Hello LEe,   
      
   On Mon 2012-Mar-05 21:22, Lee Lofaso (2:203/2) wrote to Richard Webb:   
      
      
      
   RW>But face reality, unilateral declarations of peaceful intent and   
   RW>unwillingness to fight don't get us anywhere.   
      
   LL> Actually they can, as one must be able to demonstrate to the draft   
   LL> board as to why he/she should be granted conscientious objector   
   LL> status. Section 6(j) of the Military Selective Service Act defines   
   LL> what it is all about.   
      
   Indeed, this is true, and it must be clearly demonstrated.   
      
      
   LL> Still cannot force an individual who is conscientiously opposed to   
   LL> war to act against his/her will.  This has been part of American law   
   LL> since the time of the colonies.   
      
   YEp, and at many times abused and poorly understood.   
      
   RW>Maybe he could have served in a different way.  YEs I can   
   RW>understand the conscientious objector thing, but we have too   
   RW>many folks opting out for other reasons, and opting out of   
   RW>any kind of service at all.   
      
   LL> Still can't make him/her do it, no matter how infuriating it might   
   LL> be for you and others.  However, what most folks fail to understand   
   LL> is that it is not as easy to be granted conscientiously objector   
   LL> status as right wing nutcases make things out to be.  One must be   
   LL> opposed to war "in any form" - including wars that are unpopular.   
   LL> IOW, "selective conscientious objection" is not permitted in the   
   LL> U.S.  Nor should it be.  Else everybody who wanted to opt out of war   
   LL> would gladly do so.   
      
   YEs this is true.  NOte my comments on Nam and Iraq.  Had I   
   been in uniform i would have done as ordered.  Still, Iraq,   
   both times was a waste of our resources and our young people imho.  I would   
   never wish to spend one dime, once drop of   
   blood to defend a royal.  I could care less if Kuwait fell,   
   or SAudi Arabia for that matter.  LEt them fall.   
      
      
      
   LL> Give up your life?  For what?  To (maybe) be buried six feet under?   
   LL> That is the reward?  The military trains people to kill.  What do   
   LL> you think other countries' militaries do?  They also train people to   
   LL> kill. When you have two military groups fighting against each other,   
   LL> lots of people get killed.  And for what?  To say one country's   
   LL> military is badder and meaner than another country's military?    
   LL> Nobody wins in war. Everybody loses.  Especially the mothers of   
   LL> those children.   
      
   This is true, but now consider Tod Beamer, the "let's roll"   
   guy from 9/11/2001.  HE knew he was probably going to die   
   when resisting, but there imho was a true hero.  That plane   
   didn't reach its target.  Those people resisted instead of   
   sitting there waiting like lambs going to slaughter.  They   
   fought back, and those barbarians didn't reach their   
   objective.  HE was truly a man not a coward.   
      
   RW>YOu grew up here, you had the advantages of our society, then serve.   
      
   LL> In true Athenian fashion.  We are all stoics, being trained to kill   
   LL> since the time we were itty bitty babies.  Is that what this life is   
   LL> all about?  Greeks who found their babies to be weaklings threw   
   LL> those babies over a cliff, thus ridding the population of the   
   LL> problem.  It was their version of birth control, and it seemingly   
   LL> worked.  At least until Alexander came about and started marching   
   LL> toward the East...    
      
   GOod analogy, but the world is a violent place.   
      
   "democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner.  LIberty   
   is when the sheep has his own gun."   
      
   LL> While it is true that a conscientious objector could, why would   
   LL> he/she want to?  After all, our law stipulates that he/she cannot be   
   LL> forced to do so.   
      
   RW>Maybe by serving in something such as the peace corps you prevent   
   RW>a war down the road.   
      
   LL> One does not have to be a conscientious objector in order to serve   
   LL> in the peace corps.  But again, nobody should be forced to do so.    
      
   True enough, but there are many ways to serve one's country   
   and society, compulsory or not.  Compusory just means that   
   you will serve, somewhere, some way.  Something like the old CCC even, which   
   ought to salve the conscience of any   
   conscientious objector.  How does rebuilding or maintaining   
   a national park or monument further a war effort?   
      
