RS> BA>>> Sure.  There's no support for either of them in the
RS> BA>   Constitution. BA>> Probably of the national government's
RS> BA>   agencies - and employees - BA>> could (and IMO shoul be
RS> BA>   eliminated on those same grounds.

RS> JC>> Careful what you wish for... I don't seem to recall anything
RS> BA>   directly JC> supporting a large standing army either.

RS> BA> There isn't, in fact a permanent standing army is specifically
RS> BA> forbidden by the Constitution.  I've made that point before.
RS> BA> There's no such limit or prohibition on a navy, though.

RS>The realities of war caught up with the military, hence the need for
RS>large standing armies.

RS>The best part about our system is however, without the need caused by
RS>an emergency, like a war, armies are reduced.

RS>Just look at the numbers of demobilized soldiers after WW2.

RS>It's these blasted "brush fire" wars like Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and
RS>Afghnanistan that put a constant drain on resources, with little to
RS>show for it.

Have we been attacked again ?  Rhetorical.  Do you have any clue how 
much it would cost this country in human life and wealth if we were 
attacked again ?  Don't answer because you don't know.  Just try to 
think about it.  


Jeff

CMPQwk 1.42-21 9999 
Democrats --  The party of death ......

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10