater right to the fruits of governance. But the sour fruits are always allocated to the hoi polloi and the sweet fruits to the elite. We then get people who argue that the results of a flawed socioeconomic system become the basis for ascertaining "fairness" and we treat the system of our own invention as the standard of its own "success." This is the grand fallacy, a fallacy embraced by autocrats.

[parkening]

22. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

or "Affirmation of the Consequent", either way your argument falls short of proof and serves, at best, as a warning to keep our eyes on our leaders. Anyway, your conclusion of "nonsense" is unwarranted.

on edit: Love the term "hoi polloi" by the way. I find it interesting that in English we always say, "the hoi polloi". Of course, we know that "hoi" means "the". That's part of the beauty of the language that we can say "the the many" but everyone knows what we really mean. Thanks for your thoughts, tahitinut.

[TahitiNut]

25. It's conventional in English ...

... to employ an article (definite or indefinite) with such phrases imported from other languages. Consider "the al-Quaeda" or any Arabic "al-" construct, for example. "Hoi polloi" is imported in its entirety as a noun in English -- we didn't (for the usual strange reasons) just import "polloi." It's a living language. :shrug:

FWIW, part of the fallacy of "fairness" in a volunteer (paid) military is the question of who's doing the paying. Since our overall tax structure rests far more heavily on the lowest 90-95% it's effectively "paying twice" - once by serving and then by paying. Now, if you want to pay for a military by specially taxing only the top 1-5% (to pay the entire military budget) I might be more agreeable. Currently, we're almost no better ethically than a colonialist plantation that drives slaves/sharecroppers to fight for the owners and pays for it by reducing the slaves' rations or increasing the sharecropper's rent. (It's a capitalist's version of feudalism.)

[parkening]

33. From US treasury numbers

the top 5% of taxpayers pay approximately $423 billion. The defense budget is approximately $405 billion. So, essentially, the top 5% of taxpayers are paying for the military and then some. I can't really buy the plantation analogy as you've presented it.

[TahitiNut]

35. "can't really buy"??

:shrug: Well, I guess that's your loss. Too bad.

FWIW, the income taxes paid by the top 5% don't even come near to paying for the defense budget (that still excludes the WoT outlays) ... after the proportional allocation against all federal outlays. Now, enact a separate "war tax" on anyone with an income of more than $250,000/year and we'd be getting somewhere.

[parkening]

36. Gimme a break TN

"proportional allocation"? The fact remains that the top 5% of taxpayers are paying over 50% of the federal tax revenue. We need to remember that "the rich" are generally the folks that are providing me with my job. The more taxes a small/medium/large business has to pay the fewer folks they can hire/products they can produce. They are not all evil war-mongering baddies.

[camero]

38. That's not a fact

That's Bush's fuzzy math.

[parkening]

40. Do you have any support

for your assertion, camero?

[camero]

41. Do you have any "facts"

besides what's on right wing sites?

[parkening]

51. I don't think

the US treasury website is right wing.

The other web site I referenced has been noticed by some people you may know. Here's what they said:

"Public Agenda a non-profit organization dedicated to unbiased public opinion research." – Reuters.

"Public Agenda ... does good work, as free of institutional bias as any I regularly see." – columnist William Raspberry, The Washington Post

[camero]

62. Um The US Treasury is a part of the bush Gov't

Your lame excuses to the contrary notwithstanding

[parkening]

77. Show me something

rightwing, bushist, biased in any way on the page I linked.

This discussion has gotten so far off topic that I'm dropping it.

[camero]

79. Bye

:hi:

[camero]

44. some

http://www.citizenworks.org/corp/corpkilling.pdf

Corporations, meanwhile, pay just 13.7% of all taxes, leaving individuals to cover the rest. This is quite a change
from 1940, when corporations and individuals roughly split the tax bill. In recent years, many corporations have beefed up their tax departments to take advantage of all possible loopholes, including the use of offshore tax havens. A number have even reincorporated in offshore tax havens. (see “Gaming the Tax System,” Business Week
March 31, 2003)

Individual taxpayers account for 86.3% of all taxes paid. Yet less and less is going to the individuals who need social services while more and more is going back to private corporations through subsidies, excessive contracts, and other forms of corporate welfare. A big chunk of Bush’s proposed tax cuts come from slashing budgets for social safety net programs that benefit the most people. House Republicans, who are drafting Bush’s plan into law, are cutting $93
billion from Medicaid, $14.6 billion in benefits for veterans (including money for disabilities), and also making significant funding cuts to education and other social services.

