The US needs to re-instate the draft .

Excluding differences in everyone's view of what "individual liberty" precisely entails, I would agree for sure.

 

The military does not decide where it's deployed or in what capacity it is deployed. The civilian leadership, i.e., the politicians and the voters, make those decisions, so if you have a problem with how and where our military is utilized, take it up with the policy makers.

Right or wrong, our military stands by ready to die in defense of this nation. For that alone, they should be commended and appreciated. That they are misused and abused by politicians and ignorant voters is another matter entirely.

 

Joe Kennedy bought the citation for his negligent son. You weren't there and I don't believe a single word the US Govt. says.

 

Well, that's part of the problem, isn't it? Most people simply have no idea what it means; others try to distort its meaning in order to push their agenda. That's why it's incumbent upon us lovers of liberty to educate and enlighten. Ron Paul has got the ball rolling...

 

I disagree that military leaders are completely powerless. They have the same free will as the rest of us. Yes refusing an order would result in being court martialed. But that's a small price to pay if you truly believed a war was unjustified.

 

he publicized it once his kid got into politics, but he sure as hell didn't buy it.

I suppose you were one of the zero people who was there and said he wasn't cool beans the whole time...

 

My personal interpretation of real freedom would be..well, technically, it wouldn't solely include humans, but other creatures that are capable of making decisions and feeling pain/sorrow etc., and that's one obvious open-to-interpretation, subjective aspect of "liberty" that makes it impossible to objectively define; what exact entities, even among those that can make decisions and have preferences, deserve "liberty"? I could start there. I don't personally want non-human animals to have rights, simply because that would harm me and put regulations on me that I don't want.

 

No one has "free will". They are genetically/environmentally programmed to act certain ways.

 

I supported Kennedy in 1960. Since then I've learned not to believe made up crap about politicians.

 

It's not their place to decide if a war is "unjustified". Unlawful, yes, but "unjustified", no. If we cannot count on our military leaders to follow lawful orders, then we're in big trouble.

 

how exactly did the event not happen? cause that boat sure as hell got rammed in half by a jap destroyer, and there were loads of witnesses who all have concurring stories...

 

We're in big trouble anyway! Too many times has our military been sent to a place where they shouldn't have been sent. And it has done nothing but paint a big target over every major US city.

Why can't we have a system in place where the military can refuse an order based on their opinion of the war's need.

 

Having done two tours in Iraq, I can say whole heartedly that you should avoid military service if possible, while warmongers like Bush and Obama are in charge of our armed forces.

 

The PT 109 was cut in half. That's the only thing that can be proven.

 

That makes sense.

 

Why don't we just legislate the military to not be funded via monetary inflation by Big Banking as well as taxation? I think a privately funded military would be more ethical, as long as said military were of course not allowed to unjustifiably attack people, than the current one; at least I could choose whether I paid to fund the World Police/Corporate Interest Military State.

 

Even though I see your point, I think a private army is just as dangerous as a national Army controlled by a government, that's used by an international group of Bankers and industrialist.

 

If they were simply not allowed to use their power illegitimately, that wouldn't be a problem. Currently, the people who collect the funds for the military, and decide how said funds are appropriated, FORCE you to do said funding.

"If the guy that receives your money gets to also choose, with a gun, how much money you give him, it makes it easy for him to be greedy.."

 

I think the best solution is to offer the military a check and balance that allows a council of high military leaders to "veto" a presidential order if it is in direct conflict of national interests.

It's their life on the line. Why shouldn't they have a say?

Of course this would require a constitutional amendment. So it'd be a tough thing to do.

 

I'd say the best solution is to privatize the military and then not allow the military to be based anywhere except OUR SOIL, and it's primary function should be to stop illegals from crossing the border.

 

Sounds like what the romans did right before they got their (*)(*)(*)(*) sacked...

 

So you don't care about first hand witness testimony?

 

Who do you think is going to destroy the U.S. if we actually allowed our citizens to be armed effectively, and if we created a strong border defense? We MIGHT arguably need to back it up with nuclear capabilities, but to actually use a nuclear weapon would probably almost never be necessary, nor smart, in any way.

 

Can you imagine if the world did this though? We wouldn't have nations anymore. Just a bunch of armed corporations. Don't like paying taxes? You won't have to if you have a big enough army. I'm not sure I like the sound of that.

 

No one should pay any taxes anyways, other than land taxes.