   RW>That ought to go along with the philosophy or beliefs of any real   
   RW>conscientious objector.   
      
   LL> Being forced into community service or some other kind of service   
   LL> might be seen by conscientious objectors (and the courts) as serving   
   LL> the military, albeit indirectly.  And conscientious objectors must,   
   LL> by definition, be opposed to war "in any form".   
      
   Again see above.  Education at least through primary school   
   is compulsory.   
      
   RW>but, one of the real benefits of universal service to go   
   RW>along with universal suffrage would be expanded educational   
   RW>opportunities afterword.  That would be one of the   
   RW>privileges earned.   
      
   LL> Rights are not earned.  And rights are something that should be   
   LL> protected, not taken away.  In any event, as per education beyond   
   LL> high school (expanded educational opportunities), it   
   LL> is my view that trade school and college tuition should be   
   LL> free for all (public education).  The cost would be paid back many   
   LL> times over through the course of one's employment.  As   
   LL> such, it would be a great investment in our future.   
      
   I could buy into that one as well.  Many otherwise   
   intelligent young people have had to forfeit higher   
   education.  Student loans and pell grants don't reach   
   everybody.   
      
      
      
    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?   
      
   RW>yEah it is, but don't think MLK would have achieved near as   
   RW>much if it hadn't been for those who just weren't gonna take it   
   RW>anymore and were willing to put their bodies on the line?   
      
   LL> Although MLK had won the Nobel Prize, and led several civil rights   
   LL> marches, real changes in our society did not really take form until   
   LL> after his untimely death came at the hands of an assassin.  There   
   LL> were also many others who were responsible for helping make the   
   LL> changes that we enjoy today.  No one person could do it all.    
      
   Indeed not, and there were some who just flat out weren't   
   going to take it anymore, and like it or not, fear is a   
   powerful motivator for change.   
      
   RW>Gandhi may have achieved, but is India a place you'd want to live?   
      
   LL> MLK was far more effective than Gandhi, as King's message was based   
   LL> on Gospel values.  However, Gandhi did effect change in his country,   
   LL> and for the better.  Throughout his life, Gandhi hated Muslims, as   
   LL> he was Hindu.  However, he did help prevent a civil war between   
   LL> Hindus and Muslims when India and Pakistan were partitioned.  That   
   LL> is to his credit, as he had travelled throughout India begging   
   LL> Hindus not to attack Muslims.   
      
   Right, but there is still no real lasting peace between   
   INdia and Pakistan.  IN fact, Pakistan is quite radicalized.   
      
   RW>As for me, I don't think I'd care for it.   
      
   LL> India is a vast country, and I am sure it is a land in which many   
   LL> tourists have loved visiting.  And it is the world's largest   
   LL> democracy, at least in terms of people.  :)   
      
   visiting yes, but I know plenty of people who are from India who choose to   
   live here.  A good ham radio friend of mine,   
   recently deceased chose to take his share of his inheritance and move here.    
   YEt he was one of the lucky ones there, his   
   family had wealth and privilege.   
      
   RW>Ask the untouchables there how much of what Gandhi achieved applies   
   RW>to them.  They're still victims of prejudice.   
      
   LL> Gandhi did not believe in the caste system, even though he was   
   LL> Hindu. He recognized probably more than anyone else that we are all   
   LL> victims of prejudice.  By "we" I am meaning everybody on Earth.   
      
   Indeed we are, but ask many of the untouchables if they   
   wouldn't prefer to be here where they have a better chance   
   of overcoming their caste.  Ask the untouchable who's a   
   pediatric cardiac  surgeon how it kicks him right in the gut when parents of   
   an upper caste child don't want him   
   operating on their daughter because of his caste.  Ask the   
   untouchable businessman who hires someone of a different   
   caste to represent his company because if he, an untouchable approaches   
   potential clients/customers he'll be turned away. YEt he owns the company,   
   it's his skill that delivers the   
   product the customer wants, but he cannot talk to financial   
   backers or potential customers on his own, because of the   
   caste he was born into.   
      
      
      
   Regards,   
              Richard   
   ---   
    * Origin:  (1:116/901)