747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2806 posts, RR: 14 Posted (13 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1574 times:
Good morning. My name is Mark Jacobs, and on November 5th of this year I will turn 18.
As a legal adult, I will be one of many young men who could become a soldier for America in the near future. I say this because there has been talk, both in form of trivial rumors and in the slightly more worrisome element of polls on the issue being conducted by professional news agencies, of restoration of the draft.
Let me make one thing clear, Mr. President - I am not Canadian, I am not French, I am not Egyptian, Hungarian, Greek, Thai, or Polynesian. Nor am I American. I sir, am human. As such I respect, admire, and extol life in general, especially life which can do and be as much as we humans can.
So let me ask you, Mr. President, are you human? I do not care now if you are of one nation or continent or another; whether you are white or black or African or Asian; whether yours is a God named Buddha or a God with no name. I care that you would ask me to take up a gun and shoot down another human.
Sometimes, Mr. President, a human can be too bad, a soul can go too wrong, a belief can be taken too far - and so with Mr. bin Laden I will respect and even assist your decision to kill, for when there is that much to be gained, that much life to be preserved, I can understand your anger.
Let me promise you though, that if I am made to go to war, if I am drafted in any capacity be it with my fingers on the trigger of the gun or the keyboard of an office, I will do my best to be my least. The army of this country may boast that therein one may "be all that you can be", but I cannot accept that in the employ of an armed service one is ever at his utmost. The epitome of life is never in it's own defense, ironic as that may be, and I am of the sort who would rather be defended by the violent or die, than defend himself. Call me slothful and lazy if you will, but I simply cannot kill. There are centipedes, spiders, ants, and mice that live in the walls of my home. I do not remove them or destroy them or tear down their webs because, like my grandmother who fed leftover potato scraps to the rats in her basement, they are alive, and I see no superiority above them in myself. Yes, there must be compromises between intermingling varieties of life, and so, yes, I'll support the decision to remove Osama bin Laden, but that is all I will support, Mr. President. Nations are nations, and while petty in their nature, they are proud in their ways. If one nation prefers to promote that which another nation despises, who are we to say we are right? Freedom cannot be freedom if you must pay that high a price for it.
I have a girlfriend, Mr. President, and I have a tree. I care for them both. My girlfriend I talk to when she's feeling lonely, or hold her, or love her. My tree I water and... well, talk to it too. To be frank, sir, I am but one. How many girlfriends and trees and other live things would you let down because your nation's pride was wounded?
I understand, Mr. President, truly I do. It is hard for me to write these words because part of me does see the need to defend... but in the end, I simply cannot put freedom above life. I simply cannot say that I'd rather be alive and at war for freedom, than dead.
So, Mr. President, let me warn you. Let me warn you not of a violent thing, but of a truly painful one. If you make me go to war, and if I am sent off to those fields of battle, I will do my least - I will defend myself alone, and no one else. I will not kill the enemy and I will not save my comrades, for they are not the sort of person who I would be inclined to save while they endeavored to kill. And when I return from war, if I return from war, I will find a loud microphone, Mr. President, and proclaim unto all the world how vile and depraved you are, and I will tear up American flags and I will burn down American flags and I will tread muddy boots on American flags, and I will let them know that no matter how bad they are, we're just as bad for lowering ourselves to their level, and when I am done, and my anger is out, I will weep for the sake of guilt that I was that sorrowed and demoralized in my manner.
I am a loving, caring, creature, Mr. President - I write of the mountains and sing of the flowers, and it would be a tragedy beyond your wildest dreams if I were to die and those words and those songs no longer should flow.
This is not a time for war, Mr. President, and I am not a man to fight. Call me meager, call me weak, but if you do, don't dare call yourself human. Then, as the bullets fly and the bombs explode, you will know what it means to be American. American - angry, animalistic. American, sir, could mean joyous, gay, or merry. Thus am I, and thus I wish the world would be.
It is, succinctly, wrong to kill in response to killing. War will not build us new towers, war will not bring back the dead. War will only make a good world bad, and that sir is a choice I leave up to you.
I have already made my choice, sir, and that is to help those who can be helped, and then move on. It is time now, sir, to move on.
