http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7444116.stm
"I joined the Army National Guard in 1992. We all knew and it was made perfectly clear many times, before and after we joined, that we were in the United States Military and were required to defend the nation at home and abroad. We were never once told, nor was it inferred, that all we would do is "fill sandbags" for humanitarian reasons. Corey Glass joined the "ARMY National Guard" not the Peace Corps, Salvation Army, or any other humanitarian organization. The difference is that the Military pays more money. That is why Corey Glass joined. You train with guns, grenades, claymores; you train to fight a war. Not once in basic training was Corey Glass trained, nor was it ever mentioned in any class, or any Army field manual how to fill sandbags to stop a flood. Corey Glass learned to fill sandbags for a bunker to defend a military forward operating base from enemy attack. If it is for moral reasons then do what other conscientious objectors with standards have done: serve your time in a military prison for going back on the oath you gave to your country and fellow military personnel. Chris
CK, LIC, NY"
Originally posted by zeeblebotSounds like he's got things in perspective:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7444116.stm
"I joined the Army National Guard in 1992. We all knew and it was made perfectly clear many times, before and after we joined, that we were in the United States Military and were required to defend the nation at home and abroad. We were never once told, nor was it inferred, that all we would do is "fill sa k on the oath you gave to your country and fellow military personnel. Chris
CK, LIC, NY"
"I believe the Iraq War is illegal and morally wrong. I believe I have a duty to refuse to take part in a war not sanctioned by the United Nations, started on the basis of lies."
They should probably prosecute those who perpetrated a fraud on the American people (and the world) in starting an unjust war instead.
Originally posted by shavixmirOr, indeed, "I can see how war is sometimes necessary in self-defence but I question whether this particular war fits the bill. In particular, the fact that the country I'm being told to invade has lots of oil, and there isn't any good reason I can see for invading it, leads me to be suspicious of my government's motives".
The concept that someone who joins the army can't leave when he wants to is quite possibly insane.
Why on earth can't someone change their minds and think: "Hell... actually, now I've read Bertrand Russell, I don't really want to go out and kill anybody anymore." (for example).
I have friends who had cruisy civilian jobs prior to 9/11 who joined or rejoined the US military out of a sense of duty after 9/11. I don't think it's fair for someone who signed up thinking they were being sent to Afghanistan to then have no choice about being sent to Iraq, because there's a huge discrepancy between the merits of those two wars. Soldiers should have the right to make a decision of conscience about whether to endorse a particular war by fighting in it. No-one should be forced to kill people without being allowed a decision of conscience over whether the war is justified. (Compulsion is no defence for murder in a civilian context, incidentally.)
At the end of the day, in a country with 300 million people, if there's a clear and imminent threat to the country then there won't be a shortage of brave men and women willing to fight to defend it. No-one needs to be forced to stay in the military -- and this includes McCain's manipulative bill to try and trap people in the military by not giving them good benefits if they leave too early. You only need to force soldiers to go to war if your war isn't justified or necesary.
Originally posted by karnachzYou only need to force soldiers to go to war if your war isn't justified or necesary.
Or maybe if they're like my brother who joined because it was peacetime and he didn't believe war might break out. He's very anti-war now.
If you sign up, you need to fulfill your contract.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungHow insane would a war have to be for you to change your mind? Say the president decides to end that immigration problem once and for all and sends the troops into Mexico 'for regional security' -- would you still regard conscientious objection (especially by troops with Mexican heritage) as a contractual matter in that case?
If you sign up, you need to fulfill your contract.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageA good question.
How insane would a war have to be for you to change your mind? Say the president decides to end that immigration problem once and for all and sends the troops into Mexico 'for regional security' -- would you still regard conscientious objection (especially by troops with Mexican heritage) as a contractual matter in that case?
Unfortunately, when you join the army, you have to accept that you must simply obey orders without question.
Even if that means shooting your friend tied to a post for desertion.
War may be stupid, but anyone who joins the army must be even more stupid.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYou realize you're talking to a Chicano with a venemous hatred of the Los Angeles gangs, right?
How insane would a war have to be for you to change your mind? Say the president decides to end that immigration problem once and for all and sends the troops into Mexico 'for regional security' -- would you still regard conscientious objection (especially by troops with Mexican heritage) as a contractual matter in that case?