Peace Amendment--there's nothing wrong with it.

[Anarchist420]

Here's an Amendment that was proposed by Smedley Butler, a Harding Republican, in a 1936 issue of Women's Home Companion:

1. The removal of the members of the land armed forces from within the continental limits of the United States and the Panama Canal Zone for any cause whatsoever is prohibited.

2. The vessels of the United States Navy, or of the other branches of the armed service, are hereby prohibited from steaming, for any reason whatsoever except on an errand of mercy, more than five hundred miles from our coast.

3. Aircraft of the U.S. Military is hereby prohibited from flying, for any reason whatsoever, more than seven hundred and fifty miles beyond the coast of the United States.
​

How could anyone find anything wrong with it?
Here's an imaginary interview with "the Fighting Quaker", about how war is so profitable. I think we're only in these wars because of Dick Cheney/Halliburton.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/bacon2.html

Butler's proposed Peace Amendment would severely limit the government's war powers and would make us safer, not less safe. It would give us a largely non-interventionist foreign policy.

 

[Brigandier]

Here's an Amendment that was proposed by Smedley Butler, a Harding Republican, in a 1936 issue of Women's Home Companion:

1. The removal of the members of the land armed forces from within the continental limits of the United States and the Panama Canal Zone for any cause whatsoever is prohibited.

2. The vessels of the United States Navy, or of the other branches of the armed service, are hereby prohibited from steaming, for any reason whatsoever except on an errand of mercy, more than five hundred miles from our coast.

3. Aircraft of the U.S. Military is hereby prohibited from flying, for any reason whatsoever, more than seven hundred and fifty miles beyond the coast of the United States.
​

How could anyone find anything wrong with it?
Here's an imaginary interview with "the Fighting Quaker", about how war is so profitable. I think we're only in these wars because of Dick Cheney/Halliburton.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/bacon2.html

Butler's proposed Peace Amendment would severely limit the government's war powers and would make us safer, not less safe. It would give us a largely non-interventionist foreign policy.

The only way to get safety is to ensure it, and that is done by kicking ass and not even bothering to take names.

 

[matt0611]

And if someone declares war on us?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

And if someone declares war on us?

Well they just have to launch the missiles from 751 or more miles away I suppose.

 

[Anarchist420]

And if someone declares war on us?

No one ever has without us provoking them, and no one ever will unless we provoke them.

 

[ichy]

As with essentially everything else on lewrockwell.com this is idiotic.

 

[matt0611]

No one ever has without us provoking them, and no one ever will unless we provoke them.

And when countries try to take over the world like Germany in WW2 we should just let democracies around the world fall to facism or oppression? Should we ignore the free people of the world who cry out to us and let them descend into darkness and slavery? Turn our backs on them?

 

[Nintendesert]

1936. Now nice. I'd have liked to have seen him propose it again in 1942.

 

[Schadenfroh]

1936. Now nice. I'd have liked to have seen him propose it again in 1942.

Do not worry, we can avoid war by appeasing The Axis Powers. No need for military intervention.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Over simplification of history, nice.

Hey why not pull out Lincoln's position on slavery pre-Civil War while you are at it in order to make some sort of out order political statement that is completely out of context with history but gets your current day political jollies off?

To not consider the the full context of history in which the sentiments behind such an amendment was made is completely dumb. We need to remember that WWI was still fresh in the minds of most Americans and most Americans viewed WWI as being a frivolous war started by the arrogance and old world political mentally of European powers. Many Americans had no desire to jump into wars which turned into killing fields because of what was previously seen as nothing more then European chest beating amongst themselves.

This post is simply trolling for attention.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Well, that's totally dumb. That means we can't come to the aid of our allies if they are attacked, and we can't attempt to defeat an evil entity when we are the only major power that can (e.g. WW2).

 

[sao123]

Butler's proposed Peace Amendment would severely limit the government's war powers and would make us safer, not less safe. It would give us a largely non-interventionist foreign policy.

There is only 1 truth to the terms of this world...
you either dictate them, or they are dictated to you...


a non-interventionist policy is the fast track to non-existance.

 

[ahenkel]

Haven't we tried the isolationist non-interventionist route before with disastrous results?

 

[jhu]

Two issues here:

1. How is this news or politics?

2. How exactly would we send ships and planes over to defend Hawaii?

 

[LegendKiller]

Well, that's totally dumb. That means we can't come to the aid of our allies if they are attacked, and we can't attempt to defeat an evil entity when we are the only major power that can (e.g. WW2).

According to Anarchist (keep in mind his name and reputation), we wouldn't have allies.

 

[Craig234]

There is only 1 truth to the terms of this world...
you either dictate them, or they are dictated to you...


a non-interventionist policy is the fast track to non-existance.

So, let's take you and your next door neighbor. Either you dictate terms to them or they dictate them to you. Which is it? Next, take the US and Canada. Which is it?

 

[hal2kilo]

There is only 1 truth to the terms of this world...
you either dictate them, or they are dictated to you...


a non-interventionist policy is the fast track to non-existance.

Then don't be surprised that there are terrorists in the world that want you dead.

 

[MovingTarget]

The idea is sound, but that implementation would be disasterous. Perhaps we should focus instead on strengthening Congressional war authority - by only allowing troops being deployed abroad by a) mutual treaty, b) a Congressional declaration of war, or c) a formal declaration of war by a foreign power. No Americans should fight in "undeclared" wars, period. We should also limit peacetime military spending and reinvest it in domestic infrastructure, research, etc. that would still be useful in future military actions.

 

[sao123]

Then don't be surprised that there are terrorists in the world that want you dead.

on the contrary... I know there are terrorists out there who want me dead... and im going to find and kill them before they kill me.

 

[Craig234]

on the contrary... I know there are terrorists out there who want me dead... and im going to find and kill them before they kill me.

You did not answer the questions I asked you. That is an answer.

 

[Zebo]

I like it. Bulter talked about wars of avarice in "war is a racket" everyone would do well to read it. Rings as true now as it did then.

 

[sao123]

You did not answer the questions I asked you. That is an answer.

because they werent worth addressing:

you and your neighbor are not soverine nations:
If i blow up my neighbors house, i have to answer to the police...

There is no worldwide military police (THE UN IS A JOKE) who protects one country from another... hence why we had GULF WAR I, WW I, and WW II.

 

[hal2kilo]

on the contrary... I know there are terrorists out there who want me dead... and im going to find and kill them before they kill me.

Fantasy is fun isn't it.

 

[sao123]

You did not answer the questions I asked you. That is an answer.

Answer this... If you have an isolationist policy...

If someone attacks your allies... and you dont help them.
Are they going to help you when someone attacks you? Will they even exist when someone attacks you.

history is full of nations hell bent on worldwide conquest... just because you have civilized america in your livingroom political arena, doesnt mean there are none today.
you'd be a complete fool if you dont think Russia, China, and several other nations dont have a leader in wait and plans in the making for a worldwide empire.

 

[Nintendesert]

Fantasy is fun isn't it.

I don't know, you tell us. You're the one obviously living in a fantasy world.