I have said before and say again, let us invest what funds we have not in some new campaign against minorities who would hurt majorities, but rather in erecting a newer, taller, better, stronger tower. If America is proud, then let us put the projectiles of pride and the missiles of our might into that tower, that if in the future a plane should make for them, it could be shot down before they crumble. Let us put on the top of this tower, beneath a crystal dome high above the world – where they breathed their last breaths – a memorial garden just the same as any on the ground would be, but higher, taller, and prouder. Let the world know that we intend to go on living, and let us go on living, and let us fly from the top of this new tower so great and radiant a standard of our patriotism as has never been flown before, a swath of cloth so great of size and brilliant of hue that no eye could pass across it without marveling at it’s make and wondering in awe of it’s makers.
Please, Mr. President, don't make me kill, and don't make me work for an agency that kills. The armed forces may be right for some, but now is the least time to begin a campaign of violence. The time has come to show the world what progress truly is. After Chicago was burned to the ground in the 19th century, a newer, stronger city took it's place, a pristine civilization in the place of a filthy one. So with forests and life in general, destruction is part of the pace. Well, now we have a place at the heart of our civilization, right in the midst of our biggest city, where nothing stands. For years they have spoken of building taller, taller, towers, and for years they have wondered where. The time has come, the place has been prepared. A monolithic, towering symbol of America would be a far, far greater memorial than anything else...
PanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (13 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 1503 times:
First of all there is no war just yet.
As an American you have your right to choose not to fight.
But the way I look at it, it's either him or me. It's either let evil and aggression rule the world or freedom. Where they will take away the freedoms of other humans (women) and where they will force their ideas on the rest of the world.
>>If America is proud, then let us put the projectiles of pride and the missiles of our might into that tower, that if in the future a plane should make for them, it could be shot down before they crumble.<<
I'm sorry you can talk this talk, but it won't defend our freedom.
>>American - angry, animalistic.<<
No, I don't equate the two. We defend our country, and we defend freedom. Remember the USA didn't crash those jets, the people that hate freedom crashed those jets.
Again, as an American you have your right not to fight, but America also has its right to defend itself and its ideas no matter the cost.
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
Bryan Becker From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 333 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (13 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1489 times:
A Men to that on a certian degree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,i would fight for my freedom,no matter whos life was lost,in times its sink or swim,and by god i will buy 100 rafts, I will float my ass and defend my country to help save what we have and to make it safer and better.
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (13 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1479 times:
Firstly, I hope this letter didn't actually get sent - it is stream-of-conciousness drivel with a lot of help needed composition-wise. If you really are almost 18, close to leaving high-school, I'll guess your average grade in English classes was D+ or C-.
Secondly, you are the worst kind of selfish little twat. You want the freedoms, but are not willing to lift a finger to earn them. You do not recognize that millions have died to earn for you these rights that now you want for free.
Both my grandfathers fought in WWII, one of whom, in the French army, spent 5 years in German prison camps after being captured on the Maginot Line, and the other was the only pilot of his squadron to survive his tour with the U.S. Air Force fighting in China. They were lucky and survived in the face of severe hardship, seeing all their friends die around them, but until the day they died (the second only 6 months ago), both of them considered their proudest achievement to have been to have the honor to have fought for the freedoms we have today.
My American grandfather was certainly no "USA forever" nut - he was strongly against the war in Vietnam, and prevented my father from volunteering to go there by telling the Marines that he was mentally unstable. But I know that faced with a direct attack on civilians on U.S. soil, he would be wishing that he could participate once again in the defence of his country and of the freedoms it protects.
One of those freedoms is that military service in the U.S. is VOLUNTARY. There is no draft, so you don't have to worry about going to war anytime soon. But if ever a situation came up that was so severe that a draft was reinstituted, and you were called up, and sent to the battlefield, only to stand up and run away as soon as the bullets start flying, leaving your buddies shorthanded and thus more vulnerable, you are nothing but a deserter and a traitor, and deserve to be summarily shot - the traditional punishment for both crimes. On top of that, you would be an ungrateful little shit.
Ikarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (13 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1468 times:
I find myself agreeing to much of your little speech. But I also think that some things are not very wise. Not killing spiders, or talking to trees, is far too much categorising you as extremist pacifist - as treehugger. And the terrible loss to our world of your life that you describe.... Well, I believe human life to hold little value to mankind. An individual, including myself, may mean much to a few, but nothing to our kind as a whole. It is a melodramatic and arrogant view to consider oneself a true value to our culture or species.
