When Will the World be Relieved of this Scourge?

[SuburbanFarmer]

"A republic, if you can keep it."

^^^ Presupposes your obligation to defend it. If you are unwilling to fight for the republic, then you already gave up on it. Why should you then have a vote in it?

While I don't agree with GCF's view of either military service or patriotism (see jbird's excellent response, btw), isn't at least part of the idea of your 2nd Amendment that you don't need a standing army to defend against foreign invaders? As a matter of fact, if you wanted to be truly traditionalist and disenfranchise citizens as per the original constitution, voting rights ought to be tied to wealth and land ownership. So, if you rent and if you're on public assistance, you don't get to vote? How's that sound, instead?

That's exactly what it means. All military-aged males in the United States were responsible to fight. It was similar to the older English system of requiring all males to train with longbows after Sunday masses and be prepared to serve in an archer company.

A guy like GCF would have been tarred and feathered, and sent packing for Canada.

During the fucking American Revolution?? Yes, I would certainly expect that I have to take a side- oh wait... Did every single working-age male go off to war then? Did the nation starve, while all the farmers were fighting the British? I think not. Another fucking fantasy, spewed out of your testosterone supplements.

[Okeefenokee]

What makes you think, having disenfranchised the nonveterans, we would even end up in these pointless wars any longer? Who do you think causes this? It's not people like Okie.

This.

Remember what Cheney said about dodging the draft? He had better things to do. Sounds familiar.

[jbird4049]

What makes you think, having disenfranchised the nonveterans, we would even end up in these pointless wars any longer? Who do you think causes this? It's not people like Okie.

This.

Remember what Cheney said about dodging the draft? He had better things to do. Sounds familiar.

I think we would still have pointless wars, but the powerful would be less likely to start them, and they would appreciate the human costs more.

Say what you will about the early Roman Republic, or the British Empire in the First World War, when the state went to war so did the ruling class. That class, in those times, had proportionally more casualties than the population as a whole.

In today's America, the elites think of serving in war as a sucker's game. Just look up who in Congress, or the general elite, have served. Bill Kerry, John McCain, George H. W. Bush. I think one or two others from the current wars are in Congress. Does anyone know of anyone from wealthy families that have served in them? There must be some, but unlike from every large war from Revolution to Vietnam, regardless of political affiliations, it was easy to find elites who served in them.

So, we all argue about others being cowards, or not, when we should look at our own country's leadership. I find it hard to blame Joe Abdul from running from some blood-soaked Hellhole, when the people who helped create the damn wars in the first place, pay no blood, or even money, for them. Hell, they often make money from them, or their cronies/supporters/patrons do.