Ya know what would really stop the wars?

[n2doc]

A constitutional amendment requiring that personal and corporate taxes be raised (and all deductions temporarily discontinued) to cover the costs of a war or foreign military action. Could be waived in the case of a significant invasion (more than a battalion) on US soil. And make it progressive, scaled to % of national income going to each quintile of household or business wealth.

Bet you we would be out of the middle east in 6 months, tops, if that passed. Not that I am going to hold my breath on that anyway.

[taterguy]

1. And how exactly will we get out of existing mutual defense treaties?

And I hate to sound overly hawkish but it's best to fight wars before any threats arrive on your shores.

Of course we could endlessly debate whether or not there are any actual threats left.

[n2doc]

Waiting seemed to work for us in WWII

And it did not work well for us in Vietnam or anything since.

Frankly nobody is a significant military threat to us. Economic, yes.

[taterguy]

8. Waiting in WWII would have meant not spending a dime to come to Britain's defense

Sure, the Russians probably would have taken care of things but the world would be a much different place.

And waiting would have meant withdrawing from Pearl Harbor, which was only kinda sorta part of the US at the time.

How much longer would it have taken to defeat Japan if we didn't bother taking out their offensive capabilities until they began an invasion of the West Coast?

[wuushew]

19. I don't believe the nature and causes of war are identical to ages past

traditionally war has served to provide nation states with access to food or mineral resources. Men were cheap but grain was expensive.

The modern methods of waging war are much more expensive then any goal they seek to conquer especially once the only truly valuable and concentrated prize, oil is depleted by the end of the century. The remaining useful economic resources are largely ones that are far more commonly distrubted and not worth risking ruinious and expensive warfare over.

We also know now by objective study that large empires contain their own seeds of destruction as the aggressive power must expend considerable resources overcoming the chaotic forces of nationalism, religious differences, logistic material costs, etc. What nation states would risk projecting military force against the United States from afar in the atomic age, considering the two most likely outcomes are defeat or nuclear scorched earth of your intended goal?

[taterguy]

20. Our current wars have the goal of insuring access to oil

Sure it costs a lot of money but it beats walking everywhere.

Especially when someone else is doing the dying.

[NM_hemilover]

2. In the realm of "wouldn't it be nice"

That would be a true contender. However to say even the suggestion of that amendment would be political suicide would be insufficient, it would be more like political party suicide.

[n2doc]

4. I don't know. as they say, "Freedom isn't Free"

Let's just make the costs more apparent.

[NM_hemilover]

6. absolutely correct, paid for in American blood...

with change.

But in the Political world, greed trumps all.

[NoNothing]

3. Unintended consequences

Indiscriminate carpet bombing gives you the biggest bang for the war buck.

[Autumn]

5. I would like to see any politician, from the President

on down put on a uniform and lead the battle and not come home till it's over. If they don't do that, NO WAR.

[virgogal]

7. The only thing that will stop wars is for mankind to disappear from the face of the earth.

[dysfunctional press]

9. first contact with a super-advanced civilization could go a long way toward that goal.

or not.

[closeupready]

10. That would maybe be effective, but you are sidestepping the reality that

it's an unspoken truth that the defense establishment must be continually financed by taxpayers, and no suggestion of cutting defense spending will be entertained - neither explicit ones nor ones which work in a backwards way like the one you suggest. Those who seek to continue expropriating taxpayer cash are not going to be outmaneuvered like this.

[Donnachaidh]

11. I would like to see a BILL hand-delivered to the oil companies

And have the messenger wait for payment - for all the oil fields our young people have died for.

We're protecting the interests of American business -- let that business foot the bill of the wars.

[Goldstein1984]

12. What would really stop wars is...

making the old wealthy men who start them do all the dying in them.

[Ozymanithrax]

13. There will be no Constitutional ammendment, and this is why...

You need a 2/3rds majority in each house. So you need 66 Senators and 290 Congressmen. The Senate can not use reconciliation to pass an amendment. At this time there are 59 (well sort of) Democrats in the Senate and 233 Democrats in the House. I can not see any way for an amendment to pass.

Then, you must get 3/4ths of th states to ratify the amendment, 38 states.

Other than that, you must have a Constitutional Convention, which must be called for by 2/3rds of the legislatures (34).

So I don't see anything like that happening.

Apart from that, I think it is a good idea. Wars, when they are necessary, should always be paid for by the people fighting them.

[Fly by night]

14. Reinstitute the draft. Exempt anyone from a working class family who is in college.

Let's send all the upper-class frat boys and country club darlings first.

The wars would end in a Noo Yowk minute.

[L0oniX]

15. Reality can be fun too.

[Mike 03]

16. Not to sound dumb, but is the same principle, in essense, as pay as you go?

I am for this, and although I love President Obama and everything he is trying to do, I do believe he is making a terrible mistake continuing in Afghanistan.

[nostalgicaboutmyfutr]

17. Why not require the draft of all 18-30 yo for any war (no deferrments) EOM

[taterguy]

18. Because there are legitimate conscientious objectors

And then there's the whole physical deferment thing. There are people that are not physically capable of serving but opening up that can of worms leads to abuses which is what happened in the 1960s.

And how do you define "war"?

I think it's been quite a while since we've been in one where it was officially declared.

[Wardoc]

21. Why the exemption for invasion? Putting that in detracts from the basic theory of the rule.