Amendment XXVIII

Section 1: In the event of war being declared by the United States, the President of the United States, the Speaker of the House, the Minority Whip of the House, the Majority Leader of the Senate, the Minority Leader of the Senate, and the Secretary of Defense shall report to a training facility specified by Congress to get the basic training necessary for a soldier in the United States Military. After a maximum training period of one (1) month, said individuals shall report for service in a front line unit where said individuals shall actively fight the war alongside the innocent soldiers who had no part in deciding to declare the war.

Section 2: No soldier shall be punished for deciding to grab one of the individuals listed in Section 1 and using him or her as a human shield.

Think it'll pass both houses?

__________________
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)

they don't let you report to basic with a bottle of Ripple in one hand and bag of pretzles in the other.

Tracker

Probably not. Most of those in charge did everything they could to avoid war when it was their duty to go, and I doubt anything has changed. After all, war is only fun when you can send someone else's child to fight.

- Ozzy
This article may get some attention if we could read it all
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cg...547;title=APFN

Ron Paul is a member of congress and writes about the two sided nature of US foriegn policy...

American Freedom shouldn't have to be at the expense of others

I might even suggest a section 3, wherein all individuals referred to in section 1 would be issued special uniforms, with large glow-in-the-dark targets both front and back.

__________________
<<Cheer up, the worst is yet to come.>>

Yeah I feel so sorry for all those solders being forced to join and go through basic training. They are not babies.

__________________
lambaste me not

Nah. I really have no desire that the people listed in section one be killed; instead, I want, as part of the equasion for going to war, the realization that they, like the soldiers (who are usually far better people than the people who start the wars), will actually be in harm's way.

I remember reading a comment from a person who, when learning that Bush went to Iraq, remarked that "where is a guy with a rocket propelled grenade when you need one" and I thought the comment was inappropriate. Disagreeing with Bush and understanding that he is a grave danger to this country and the world is NOT the same as wishing him dead. I would never want to see him dead; I just want to see him retired.

It is not about being FORCED. It is about people who join to improve their lives and to defend their country and a man whose daddy got him out of combat duty in Vietnam sending the soldiers to invade a country for ABSOLUTELY NO REASON.

(And, don't give me the garbage (since I can't use any better word) that Clinton knew Iraq had WMD. Clinton BELIEVED that Hussein had WMD and because he never invaded leads to the inescapable conclusion that he never had the proof that Hussein did. Neither, may I add, did Bush, but who cares about proof when there is money to be made and revenge to be accomplished?

and I didn't mean to imply that they should be killed, but rather that they be given so much incentive to not find themselves in this position that it would probably never happen.

__________________
<<Cheer up, the worst is yet to come.>>