Both wealthy taxpayers and corporations take advantage of offshore tax havens, which IRS consultant Jack Blum
estimates costs the government about $70 billion in annual revenue, or almost enough to cover the $75 billion that
Bush estimates will be needed to cover the first 6 months of war.

[parkening]

49. I'm sure

you don't want to go back to the economy of 1940.

You may have gathered from my comments here that I'm not a big fan of the government collecting taxes at all and don't have a problem with corporations or individuals taking legal advantage of every tax loophole available. I take every deduction and allowance I in good conscience can when I do my taxes --- and I'm sure you do, too.

[camero]

53. Rush is that you?

http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/beattherightinthree.htm

Unemployment was 23 percent when FDR took office in 1933. It dropped to 2.5 percent by time the next Republican was in the White House in 1953. It climbed back to 6.5 percent by the end of the Eisenhower administration. It dropped to 3.5 percent by the time LBJ left office. It climbed over 5 percent shortly after Nixon took office, and stayed there for 27 years, until Clinton brought it down to 4.5 percent early in his second term.

That same period – especially from the late forties into the early seventies – was the "golden age" of the United States. We sent men to the moon. We built our Interstate Highway system. We ended segregation in the South and established Medicare. In those days, a single wage earner could support an entire family on his wages. I will tell you that life was good – at least for the many Americans insulated from the tragedy in Vietnam.

http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/rightresponds.html

We created the minimum wage in 1938. We have raised it from time to time since then. Notable examples would be 1957, 1963, and 1996. Take a look at the inflation numbers for the years immediately following.

Just for good measure lets look at the inflation rate from 1957 through the end of the Johnson administration in 1969.

1957 3.38
1958 2.98
1959 .58
1960 1.72
1961 1.13
1962 1.12
1963 1.10
1964 1.37
1965 1.62
1966 2.92
1967 2.84
1968 4.26
1969 5.29

How about the 1996 increase?

1996 2.96
1997 2.35
1998 1.51
1999 2.21
2000 3.38
2001 2.86


Uh yeah, maybe lower unemployment and inflation would be good. :eyes:

[parkening]

56. What does all this have to do with

the economy of 1940? Which was our original issue.

Real cute subject line by the way.

[camero]

58. much better than today's

that's for sure. Or are you going to give us more Bush statistics?
:eyes:

[parkening]

63. Give me something to work with camero

"much better than today's"? You and I both know that's not true.

[camero]

65. I gave you something

Look it up. :eyes: Oh I see now, in 1940, the CEO only made 40 times the lowest paid worker whereas now it is almost 500 times. This must be progress to you.

The inflation rate for the Unites States in the year 1940 is 1.20

The inflation rate for the Unites States in the year 2001 is 2.86


http://www.eh.net/hmit/inflation/inflationr.php

The unemployment rate was 6.9% and dropping which then included people who today would be counted as out of the labor force.

[BurtWorm]

54. You also repeat the Rushist lie that a volunteer army is leaner and meaner

than a conscripted army, without offering any proof. Interesting views for a "progressive."

[parkening]

55. Whatever

You say the opposite without offering any proof. I do know that (according to your own poll, Burt!) as of right now 45% of the DU supports a volunteer army over the 10% that supports a conscripted army. I don't sound like the one who's out of the mainstream here.

[BurtWorm]

57. Only you and Donald Rumsfeld think volunteer armies are inherently better

than conscripted ones. My position is unusual for a leftist, though it's the same as Charlie Rangel's: the volunteer army is spreading the burden of the common defense inequitably onto the less affluent, the Southern, and the minorities. Furthermore, it's making the military a tool of the Executive branch. I think war should always be the last resort, but if it is deemed to be necessary upon due consideration by the people's representatives, then I think the burden should be shared equally. This is a leftist position.

