<p>That's great, but who would have sued Hitler...and who would have cared?</p>
<p>The allies WOULD have sued Hitler but since he committed suicide....well you can't sue a dead person can you?</p>
<p>Kyo7- </p>
<p>You're really naive, no offense. And I never directed "It didn't start on 9/11 if you truly know your history" towards you. I'm saying that the war on terrorism has been going on forever.</p>
<p>Fides et ratio, I don't disagree, but the international community has never stood up to Israel over arms issues or incursions into Palestine (cluster bombs in Lebanon come to mind), so how are they going to stand up to a total arms ban? That was my point, not a defense of Israel's policies...</p>
<p>
The allies would have killed him. That was the closest thing they could have done to seek justice/punishment.</p>
<p>"Let's see, Mr. Hitler, you owe us approximately 40 million lives, plus damages and hardship...how much does that total? I hope you realize that this will ruin your financial future."</p>
<p>You cannot seriously expect legal prosectution to replace war...unless you form a world government and deny the sovereignty of countries. Even that would not work, because the levels of action that result in war and civil lawsuits are completely different. Sueing someone for destoying your country just doesn't work.</p>
<p>I just came to a realization. Conscription is constitutionally illegal. Amendment 14, protection against involuntary servitude. </p>
<p>Forcing people with certain birthdays or whatever to serve in the military against their will is DEFINITELY involuntary servitude. And it also violates the nondiscrimination amendment (don't know which one).</p>
<p>Legal experts please explain.</p>
<p>In response to something NYU said earlier-</p>
<p>Total disarmament is a good idea. It's also impractical because there will always be evil, something I think "liberals" have a difficult time comprehending. I am a liberal, but I disagree that all men are good at heart and its the weapons that are corrupting. I do think we live in an era where the acquirement of weapons is no longer just for defensive reasons as they were in the Cold War era but are a serious threat. </p>
<p>If you really believe in disarmament perhaps NUCLEAR disarmament is the place to start. Have you heard of Sam Nunn? I think you'd find his ideas fascinating. It's way too easy for rogue groups to acquire enriched uranium. Only about half of the buildings containing nuclear material in the former Soviet Union have undergone post-1990 security upgrades to install things like perimeter fences, cameras and radiation-monitors to prevent theft.
134 tons of excess plutonium, which the Russians are willing to destroy, are just sitting in storage.
Progress has been stymied by conservatives in the last Republican Congress who bristled at the notion of sending American tax dollars to a Russian military that should pay for its own fences and cameras.</p>
<p>Sorry, it's neither illegal nor unconstitutional. Anver v US, 245 US 366 (1918)
"Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation as a result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people (i.e. the Congress) can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement."</p>
<p>See also US v Holmes, 387 F.2nd 781(7th Cir.); cert denied, 391 US 936 (1968)</p>
<p>
[quote]
the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This makes me laugh. There has not been a single war on US soil since the Civil War. And um putting more money in the coffers of Halliburton and ExxonMobil is neither noble nor supreme. Yeah because fighting in some other country qualifies for "defense." What do we have to defend in Iraq? Oil Wells? Halliburton's assets? Oh please.</p>
<p>
[quote]
defense of the rights and honor of the nation
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Debatable. "defense"? Looks like someone sued when they were called up during WWI, but um the US wasn't attacked on US soil. The only justified war we ever fought that was geniunely in "defense" of the country was WWII. WWI? Um no. Korea? Maybe. Vietnam? Up for debate. Gulf War I? Also up for debate. Iraq? Absolutely not.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the great representative body of the people (i.e. the Congress)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Very debatable. Oh since they're the "representative body of the people" they can't do anything without the people's permission.</p>
<p>War should not be fought because more lives are being lost in our current than were lost in 9.11 which is shown by me.</p>
<p>And more taxpayer money is being put into Halliburton's coffers. More than they actually deserve. They overbilled. That's not only tantamount to stealing, fraud and perjury, but it IS fraud, perjury and stealing. Halliburton's CEO ass should have been fired, thrown in jail, and Halliburton should have been heavily fined, and ALL of its contracts should have been RESCINDED without prejudice, and they should NEVER have the opportunity to bid for contracts from the government ever again. This kind of unethical behavior is unacceptable. Notice how when Enron lied to the government it went out of business, but when Halliburton lied to the government they moved to Dubai. The difference? Cheney is on the board of Halliburton. Halliburton=Enron, ethically speaking. But I guess the president, vice president and those companies whose boards those two people are on are above the law.</p>
<p>if we brought all the armies back to swords, shields, and spears, i'd be fine with war.</p>
<p>FOR SPARTA!!!!!!!</p>