the draft?
Robert D. Silverman
stuff deleted....
: One of the lowest forms of human life, in my opinion, is someone
:who supports the traditional US paternalistic and belligerent
:stance towards the developing world but who suddenly becomes an
:"objector" when his/her safety is threatened by the draft.
Oh. You mean like Dan Quayle!!!!
What do you get when you combine a chicken with a hawk???
A Quayle of course.
[BTW, I agree with you]
--
Bob Silverman
#include <std.disclaimer>
Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA 01730
"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
Evan W. Steeg
>In article <90Nov26.12...@neuron.ai.toronto.edu> st...@ai.toronto.edu ("Evan W. Steeg") writes:
>> If a war is necessary, then I see no reason why you or anyone
>>else should be exempted from at least the possibility of serving.
>
>Okay, how about "I refuse to kill anyone"? Is that sufficient reason?
>If not, why not?
>
> Scott MacHaffie
Yes, this is a fine reason. If this is your belief, then you are
a true Conscientious Objector, and follow in a great tradition.
As I said previously, if you are a true CO, then you will have made
your sentiments apparent and perhaps even put them into practice
*long* before appearing at the draft board hearing.
I intend no sarcasm in the above. I have great respect for CO's
and true pacifists. Even though I myself have decided that there
*are* (a very few) causes/reasons for which I would kill (and more
for which I would risk my own death), I respect the pure pacifist
ideal, too. (Even if I had become a USMC officer as I had once
planned, I would have, for example, refused to help train certain
"military and paramilitary forces" -- read "death squads" -- in
Central America.)
One of the lowest forms of human life, in my opinion, is someone
who supports the traditional US paternalistic and belligerent
stance towards the developing world but who suddenly becomes an
"objector" when his/her safety is threatened by the draft.
-- Evan
--
Evan W. Steeg (416) 978-7321 st...@ai.toronto.edu (CSnet,UUCP,Bitnet)
Dept of Computer Science st...@ai.utoronto (other Bitnet)
University of Toronto, st...@ai.toronto.cdn (EAN X.400)
Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4 {seismo,watmath}!ai.toronto.edu!steeg
Russ Nelson
One of the lowest forms of human life, in my opinion, is someone
who supports the traditional US paternalistic and belligerent
stance towards the developing world but who suddenly becomes an
"objector" when his/her safety is threatened by the draft.
Yes, that's always the problem -- sorting out the COs from the COwards.
People being people, there will always be some cowards masquarading as
COs. Of course, there will always be some cowards masquarading as
soldiers, too.
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) FAX 315-268-7600
It's better to get mugged than to live a life of fear -- Freeman Dyson
I joined the League for Programming Freedom, and I hope you'll join too.
james d. Del Vecchio
>Oil is of vital interest to this country.
>If we're serious about curbing our thirst for oil,
>I think we should do the following:
> (1) Tax oil more (again). All revenues from this tax should go
> to developing alternative fuels. Some adjustment should also
> be made so that these type of taxes are equitable to the poor.
If a higher gas price because of lower supply is bad,
why would a higher price due to a tax be good?
> (2) Begin gas rationing.
Gas rationing = Gas shortages = Gas station lines = Black markets.
As the supply gradualy dwindles, the price will rise. This is inescapable.
Regardless of any tax or gvt. action, It will eventualy become cheaper
to use alcohol or some other fuel. At _that time_ people will be better
off with the other fuels. Why interfere with this?
Jim Del Vecchio
Gerry Gleason
>In article <12...@milton.u.washington.edu> wa...@milton.u.washington.edu (scott machaffie) writes:
>>In article <90Nov26.12...@neuron.ai.toronto.edu> st...@ai.toronto.edu ("Evan W. Steeg") writes:
>>> If a war is necessary, then I see no reason why you or anyone
>>>else should be exempted from at least the possibility of serving.
>>Okay, how about "I refuse to kill anyone"? Is that sufficient reason?
>>If not, why not?
> Yes, this is a fine reason. If this is your belief, then you are
>a true Conscientious Objector, and follow in a great tradition.
>As I said previously, if you are a true CO, then you will have made
>your sentiments apparent and perhaps even put them into practice
>*long* before appearing at the draft board hearing.
Of course problem number one is that their standards and yours for
making this declaration might be completely different.
> I intend no sarcasm in the above. I have great respect for CO's
>and true pacifists. Even though I myself have decided that there
>*are* (a very few) causes/reasons for which I would kill (and more
>for which I would risk my own death), I respect the pure pacifist
>ideal, too. (Even if I had become a USMC officer as I had once
>planned, I would have, for example, refused to help train certain
>"military and paramilitary forces" -- read "death squads" -- in
>Central America.)
