Won't work. Been tried before. Thing is as a government paycheck receiving military member I get panicked when they don't fund the military again for another year...I got bills man. It doesn't ever impact the Whitehouse but it does get a lot of servicemembers pissed off...and trust me you don't piss off the guys with all the guns.

The draft thing is funny, it won't happen...pisses off too many of the voting public, and congress has made it harder to actually pass a draft bill (selective service be damned). The only option is to pull out, which of course screws everybody in Iraq, with no American presence the various factions presently seeking control will make the people's lives a living hell when they can at each other without having to worry about Team America. Sucks, but seriously we should have never got involved. As far as "journalist going in" sure it happens (no often), but it does happen or we wouldn't get those nice shocking images from the Sudan from time to time....

This just further cements all the reasons why I don't vote. It doesn't matter who goes into office, whether it's for congress or for the President. There are a lot of people and interests more important to the people in office than what the majority of the American people want, and they all have lots of money to funnel into their bank accounts.

Until we can effectively remove or curb lobbyists, special interest groups, and fucked up political campaign donations, it really amounts to a big performance every few years.

These 700,000 troops that we draft, is there a plan for them or do we just sort of send them there to sit on their thumbs? Or should I assume that because you posed this as an end all be all solution that you have a clear and concise plan but didn't want to include it because it was too much to type? Or, since typing clearly isn't a problem, you thought it was too obvious to bother with? Let's just pretend that your plan is more coherent and viable than the Bush Administration's plan.

So, we draft these troops, fair enough. Should they all be combat arms types? How long do you suppose it would take to train them all and get them in theater? Ignoring the obvious logistical issues, like massively increasing the training capacity of the military's depots and such, do we lower the recruiting standards to speed up the process, which can surely take no more than a couple of weeks anyway? What about all the weapons and armor and equipment we'd have to build to support this huge draft? Again, probably no more than a couple of weeks. Say we do this sort of thing, and send 700,000 conscripted soldiers with shortened training times and inferior equipment, all to fulfill the FTR Plan, do we then get to read your posts lamenting over the 10 fold increase in US and Iraqi civilian casualties? Because, you know, lower trained soldiers means more accidents on top of lower combat effectiveness and unit cohesion.

But by all means, let's draft 700,00 troops! Or just end it. Either way.

But to address your second point, I think we should simply leave the country in a matter of a few days and let 'em fight it out, since we're acting the buffer and all. Hell, leave our equipment there too to help expedite both our exit and their killing of each other. Then, the strongest/most ruthless will survive and stabilize the country. But after that, they might be angry at us since we went ahead and left them (see Afghanistan c. 1991) and have incentive to use the weapons we left on us. Further, since our vacating of premises caused a genocidal civil war, we can count on the rest of the world being extremely pleased with us too.

I like it. Let's do it.

How many people know about the National Initiative for Democracy? It's a "proposed law developed by The Democracy Foundation, over the past decade, along with a plan to get it enacted by the people (not by the government) creating, for the first time, a government 'by you, the people.'" This is something Democratic presidential candidate Mike Gravel has been promoting (he doesn't have a ghost of a chance at winning the Democratic Party nomination since he is one of the few candidates with the chutzpah to speak truth to power). I don't know how it might ever be implemented if it got the requisite 50 million votes to ostensibly become law (I'm guessing our federal court system would find it unconstitutional since it would effectively threaten the status quo of corporate oligarchy).

So, let me get this right: If we elected Democrats to office in the legislature in an act of faith that they would end the war, and they didn't do that (nor did they make every tactical effort to do so), we are supposed to trust that electing a Democrat to the office of President will somehow obligate him/her to honor his/her commitment? Umm, yeah right...

I'm so sick of these 'say-one-thing-and-do-another' politicians. And sick of the misinformed, gullible and complacent citizens who continue to support them by voting for them.

When will it end?...

current dems are pussies.

but wait. weren't they all ways?

where have you people been the last 50 years?

all politicians are con artists spinning the same way of things with different words and plans, all to make banks rich, and us their slaves.

it never changes..

Yep, that's the first think that comes to my mind when I read about the Cuban Missile Crisis: "That JFK, what a pussy!"

One reason you can't just shut off funding is logistics. As of Sept. 2007 acording to AP there are approx 160,000 troops in Iraq. Moving all troops and equipment out while being shot at isn't easy. I know I'm being a smart ass but you don't just wake up one morning and yell "get on the bus." A general told me this past fall it would take at least two years to do. You have to keep funding the troops while the pull out is happening. No funds, no food, no bullets. Shut off funds and it'll end the war all right but you'll get a lot of dead or starving troops.

If you want this thing over contact and put pressure on your representatives in Washington and vote. I'm in the military and I've done both.

What have you done?

The President would almost certainly invoke the "Feed And Forage Act" before that happened, which is one of the reasons why "Just don't approve any funding and the war ends" isn't as simple a solution as it sounds.

Feed and forage huh? Sounds like what the Japanese did in Korea and other countries during WWII. Just ask the Koreans how they feel about the Japanese now.

Yeah, it does sound like that, doesn't it?

Of course, if you'd read the link Uncognitive provided, you'd see that it actually bears no resemblance to that at all.

Well, with all the snide answering of rhetorical questions and situations in this thread, why would anybody read what was behind a link?

Thats the worst Idea ever, or do you want gays to end up being voted second class citizens? do you not realize the chaos that would erupt ifthat were implimented?

Long winded and stupid is no way to go through life.

Seriously, where do you come up with such an idiotic idea?

Why do you think cutting off funding for the war would mean troops would not have money to withdraw? You remember when Vietnam ended and we just left the troops there for fend for themselves. Fuck, that was a disaster.