Hello LEe,
On Sun 2012-Mar-04 19:26, Lee Lofaso (2:203/2) wrote to Richard Webb:
LL> Some proponents of reinstating the draft have made the point that
LL> doing so would force politicians to be responsible and accountable
LL> for their actions in matters concerning war and peace. There is
LL> some merit in that argument, but I would prefer an emphasis on
LL> peace, without the requirement for a draft.
But face reality, unilateral declarations of peaceful intent and unwillingness
to fight don't get us anywhere. Also,
remember, I'm not talking about a draft so much as I am
universal service to go along with universal suffrage. YOu
wanna vote you will serve! NO questions, no exceptions.
RW>> YOu might end up toting a rifle,
LL>> Conscientious objectors will never tote a rifle of any kind.
RW>Too bad, then they can forfeit their rights to vote and
RW>otehr such imho.
LL> Why should anybody be forced to give up a *right* that everybody
LL> else has, just because they object to war? Muhammad Ali was a
LL> consientious objector, refused to enter the draft, was jailed and
LL> imprisoned, and stripped of his boxing title. The courts overturned
LL> his conviction, and Ali went on to regain his championship by
LL> winning another title match. But he never should have had to suffer
LL> the indignities forced upon him by our society in the first place.
YOu ever hear the old tail of a bunch of guys doing sentry
duty who suddenly became conscientious objectors? Their Co
decided to give them whistles instead of rifles. YOu see
the enemy in the night blow the whistle.
Maybe he could have served in a different way. YEs I can
understand the conscientious objector thing, but we have too many folks opting
out for other reasons, and opting out of
any kind of service at all.
Btw, I had no objection to Afghanistan, although i did have
my objections to Nam, and definitely to Iraq, either time.
I won't ever lift a finger to defend royals.
LL> Today it is much harder for an individual to attain "conscientious
LL> objector" status than it was in Ali's day. Our society did it to
LL> Ali because he was black and had made a name for himself through
LL> boxing. We wanted to make an example out of Ali. And we did.
LL> However, Ali got even once the courts overturned his conviction...
IT should be much more difficult. ARe you going to allow
your society to be overrun by others because you're a
conscientious objector? I'll fight to defend me and mine
thank you very much.
LL> We did away with slavery (for the most part) after the Civil War.
LL> Slavery still exists (sort of) in prisons. We do not need to make
LL> slaves out of conscientious objectors. Nor should we.
YOu give something to get something. YOu grew up here, you
had the advantages of our society, then serve. OTherwise
forfeit voting. As I noted, even if you're a conscientious
objector you can still help build a road somewhere, or help
provide people slewhere potable drinking water, build a
school, etc. Maybe by serving in something such as the
peace corps you prevent a war down the road. That ought to
go along with the philosophy or beliefs of any real
conscientious objector.
but, one of the real benefits of universal service to go
along with universal suffrage would be expanded educational
opportunities afterword. That would be one of the
privileges earned.
RW>Why should so-called physical disabilities exempt you?
LL> Some folks are simply physically and/or mentally unable to do
LL> anything worth doing. I am not saying that all who have a physical
LL> and/or mental disability should be excluded from military/community
LL> service, as many folks in that category did serve honorably in
LL> previous wars, such as in WWII.
Indeed, there are those who can't do much of anything,
because they're both phsyically and mentally incapable of
doing anything. MOst times, they don't vote, and they don't pay taxes either.
RW>See earlier in this thread. Does being blind disqualify a diesel
RW>mechanic or a computer programmer? Except for the severely disabled
RW>who can't do much useful even for themselves anybody and everybody
RW>should serve imho.
LL> There are many things that can be done. Some folks are limited in
LL> what they can do, but not in all things. As such, everybody who is
LL> able should not be exempt, with the exception of conscientious
LL> objectors.
There shoudl be no exemptions, period imho. YOu may declare yourself a c.o.
and those making the assignments should
consider that and place you working for programs that are
compatible imho, but there should be some sort of service
required of you nonetheless. Give to get.
RW>> Imho it just makes sense, helpsyoung people prepare for life as
RW>> citizens over adn above hs, and gives us the bodies we need, whether
RW>> it be to fight a war, or provide international aid or bodies for
RW>> public projects that do us good that need bodies to happen.
LL>> It makes far better sense to denounce war in all its various forms,
LL>> and promoting and practicing nonviolence in its place.
RW>Dream on!
LL> Nonviolent resistance is not passive, but a very active form of
LL> resistence. Gandhi knew it well. So did MLK. Not only did they
LL> dream, but they achieved. Isn't that wonderful?
yEah it is, but don't think MLK would have achieved near as
much if it hadn't been for those who just weren't gonna take it anymore and
were willing to put their bodies on the line? Gandhi may have achieved, but is
India a place you'd want to live? As for me, I don't think I'd care for it.
Ask the
untouchables there how much of what Gandhi achieved applies
to them. They're still victims of prejudice.
Regards,
Richard
---
* Origin: (1:116/901)
|