Yours is a Rumsfeldian position. That is very unusual for a progressive.

[parkening]

59. My position is echoed by

45% of the DU. So, I guess 45% of the DU holds a Rumsfeldian view of the military. Are you prepared to say that?

Do you have proof that the demography is shifting as you've asserted? And is it in general a problem? Do these groups not get any benefit out of their service?

[BurtWorm]

61. Where do you get the idea that DUers agree with Rumsfeld?

Who besides you has voiced this canard about volunteer armies being "superior?"

[parkening]

64. Look at your poll numbers

it backs up what I'm saying.

Is it any wonder that no one else is talking about it? I knew I'd get flamed for poking my head out.

[BurtWorm]

66. No one else has made any statement that could be construed

as agreeing with Rumsfeld, that volunteer armies are superior to conscripted ones. There are other more progressive reasons--and I do mean reasons--for opposing conscription.

[parkening]

70. And neither have I

I don't claim to be some kind of professional progressive thinker. I'm sure there are some great progressive arguments as you mention.

[TahitiNut]

69. Where did he claim to be a 'progressive'??

I must've missed that post. :eyes:

[TahitiNut]

42. Right Wing Disinformation Alert !!!

"the top 5% of taxpayers are paying over 50% of the federal tax revenue"

FALSE -
(1) This is a misstatement based on Individual Federal Income Taxes and does NOT include Payroll Taxes (OASDI/HI), Corporate Federal Income Taxes, or Federal Excise Taxes.
(2) This is from a figure based on Adjusted Gross Income, not Total Income. It also does not include all capital gains either realized or unrealized.
(3) It's a typical attempt to create a specious comparison between the magnitude of two unrelated percentages (the "5" and the "50") and AVOIDS mentioning that this same "5%" receives 32% of all individual AGI! (It's even a greater percentage of 'Total Income'.)


'"the rich" are generally the folks that are providing me with my job'

FALSE -
It's the "rich" who are collecting more than half the value of your labor. Labor creates wealth but is not equitably compensated for that wealth. The wealthy (and powerful) are creating a system whereby you are increasingly impeded from obtaining the full compensation for your own labor -- just like plantation owners.

When people are taxed on the income they collect from the labors of others at HALF the rates that other people are taxed on their OWN labor, that's "plantation economics"!


'The more taxes a small/medium/large business has to pay the fewer folks they can hire'

FALSE - (TOTAL UNADULTERATED REICHBOT BULLSHIT)
Businesses only pay taxes on PROFITS!!! The labor expenses of salaries and wages are subtracted from income and ARE NOT TAXED!!! Higher taxes on profits are actually an incentive to hiring and the retention (delayed recognition and realization) of profits by reinvestment in product and production. Businesses don't even pay sales taxes on many goods they purchase!

[TahitiNut]

45. (cough)

:eyes:

[parkening]

48. re: (cough)

Had to leave yesterday to get my girls from class.

[parkening]

47. Yowzers!

So you're telling me that the top 5% receives 32% of all individual AGI and yet pays 53% income tax revenue and this is somehow inequitable? The high income people are paying a higher tax rate. All these other taxes you mentioned are proportionate to income. Somehow this doesn't strike me as inequitable.


The rich collect more than half the value of my labor? You and I both know you can't back that up. Labor does create wealth but it takes a company, "the rich" if you will, to direct that labor into a usable product. I can't sit home and design wire harness installations and expect to collect 100% of the value of my labor. There is no consumer of what I have to sell without the "rich" directing it into a useful product. And for the service that the company is providing me they deserve to be compensated. If I'm unhappy with their cut, I am free to market my skills elsewhere.


Businesses only pay taxes on profits --- as it should be. In order to grow a business the company must reinvest this profit. The less it is taxed the more can be applied to the reinvestment. According to your logic if we just taxed all the profit out of a business then that would be ideal for hiring and retention. A business needs an incentive to stay in business---if there are no or little profit, the business closes.

[TahitiNut]

60. It's one thing to be ignorant (we ALL are to one degree or another) ...

... and something else entirely to spout falsehoods and try to claim others know no better. (But that's just a general observation, nothing "personal" of course. :eyes:)

"The rich collect more than half the value of my labor? You and I both know you can't back that up."