And this paragraph points out the even greater problems. Once you
are inducted into the armed forces, you won't be given the opportunity
to choose whether a given situation is worth risking your life or
killing someone else. At this point, if you refuse to obey an order
you get court-marshalled and thrown in jail. There are no options
between convincing them that you are a 100% pacifist, and becoming
a slave to army regulations.
> One of the lowest forms of human life, in my opinion, is someone
>who supports the traditional US paternalistic and belligerent
>stance towards the developing world but who suddenly becomes an
>"objector" when his/her safety is threatened by the draft.
You mean like our distinguished Vice President?
Whatever you think of this type of person, I don't see that the desire
to have every last one of them serve justifies putting anyone who
legitimately objects to being forced to kill people through the third
degree. What person who serves his or her country wants to be in a
life and death situation with someone whose first priority is their
own ass anyway?
Gerry Gleason
Craig E. Smith
>In article <12...@milton.u.washington.edu> wa...@milton.u.washington.edu (scott machaffie) writes:
>>In article <90Nov26.12...@neuron.ai.toronto.edu> st...@ai.toronto.edu ("Evan W. Steeg") writes:
>>> If a war is necessary, then I see no reason why you or anyone
>>>else should be exempted from at least the possibility of serving.
>>Okay, how about "I refuse to kill anyone"? Is that sufficient reason?
>>If not, why not?
> Yes, this is a fine reason. If this is your belief, then you are
>a true Conscientious Objector, and follow in a great tradition.
While in general I would refuse to kill anyone, there are certain
circumstances where I would feel compelled and justified in doing
so. For instance, if someone tried to enslave me by forcing me to
join a military organization against my will, then I would say that
there was a damn good reason to kill them. Especially if I would
be made to fight, and have a fair chance of dying in a foreign war
which I felt was of little significance to me.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baa, baa, bleat, baa. Baa, baa, | Internet: csm...@cscs.UUCP
baa, bleat, ... - U. S. Public | UUCP: ... uunet!cscs!csmith
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Alt - Perp
|> While in general I would refuse to kill anyone, there are certain
|> circumstances where I would feel compelled and justified in doing
|> so. For instance, if someone tried to enslave me by forcing me to
|> join a military organization against my will, then I would say that
|> there was a damn good reason to kill them. Especially if I would
|> be made to fight, and have a fair chance of dying in a foreign war
|> which I felt was of little significance to me.
When you think about it, it does make sense... It is only natural for people
to want to defend themselves and their family first, and foreign dictatorships
second. If the Kuwaiti government came to your house and kidnapped you to fight
to topple Iraq, the U.S. government would be very upset, but it is ok for them
to kidnap you for the exact same reason. Why do people think this is ok?
because the U.S. government owns you, and Kuwait wouldn't be allowed to steal
U.S. government property.
Greg
P.S. The above is not necessarily the opinion of anyone, but could possibly be
my opinion...
Scott Gibson
>
>While in general I would refuse to kill anyone, there are certain
>circumstances where I would feel compelled and justified in doing
>so. For instance, if someone tried to enslave me by forcing me to
>join a military organization against my will, then I would say that
>there was a damn good reason to kill them. Especially if I would
>be made to fight, and have a fair chance of dying in a foreign war
>which I felt was of little significance to me.
Oh, goody.
Here all this time I thought you were arguing Conscientious Objection, when
in fact you were arguing selfish contrariness.
--
******************************************************************************
"We've got a carrot and stick policy, and the carrot is, if he pulls out, he
doesn't get the stick." - James Baker, U.S Secretary of State, 12/5/90
Scott Gibson {ames!ncar!noao!asuvax,mcdphx}!anasaz!qip!scott
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are my own, though subject to change.
Robertson James
>
>All possible decisions are equaly selfish. One can choose to obey because
>of fear of consequences (peer pressure, legal pressure), or to disobey
>because fear of consequences (harm, ruined life, death). One can choose
>to fight to appease his sense of morality (e.g."I have a duty to serve my
>counrty", etc), or one can refuse to fight to appease his sense of morality
>("I wouldn't be a man if I let anyone fuck me up like that", etc).
>
>Whatever the decision, each person selfishly chooses what he believes
>is right for him.
>
> Jim Del Vecchio
The arguement has been about C.O. status. As far as the government is
concerned, if you are willing to fight under some set of circumstances, then
you are not eligible for C.O. status. Opposition to a particular conflict has
no place in a C.O. hearing.
James A. Robertson
--
Jim Robertson, INET: jar...@warper.jhuapl.edu, jar...@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu
Johns Hopkins Univ./APL UUCP: {backbone!}mimsy!aplcen!jarober