One thing which also disturbs me about this speech and any other words about this incident I have heard or read, is that it is dubbed "an attack on freedom". It is not. Freedom is a concept, one which can only be attacked by a government limiting it. You can kill American people, but you cannot kill American freedom. In the contrary, the real attack on American freedom is what is coming now, probably soon rushed through parliament in the aftermath of the attacks: more policing, more supervision, less privacy. Imagine the phone-tapping and e-mail-suprevision powers that might be given to various secret agencies. Imagine how privacy, and with it freedom, will be reduced.
This attack has been called an attack on freedom, but it killed people, not freedom. And hence it is not freedom that Americans will be fighting (and dieing) for: It is revenge. And that is not a justifiable motive for a war. Catch or kill the terrorists. But that would be no war. A war, in its very nature, involves the loss of innocent life - and what would be more petty than a war for revenge? Do a police action, by all means. Do some of the "secret ops" "mission impossible" "elite unit" stuff that your movies and television depict you as being capable of. But do not wage war - a war is against a country, or government, or people. There is no such thing as a war against terrorists.
About fighting for freedom: Well, in this particular case, you would not be fighting for freedom anyway, but for revenge. But take the example of WW2, where America really was fighting (partly) for freedom (not for its own freedom, but for that of Europe). Would I be willing to go and die for a country (be it America, Germany, England, or whatever)? No. I do not believe in countries. Would I be willing to fight for my own freedom, or that of other people? Possibly. I am glad I have never been in the situation where I have to choose between fight and suppression, and I hope I never will be. I have no idea which of the two I would choose. I do know, however, that I would never volunteer for any army. Because volunteering means "I am willing to kill" - and a soldier who has voluntarily become one is a murderer, by definition. He may murder for "higher motives" and not for murder's sake, but to me that is still murder. And murder, for whatever motive, is wrong - that is what I have been taught, and a principle I believe in. But volunteering also means something else: You voluntarily give control over many aspects of your life, or even of your life and its duration itself, into the hands of others. You loose all freedom of self-determination. And you give it to people who sit faraway from your own miserable position, to whom you are nothing but a statistic, a variable in a giant calculation that holds no emotional value to them. And to loose freedom itself to do revenge upon others would be stupid. To protect the concept of freedom, it might be the ultimate price. And hence I believe that those would be the only conditions that would see me fighting: If all freedom and hope is lost, then and only then would I kill to regain it.
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (13 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1469 times:
I understand your point, but would point out that I feel there is a logic gap in it.
This attack has been called an attack on freedom, but it killed people, not freedom. And hence it is not freedom that Americans will be fighting (and dieing) for: It is revenge.
Terrorism on the scale we have experienced forces a response, including, as you said, more policing, more supervision, less privacy. There are also many more inconveniences - I am a frequent traveller, and everywhere I go I have to add one 2 or 3 hours to my travel time in order to cover the additional security needs. This is but a small example, but, added up over my life, should amount to weeks or months which I could be spending with my wife and daughter instead. These losses of freedom are attributed to the existance of terrorists. To gain back that freedom, you must eliminate (or at least significantly scale back) the threat.
A long-term, carefully designed and rigorously followed campaign designed to hobble terrorists by any means necessary (military and otherwise) would allow us to regain the freedoms which we have had to temporarily give up. It would therefore be a fight for freedom.
A knee-jerk reaction, such as the launch of cruise missiles into Sudan and Afghanistan which Clinton pulled, does not meet these criteria, so you would be right in calling that a simple act of revenge. Hopefully, Bush and his advisors have learned from past mistakes, and will not go down that route.
Finally, a volunteer soldier makes a concious choice to give up his many personal freedoms for a number of years, to live the hard life of the military (yes, I have served) for the good of his country - it is a selfless act where he says his personal freedoms are not as important as the good of his neighbors. He is also commiting an act of trust, placing himself in the hands of his people's elected representatives, trusting that they will use him in a just manner. Any killing done by him is incidental - he must trust that the cause he is fighting for is for the benefit of his people.
Ikarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (13 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1461 times:
To be honest, I don't quite get your point. The fact that air travel security is in urgent need of an upgrade and will (hopefully) be improved is undeniable - but would it be sensible to lower security once those terrorists have been found and brought to justice? Wouldn't some wacko madman still be able and willing to pull off a stunt like this just to have revenge on the world (Think of the guy fired from an airline who killed the pilot and slammed a Bae146 with pax on board into the ground)? And to travel is a freedom - one which is not limited by a slightly extended duration of procedures. I would certainly not be willing to sacrifice a single life just so I can save a few hours of queueing and having hand luggage searched.
