When is the last time the US won a war?

[Ezra]

Ezra,

Did we gain freedoms? Have less debt?

The question posed was "What was the last war we won?", not "what was the last war we should have fought?" While I personally do think that was one we should have fought, if you read my posts, you will note that I stated that one of the evils brought on by Truman introducing the concept of "limited War" and the modern idea of "Measured Response" is that war has become an extension of politics, rather than something that is fought only when politics has failed. This leads to more wars. I also noted that we have not officially declared war, as per the Constitution, since WW2.

The net result is that we easily slip into wars that probably shouldn't have been fought. The process of declaring war requires a national dialog, and by not so declaring them, it doesn't happen. I credit President Bush with at least getting congressional approval before fighting that one, but it still isn't the same as getting congress to declare war. If he had decided to declare war, instead of just getting a passing congressional approval, in the ensuing dialog, maybe your side would have had more of a chance to make their case.

That is also why I think that we should bring back the draft. Then if war is declared, then all citizens, including the sons of well placed important people will put their lives on the line to fight that war, not just a bunch of rednecks that nobody gives a d#mn about.

Regards,

George Clay

It would not work. The rich would use their money to avoid the draft.

I bet we would have a balanced budget if the law was that if it was not balanced the difference came from the president, congress and houses personal assets.

Tell there is a law that they have to send their family members frist and to the front line. Nothing will change.

[gclayjr]

Ezra,

t would not work. The rich would use their money to avoid the draft.

I bet we would have a balanced budget if the law was that if it was not balanced the difference came from the president, congress and houses personal assets.

Tell there is a law that they have to send their family members frist and to the front line. Nothing will change.

I think you have hit on the heart of the problem with you conspiracy folks. Your solutions are even crazier than your conspiracy theories.

OK I suggested following the constitution and making congress actually declare war before going to war, and having a draft that included all men including the sons of rich and powerful. Your response is above. You make no criticism of the plan, you just say that the rich will avoid it. Then you propose something so incoherent and ridiculous that it makes no sense whatsoever.

So let's see if I understand your plan. Mexico with the help of Russia, decides to invade Texas. If our budget is not balanced, we do nothing, unless the the president, and congress ponies up enough money out of their pockets to pay for a mercenary army to defend us against the attack?????????????????

Of course you guys could talk the problem away by saying "Hey Texas was originally part of Mexico, so we don't really have any right to defend against such an attack". If you think that the "rich and the powerful" would use their wealth to avoid the draft, you can be absolutely sure that not only the rich and powerful, but so would EVERYBODY else but you scream to avoid your silly regulation stating that we cannot defend ourselves until the budget is balanced or the president and congress pays for it, and go ahead with a war to defend against this attack.

Your solution is even more ridiculous than your conspiracy theories.

Regards,

George Clay

[Ezra]

Ezra,

t would not work. The rich would use their money to avoid the draft.

I bet we would have a balanced budget if the law was that if it was not balanced the difference came from the president, congress and houses personal assets.

Tell there is a law that they have to send their family members frist and to the front line. Nothing will change.

I think you have hit on the heart of the problem with you conspiracy folks. Your solutions are even crazier than your conspiracy theories.

OK I suggested following the constitution and making congress actually declare war before going to war, and having a draft that included all men including the sons of rich and powerful. Your response is above. You make no criticism of the plan, you just say that the rich will avoid it. Then you propose something so incoherent and ridiculous that it makes no sense whatsoever.

So let's see if I understand your plan. Mexico with the help of Russia, decides to invade Texas. If our budget is not balanced, we do nothing, unless the the president, and congress ponies up enough money out of their pockets to pay for a mercenary army to defend us against the attack?????????????????

Of course you guys could talk the problem away by saying "Hey Texas was originally part of Mexico, so we don't really have any right to defend against such an attack". If you think that the "rich and the powerful" would use their wealth to avoid the draft, you can be absolutely sure that not only the rich and powerful, but so would EVERYBODY else but you scream to avoid your silly regulation stating that we cannot defend ourselves until the budget is balanced or the president and congress pays for it, and go ahead with a war to defend against this attack.

Your solution is even more ridiculous than your conspiracy theories.

Regards,

George Clay

Nope you don't understand. But it was entertaining reading that thank you.

We are in agreement that things need to be more personal to the people. Like a draft. So we are not so eager to go to war. But even more it should be personal to the government and law makers.

A balanced budget is something that we the people elect the government to do. Not spend it recklessly. They spend recklessly because there is nothing that is personal about it. So it's easy to spend spend spend when it's no skin off their backs.

Making it personal. Like attaching the remainder of the debt when they were the ones who chose to over spend comes out of their own assets it totally fare. You would never have a budget that isant balanced. It would simply make it personal and accountable.

Does that mean some crazy thing like ohhh we are being invaded lets not protect ourselfs because that would make the budget unbalanced.

No it would mean we don't get to spend millions on killing baby's through planned parenthood. It would mean that the government would be much more cautious about how they spend our money. It means we would have a government that had a rainy day fund set aside. Some forethought. No it would mean that we would have people in government motivated to cut the fat.

Conspiracy theories. Haha. This is logic.

But no matter what the law the rich will use their money to avoid the drafts. That's what history has proven. And quite frankly it's what i would do. As the only war I would ever allow myself to be involved in is a defensive war where we were invaded. And that would be only after I asked God if it was his will that I go to war.

Forcing people to participate in a unjust war is equally evil.

[gclayjr]

Ezra,

A balanced budget is something that we the people elect the government to do. Not spend it recklessly. They spend recklessly because there is nothing that is personal about it. So it's easy to spend spend spend when it's no skin off their backs.

Making it personal. Like attaching the remainder of the debt when they were the ones who chose to over spend comes out of their own assets it totally fare. You would never have a budget that isant balanced. It would simply make it personal and accountable.

Does that mean some crazy thing like ohhh we are being invaded lets not protect ourselfs because that would make the budget unbalanced.

No it would mean we don't get to spend millions on killing baby's through planned parenthood. It would mean that the government would be much more cautious about how they spend our money. It means we would have a government that had a rainy day fund set aside. Some forethought. No it would mean that we would have people in government motivated to cut the fat.

We are in agreement that we do need to balance the budget. However, wars are expensive. That is a very good reason to make it not too easy to go to war. However, we would not have even won WW2, without selling war bonds and going into debt.

As I said above, the best thing to do is to not go to war, however, the second best thing to do is to WIN the war. So once a war is declared, you must commit everything, regardless of cost to winning the war, or your are in even more difficulty.

And as you suggested, defending against an invasion is one reason to go to war. I might suggest that if the Russians invaded Canada, it might be worthwhile to go to war to help our neighbor Canada eject the invasion, and I'm sure that despite their predilection of saying aboot instead of about, and their ridiculous fascination with the sport of curling, we would rather have Canadians as neighbors than Russians.

Regards,

George Clay