First of all, don't even try to tell me what I know or don't know. You're not qualified!

Now, let's look at the facts! The current Net Income/Employee for the S&P500 is $80,794. That's a standard "Efficiency Ratio" referenced by both management and investors. Net operating income (EBITDA - earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization)) is divided by FTE's (Full Time Equivalent employees) to show how much net income the average employee generates ... after subtracting all operating expenses, including their total labor compensation, and that of the executives too.

This information is available to anyone when looking at the financial performance of any public company. (See http://yahoo.investor.reuters.com/MG.aspx?ticker=MSFT.O&target=%2fstocks%2ffinancialinfo%2fratios%2fefficiency)

At Microsoft, the Net Income/Employee is $134,527!

That's a measure of how much money is left over after all operating expenses are subtracted from income. That's when the accounting fun begins. At that point, the ownership class starts taking their "share" -- in the amortization of "goodwill" typically resulting from overpriced mergers and acqusitions, "depreciation" on many assets whose value is really not depreciating, and a plethora of other gimmicks (can you say "oil depletion allowance"?) that play games with market capitalization converted to the income statement. Then there're taxes.

The key point here is that everything done on the income statement after "net (operating) income" relates to the distribution of wealth to those who invested no labor. This is how wealth is created and redistributed to the ownership class and their investment bankers.

Now, if you assume that the average total compensation of all the employees of Microsoft is $134,527 or less, then that's proof that they're receiving less than half of the value of their labor. Are you going to try to tell me that Microsoft employees are compensated more than that? Bullshit.

Likewise, if you assume that the average total compensation of all the employees of every S&P 500 Company is $80,794 or less, then that's proof that they're receiving less than half of the value of their labor. Are you going to try to tell me that S&P 500 Company employees are compensated more than that? Bullshit again.

Now, I'm not going to argue that owners don't deserve some compensation for the use of their property. (Let's be sure to note that if that property is RENTED by the business, then it's an expense and already included. We're talking about other devious ways to make owners wealthy here.) But nowhere is it written that they deserve, under any accepted theory of "justice," to be made wealthier and wealthier. After all, that "property" would have no value whatsoever if it weren't "mixed" with labor to generate more wealth. Furthermore, that 'property' isn't destroyed when labor is added to it - it's improved. Thus, the owner loses absolutely nothing when their property is used. Labor is what gives such property its value. Just like on a plantation ... unless someone labors in those cotton fields, they're just fields having no value whatsoever.

[parkening]

68. The owner takes a risk

They are not guaranteed to succeed. Businesses go out of business every day. The business owner is compensated for his risk. The business owner also directed the labor into a useful product. The laborers by themselves would not realize nearly the benefit that they get corporately. Your contention that the business owner provides "no labor" is misleading.

According to your numbers my company (An S&P 500 company) should have had a net income of ~$12.2 billion. And yet the financial statement says they only made $0.7 billion. Or a Net Income/Employee of $4700. I can safely say that the least compensated employee here makes 3-4 times that much. The average employee making 8-10 times that amount. So on average your numbers may be perfectly correct and wonderful, yet in individual companies this may not be the case at all.

[TahitiNut]

73. Congratulations.

You just discovered a 'feature' of an average. There's hope. (But not much.) :puke:

[TahitiNut]

67. More total bullshit in your post.

"All these other taxes you mentioned are proportionate to income."

Falsehood!
Federal excise taxes are NOT "proportionate to income" - in fact they're REGRESSIVE. Think gasoline.
Payroll taxes are NOT "proportionate to income" - they're on EARNED income, not UNEARNED income (like capital gains) and they're flat rate, REGRESSIVE taxes only on the first $85K -- earnings above that are "tax-free". That's REGRESSIVE.

"Businesses only pay taxes on profits --- as it should be. In order to grow a business the company must reinvest this profit. The less it is taxed the more can be applied to the reinvestment."