About personal freedom and privacy: Limiting these by increased supervision is a dangerous thing. The plan sounds simple and acceptable (prevent terrorism by listening in on them), but it is threatening in many ways. The problem is, once that road is opened, where are the lines drawn? How do you prevent the observation agencies from collecting data on innocent people, or even exerting power over them by blackmail? The personal freedom to have privacy should be inviolable. And it should not be sacrificed, even temporarily, as panic reaction to a horrible disaster.
About soldiers: Well, your description is a different viewpoint from mine. Also, I am not a person who likes "trust". I do not believe in the good in mankind. I do not believe that it is a sensible idea to trust others to make decisions for you. I do not believe anyone to be trustworthy. Look at the Korean War. Would you trust those generals, setting a limit, then going beyond it, then facing Chinese opposition? Would you trust the generals of the Vietnam War, invading neighbouring (innocent) countries like Cambodia, turning it from potential South East Asian Tiger into utter poverty with a Communist regime? Or in WW2, as German, would you have trusted Hitler? After all, he was promising the good of the "Aryan" population - the good of your neighbours and family? Once you hand decision-making to someone else, you are nothing but a weapon or tool in their hand, and there is nothing you can do to stop you from being used against undeserving people. Because if you attempt it, you are a "deserter".
I'm pretty sure those fighting under Hitler were just as convinced of being "the good guys" as those fighting against him. And that tells me human judgement is influencable. And that tells me that I should not fight, not even if I believe in the cause, because those beliefs might turn out to be wrong in retrospect, and to have killed for something wrong is a crime I do not wish to commit. The only thing I believe to be important and undeniably good enough to fight for is freedom - and then only when I have no reasonable alternative. Right now, I see no threat to freedom.
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40298 posts, RR: 74
Reply 9, posted (13 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1432 times:
You do raise some good points. I can understand how you feel. The last Bush we had in the White House had us in this situation in 1990-91. We went over to fight for oil. We were actually defending a Monarchy ran by on oil company named Kuwait.
Don't be so hard on the kid. He is entitled to his own beliefs, since we are a 'free' country. Freedom is at least extended to our personal beliefs. Given the fact that you served in the military, I can understand your in-tolerance towards those who share 747-600X's point of view.
Honestly would you want to serve in combat with someone with this viewpoint?
I keep hearing the word freedom being thrown on this topic. Are we really a 'free' society? You may want to ask a few US political prisoners, …and yes we do have them!
Before you comment, please read over this link.
This is something you will NOT hear about on CNN.
Ikarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (13 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1423 times:
The way I see it, the people on that particular flight were put to exactly the situation I described: They had found out what was planned for them (by cell phone calls or celebrating terrorists) and they asked themselves the ultimate question: Should they fight, or not? And it was their own freedom they were fighting for, the ultimate freedom to choose (if not the time, then at least) the location of their death. They chose that they did not want to die on the White House Lawn. They fought fo freedom - for their own.
Pacifism has its limits. They are different limits for nations and individuals. For example, while I might happily enjoy the benefits of having snipers that shoot bankrobbers or soldiers that prevent an invasion, I could never see myself as soldier or sniper. They are highly trained murderers - a job that I am not willing to take for moral reasons, unless cornered in an escapeless impossible position. So while my individual pacifism goes far, I accept that the nation as a whole has different requirements, and that the nation needs people willing to kill. I just don't intend to ever be one of them.
JetService From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4798 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (13 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1413 times:
Ikarus, fair enough, but volunteering for service is completely different (if that's what you're talking about). The author of this thread is talking about something else. If your country called upon to defend it, you would be obligated to do so at the capacity it insists. If you declined, some would argue that you may not deserve the freedom you currently enjoy.
Tbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 25
Reply 12, posted (13 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1401 times:
I agree with JetService. If you are called by your country to defend it, then you should. Now there are those who will avoid it (draft dodgers), but if you go, then you give it your all. You do not just look after your own hide, but after those of your comrades. Every one of them depend on you in some way for their lives, and it is very selfish to just say that you don't care for them because you don't want to do it.