Bullshit! Any money reinvested by purchasing production inventory, production property, plant, equipment, wages, salaries, and other 'growth' investments are subtracted before the remaining profit is calculated and taxes are levied. Profits go to the owners! They are NOT "reinvested" in that business. If they were, they'd be called EXPENSES or (productive) assets. Of all of Microsoft's assets (accumulated wealth), for example, less than 5% are productive assets (inventory, property, plant, and equipment). The rest represents accumulated wealth of the "ownership class" having absolutely NOTHING to do with that business's growth or expansion. NOTHING.

[parkening]

75. All right I give

TN, you are quite well versed in this topic. You know your stuff and back it up with data. I appreciate it. Your tone, on the other hand, leaves a little to be desired.

I'm done posting in this portion of the thread as well as contra camero. This little sideshow has been fun but is way, waaaaay off topic. Thanks, again.

[TahitiNut]

80. My 'tone' is just a small hint at the DISGUST I have for the lies and ...

... misrepresentations of right wing corporatist predators. Altogether too many people are completely deluded and ignorant of the abominable abuses of the corporatist economic system. The delusions are so widespread that people have become informational "Typhoid Marys" - spreading the mythology of enslavement to keep the field-hands happy and stupid.

People talk about "risk." OK, let's talk about it. A group of people willing to work hard band together to form a business. Call it 'Acme.' They have a hard time competing against well-heeled entrenched companies. They sell stock.

The sell 1 million shares at $1. That's the 'risk' investors assume.

Then they cash in by selling that stock for $2 to other people. Acme didn't get SHIT on that sale. But the new plantation owners don't care. They tell the workers to work harder for less.

Then they cash in by selling that stock for $3 to other people. Acme didn't get SHIT on that sale. But the new plantation owners don't care. They tell the workers to work harder for less.

Then they cash in by selling that stock for $4 to other people. Acme didn't get SHIT on that sale. But the new plantation owners don't care. They tell the workers to work harder for less.

Then they cash in by selling that stock for $5 to other people. Acme didn't get SHIT on that sale. But the new plantation owners don't care. They tell the workers to work harder for less.

....

Then they cash in by selling that stock for $25 to other people. Acme didn't get SHIT on that sale. But the new plantation owners don't care. They tell the workers to work harder for less.

We now have a company with $25 million in "market capitalization" where the company only got $1 million (4%) to actually invest in the business. The 'risk' is 4% ... the rest is "greater fool theory." The people who actually perform the work have their labor devalued to compensate for runaway equity inflation.

In the meantime, every sale of every share of stock added to the enrichment of a stock broker and some investment bank. (Acme has to pay someone to keep track of the stock - and "make a market.")

From what I've read, only about 1% of the aggregate market capitalization of corporations being traded on the NYSE has ever actually reached the company being traded - and result in a person getting paid for their labor, either directly through employment or indirectly through products and services. All the rest is ownership of a plantation where the slaves work harder for less and less of a share of the wealth they're creating. The other 99% on all the balance sheets is the retained value of labor - NOT compensating those who performed the actual labor that created those assets.

The GINI Index of the US is now at 41 and going up. Labor is getting less and "owners" are getting more. It's institutionalized slavery. The term "wage slave" is more accurate than most people realize. It's no accident that free agent laborers are getting fewer and fewer. At best, we con only hope to be sharecroppers.

[northernsoul]

34. easy, It's 100% unconstitutional

but we're already having this discussion elsewhere.

[randr]

11. The stockholders of the many private companies reaping the rewards!

[kayell]

18. That's got my vote

[Zorra]

20. We should all fight US wars.

By making war obsolete.

[tom_paine]

21. Man I'm surprised that a lot of people voted "there should be no wars"

That's correct. There SHOULD be no wars.

Unfortunately, humans being glorified monkeys, there ARE and probably always will be.

If we are to survive and enjoy our peacful, happy lifestyle, like it or not, we NEED people to stand ready to fight those wars, even if they don't happen.

Was Bunnypants* War based on a lie? A horrible stupid mistake (for us, not the Imperials, they did EXACTLY what they wanted) they engineereed themselves for their own dark purpose?

Absolutely.

But let's not go too far in the opposite direction.

There will always likely be the need for armies, and sadly, for war. Thus, people are going to have to fight in them.