Thousands of Americans died to give this nation what freedoms it has today. They fought side by side with their comrades, and helped eachother out in times of need. By saying that you would burn down flags and only defend yourself is very disrespectful. I would not want you in my nations armed forces, because you have no national identity.
Redngold From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6907 posts, RR: 42
Reply 14, posted (13 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1397 times:
You can do a lot of good on the home front without being trained as a killer and wearing a uniform.
My father was a Vietnam-era conscientious objector. He was "sentenced" to two years' community service. He went to work as a social worker at a Lutheran Social Services center in north Philadelphia, at the time already a stronghold for gang violence.
My father saved at least one life by warding off a knife-fight (and almost got himself killed in the process.) But more importantly, my father was part of creating two new lives because of the person he met there -- my mother, doing her post-graduate internship in social work. My sister and I were born three and four years later.
So what I would say, 747-600X, is that your ideal of being a conscientious objector is a brave and honorable thing. However, you should be ready to fight on the homefront as my father did. In your objection to warfare, wage peace at home, in a concerted effort with others. Get your girlfriend involved in a project for the good of people here at home, as you go out and participate in a Habitat for Humanity project; or take a low-paying teacher's assistant position in a school; or whatever work you do.
747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2806 posts, RR: 14
Reply 15, posted (13 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1388 times:
First, allow me to say that those of you who commented that service in the Unite States' armed services is voluntary, please go back and read the introductory paragraph(s) to my ramble wherein I made it more than clear that my entire gripe was about the possibility of the restoration of the draft.
Second, I recall in the ramble having admitted openly to my own "laziness", but preferred to call it peacefulness. I will live my life doing what I can to make things better here at home. I have developed the utmost respect for Redngold given that he says far better what I had hoped to communicate. I will live a life developing the best most beneficial things I can, thus will I protect freedom - but I will not participate in a violent act of preservation. As said, I would rather be dead than alive and fighting for freedom. I think that as a nation the best way to fight back peacefully would be to build a new tower.
As far as PanAm747's comments/questions go - I pay taxes because I have to, this isn't something I can choose, so it's not really a negotiable point. This money also keeps freeways and police stations in order, so I pay it gladly because I love to travel on those freeways.
As far as using an airport for military purposes, again it's for the greater good... if I were to have influence over the design of an airport, it would be a commercial hub, used mainly for peaceful flights. If the US decided to use it for a military base, then so be it. I respect the existence and maintaining of an armed force, I simply don't respect the necessity A) for me to be part of it; B) for it to be used in this situation.
Lastly, those of you who tell me I haven't any appreciation for the millions who've died for my freedoms - there aren't words for the ignorance you display in telling me this. It is the oldest way of making oneself feel patriotic, tell the guy who opposes your view that he doesn't appreciate lost lives. I have come to believe in my general interactions with people that I have a much greater appreciation of these freedoms and their cost than most, and I take far less for granted than does the average American, and certainly the average American of my age.
So tell me, if a billion people die to make me free, ought I be more willing to fight to preserve those freedoms? No. My lack of appreciation for violence is absolute, heeding not the multitudes who've died to give me the freedom to express that lack of appreciation.
Finally, no this was never sent anywhere... it was indeed written on the spot and as most of my posts in this forum it wasn't proofread or scrutinzed carefully.
Mcdougald From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (13 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1382 times:
747-600X wrote: "...I will not save my comrades, for they are not the sort of person who I would be inclined to save while they endeavored to kill."
I wouldn't recommend going that far, given that your comrades would be worth saving, if possible, in order to spare their wives, girlfriends, parents, children, family and friends the grief. Even if they themselves brought grief on enemy draftees' wives, girlfriends, parents and others who are treated as non-entities in the 'live-in-prime-time' televised spectacle that Superfly has sometimes referred to on this forum.
Still, I can identify with your anxiousness about the talk of a war or even a draft.
Redngold's suggestions are definitely good ones: some of the most honourable things that anyone can do are the things he mentioned that never attract much fanfare or attention, much less a parade, monument or measure of glory.
If all else fails, stand your ground without hiding or running from anyone. Even if it means being hauled up in front of a judge to explain that if you're going to risk your life for a cause, it'll be a cause of your own choosing on your own initiative and not those of a jumped-up politician or bureaucrat, thank you very much. (Which pretty well sums up my own view of conscription.)
PHLFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 851 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (13 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1376 times:
I can understand your desire to not kill even in this situation even If I disagree with you.
I hope and pray that the US of A will not have to reinstate the draft, but if it does, and you are drafted, please give a 100% effort. If you do not, you will endanger the lives of your fellow countryman who will be serving beside you.
I hope your are not aligned with one of our domestic terrorist organizations, PETA.
747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2806 posts, RR: 14
Reply 18, posted (13 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1365 times:
Well, the only domestic terrorist organization I've ever even considered half worth the time of day is ELF, because their attacks focus on destroying buildings they feel harm nature, but they don't kill. Even there, however, I still have a feeling of general dislike on account of the violence involved (and my view that as humans we have a right to be part of the ecosystem).
Anyway, Mcdougald is as usual correct. The thing about not defending my comrades comes partially from my army-employed sister's view of the average soldier which, to be frank, equates with the average thug. This is second-hand information, but most of the descriptions of behavior she relayed were indeed below the par of etiquette. That, combined with the fact that those would be the people who wanted to kill the "enemy", made me simply not want to be associated with them or weep if they were killed. But as said, Mcdougald seems to have a pretty level headed view of the situation.
WN700Driver From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (13 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1360 times:
You bring up a few interesting points. It's a damned shame they are not, however, valid ones. What you fail to understand (a little shocking, considering that you claim to be in touch w/ the natural communities around you), is that being a "human", in your words, means that there are things you are naturally obligated to do, should they become realized in your life.
To wit, as a human, an american, whatever you consider yourself to be, you are a part . We all are, and allways will be. And what happens to a part that no longer functions properly, or becomes hazordous or inconvienient to the rest of the machine? It gets replaced. We "humans" are lazy in the administration of replacement (we naver change our oils on time, let our autos run on empty, only change building codes when they come a' tumblin down), in other words, very forgiving of things like this.
Nature is not. The fact that virtually no one will agree with your opinions ought to tell you something. So what is self-evident about your type of pacifism is not that you have any love for nature or the human species, but only that you have hate and contempt not only for yourself, but for those who have bothered to give a rat-f*ck about you. Ask yourself this honestly. What has peace (in a situation like this) ever done for anyone? The european Jews were pretty peaceful in the 1930s, and even then the writing was most deffinately on the wall. They faired pretty well didn't they? According to your beliefs, it is perfectly ok for that to happen again. But wait, this is a modern enlightened world, now isn't, so that could never happen again, right?
To the rest of us. I want to point out that this person's point of view is especially nausiating for a few reasons. It isn't just his "commrades", or "brother soliders", he and his ilk endanger, it is everybody. This "person" would not lift a finger to save ANY person's life (probably including that girlfriend of his), if the possiblilty of using violence arose. I do mean it when I say Peace to All, but not if the price isn't worth bearing.
PS., to 746 again, these "thugs" in army of which you so freely generalize are why you are allowed to have ill-informed and probably narcotically induced opinions like that, and why you don't express them in German, Russian, French, Spanish, etc...
Mcdougald From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (13 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1302 times:
WN700Driver wrote: "...there are things you are naturally obligated to do, should they become realized in your life."
It should be cautioned that, unlike saving a life, forcible military service is not one of them; the fact that those countries with compulsory schemes must devote considerable resources to requring such service under pain of imprisonment or other punishment, searching for non-compliers and taking steps to prevent them from leaving the country suggests that there is nothing natural about it.
I'm not a particularly religious person, but I could argue that such a scheme undermines (if not breaks) three of the Ten Commandments, the closest thing to a universal list of obligations upon the human race, by training the unwilling to kill in the name of the nation*, arguably the most pervasive of the false gods. And I can hardly see how demanding that others unwillingly surrender their bodies and personal safety to the state in order to achieve someone else's preferred cause exempts itself from "[t]hou shalt not covet...anything that is thy neighbour's."
I'm admittedly not much of a pacifist, either: if a war is the least evil option, as it sometimes is, then it is the best one. But if I'm going to endanger myself for a cause, it will be one of my own choosing and on my own initiative, and I'll do it without expectation of glory or material gain.
Fortunately, I probably don't have to worry much about someone in officialdom imposing their preferences upon me: taking in draftees and fighting off the inevitable legal challenges would plunge the financially troubled and politically weak Canadian Armed Forces into a meltdown. But if they try, they'll get an earful, and it won't sound nice.