[rman]

29. How about we all vote to make a law...

which says that IF any wars have to be waged, that no profit may be made from all the trading that is involved with war.
No special deals, no $4000 toilet seats etc. None of that in spite of the fact that there's a war on, and that the trade involved is somewhat secret because it's with the army, which takes place in a time of relative chaos, and we're not supposed to criticize our own while we're fighting the enemy anyway. So there's plenty of opportunity for profitable trading, but in spite of all that, no profiteering will be allowed.

War is very expensive, it has a negative effect on the economy even of a large nation. Everyone will have to put in some extra effort and make due with a little less luxury. Then why should it be so that big corporations actually make huge profits on war? And why should those same corporations have a huge influence on government policy?

Let's make laws which prohibit exactly that,

and then let's see how many more wars we'll engage in.

[tom_paine]

30. Heh heh. I like it

Now, if you could just find a country outside the Amerikan Empire and in the Free World (unlike Imperial Amerika) to sponsor it, you'll be doing great.

Just don't hold your breath waiting.

[No2W2004]

74. During WW II

Senator Harry Truman's comittiee did just that by traveling to the manufacturing plant/constrution site/testing grounds. He uncovered tons of pork, waste, and outright theft from government contracts. It's the main reason he was "forced" to become Vice President.

[JHB]

23. The PNAC Gallery

See how they like their own asses on the line.

[JanMichael]

24. The Poor and Disenfranchised.

No, wait, the people that Profit from them...That'd put an end to War...

[Zero Gravitas]

28. Other

If you support a war you should be prepared to fight it (or send your children). If every angry SUV driving asshole who supported Bush's war got drafted to go fight it, support would have dried up over night (and those who thought it would be fun to "go shoot me some A-rabs would get exactly what they deserve).

[moondust]

31. Conscription.

An all-volunteer force ends up cultivating permanent upper and lower classes. Conscription of all classes cultivates an economic melting pot and a more classless society where all share the burdens as well as the benefits.

[Mattforclark]

32. Mercs

preferably Numidian mercs.

[Fescue4u]

37. Robots.

Big ones with metal skin.

[LibLabUK]

52. Hmmm

That would probably be the worst thing that could happen.

Imagine being able to wage war without risking the lives of your countrymen.

It's almost to that point with the US's air superiority. The US govt doesn't seem to have any hesitation in ordering air strikes because it can almost do so without impunity.

If it could send in ground forces without consequence then it would really be war without end.

[0007]

39. Bring the troops home for christ sake!

[oblivious]

46. North Korean troops on contract.

Why?
1. They have a million-man army + an enormous militia -- 1.6 million self-defense units, 100,000 people's guards, 3.9 million workers militia, and 900,000 youth guard units. That should do it.
2. They wouldn't cost much.
3. North Korea could use the remittances.
4. North Korea would then be too busy making money from its armed forces to threaten its neighbours.
5. Their troops are well indoctrinated and are taught to fight to the bitter end.
6. There would then no longer be any need for the 37,000 US troops in South Korea.

[CWebster]

50. All the politicians who supported sending our young

who trusted their government.

[JVS]

72. Could you make a list please

[RichardRay]

78. Conscript Everybody and Everything

with no deferments, no exceptions. When the country goes to war EVERYBODY goes - disabled adults, pregnant women, old people, young people, elected officials, rich people, poor people, judges, prisoners, clergy. No CO's, no educational deferments. Everybody means everybody. Industrial workers stay on their jobs as members of the military. No business not directly connected to the prosecution of the war is allowed - draft the corporations!

One, we would become involved in very few wars. Two, they'd be over quickly.

[TahitiNut]

81. One of the first (and oldest) cultures that ...

... created a separate part of their nation (a sect or caste) to wage war is Hindi culture. The Sikhs are the warrior caste. This is theology at work in the secular world ... just one of many attempts to resolve the contradiction between a theological belief that killing is 'wrong' and the apparent secular necessity of going periodically insane.

Sometimes I think "Heaven" was invented to assuage human guilt. We're just "sending 'em to their Maker" right? Nice rationalization. Not all that different from a place with many virgins.


To some extent, we're still merely reiterating the habit of making those who do the dirty work "untouchable."