Hello Richard,   
      
    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.   
      
    RW> Indeed, this is true, and it must be clearly demonstrated.   
      
   In some cases this is demonstrated by the community in which   
   they live, such as the Amish and Mennonite communities, their   
   religious beliefs clearly being anti-violence and anti-war.   
   On a more individual level, it is usually the individuals   
   themselves who must demonstrate to the draft board that their   
   appeal for conscientious objector status should be granted.   
      
    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.   
      
    RW> YEp, and at many times abused and poorly understood.   
      
   It has been abused both ways.  Some folks who clearly should   
   have been granted conscientious objector status were denied, such   
   as Cassius Clay (Muhammad Ali).  But at least Ali was man enough   
   to stick to his guns, preferring to be jailed and stripped of his   
   boxing championship title rather than go against his true beliefs.   
   Of course, the courts overturned the conviction, as Ali's case   
   had merit.   
      
   If an individual wanted to avoid military service, he usually went   
   the route of getting a deferment, as that was far easier to do than   
   obtaining conscientious objector status.  Rush Limbaugh avoided such   
   military service because he claimed he had a pimple on his ass.  I   
   am sure he got a doctor to attest to that, otherwise his claim would   
   have been laughed at by the draft board.  Dick Cheney got five   
   deferments, one of those deferments being because he and his wife   
   wanted to make a baby.   
      
   Should we make conscientious objector status as easy to obtain   
   as getting a deferment?  Why, or why not?   
      
    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.   
      
    RW> YEs this is true.  NOte my comments on Nam and Iraq.  Had I   
    RW> been in uniform i would have done as ordered.   
      
   Had you been in uniform and ran away, you would have been charged   
   with desertion.  And in times of war, that means the military could   
   have had you shot by firing squad.  However, not all is as aimple   
   as it appears to be.   
      
   During WWII, soldiers were asked by their commanding officers to do   
   things that clearly were against the code of military conduct.  For   
   example, a soldier is asked to see his CO.  His CO tells him there   
   is a prisoner he wants brought to headquarters, and then for the   
   soldier to return in fifteen minutes for new orders.  Headquarters   
   is half an hour away, and the enemy controls the land between.   
   What the soldier's CO is asking is for the soldier to take the   
   prisoner out and execute him.  The soldier knows if he refuses   
   to comply, the soldier will be charged with failure to obey orders   
   and shot by his CO, with another soldier taking his place.   
      
    RW> Still, Iraq, both times was a waste of our resources and our young people   
    RW> imho.  I would never wish to spend one dime, once drop of   
    RW> blood to defend a royal.  I could care less if Kuwait fell, or SAudi   
   Arabia   
    RW> for that matter.  LEt them fall.   
      
   Many people felt the same way about Vietnam, when we had a draft   
   compelling our people to be sent to where we had no business being   
   in the first place.  Some folks who were drafted avoided military   
   service by going to Canada (and other places).  It was not until   
   years later that they were able to return home, thanks to President   
   Jimmy Carter.  However, do not expect our present president to be   
   so kind, or any future president, in regards to people avoiding   
   military service (if a draft is re-instated).   
      
    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.   
      
    RW> This is true, but now consider Tod Beamer, the "let's roll"   
    RW> guy from 9/11/2001.  HE knew he was probably going to die   
    RW> when resisting, but there imho was a true hero.  That plane   
    RW> didn't reach its target.  Those people resisted instead of   
    RW> sitting there waiting like lambs going to slaughter.  They   
    RW> fought back, and those barbarians didn't reach their   
    RW> objective.  HE was truly a man not a coward.   
      
   First of all, I doubt the story about Todd Beamer and his gang   
   of merry men were able to overtake hijackers of that aircraft.   
   More likely the airplane was blown out of the sky by our own   
   military, knowing the consequences of what might happen.  But   
   the president could not publicly admit to having our military   
   shoot down a civilian airliner.  Better to create a fiction,   
   and make Americans heroes.   
      
   But let us suppose, at least for the moment, that Todd Beamer   
   and fellow passengers managed to overtake the hijackers and   
   land the aircraft safely.  Would such action be grounds to deny   
   Todd Beamer & Co. conscientious objector status if they were   
   drafted to serve in the military?  No, because none of them   
   were involved in an organized war of any kind.  It was a matter   
   of self-defense, no different than a man defending his wife   
   and family from a burglar/rapist/murderer.   
      
    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...   
      
    RW> GOod analogy, but the world is a violent place.   
      
   Yes, it is.  And likely to always be so.   
      
    RW> "democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner.   
    RW> LIberty is when the sheep has his own gun."   
      
   When facing a pack of wolves, sheep need a protector.  That is   
   where the shepherd (always holding a stick) comes in...   
      
   OTOH, Jesus told a parable about the good shepherd leaving his   
   flock of sheep all alone to fend for themselves as he went in search   
   of a sheep that had lost its way and had probably already been eaten.   
   Kind of makes me wonder why that shepherd was called "good"...   
      
    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.   
      
    RW> True enough, but there are many ways to serve one's country   
    RW> and society, compulsory or not.   
      
   Including caring for elderly parents, disabled children, things   
   that matter for other folks to enjoy a certain quality of life.   
      
    RW> Compusory just means that you will serve, somewhere, some way.  Something   
    RW> like the old CCC even, which ought to salve the conscience of any   
    RW> conscientious objector.  How does rebuilding or maintaining   
    RW> a national park or monument further a war effort?   
      
   While a conscientious objector could always volunteer to serve   
   in a noncombatant role, he/she cannot be compelled to do so.  Nor   
   should he/she be under any such compulsion.  Otherwise, it would   
   not be an act of volunteering, but rather of being forced.   
      
   People are always needed to maintain our national parks and monuments,   
   etc.  And those people are paid federal employees, not volunteers.   
   Well, most of them, as there are some programs such as internships,   
   etc.  But you get the picture.   
      
   In order to be granted conscientious objector status, an individual   
   must be against war "in any form".  And that includes noncombatant   
   roles.  That is why nobody should be forced to serve in areas such   
   as maintaining our national parks and monuments, etc.  That does   
   not mean a conscientious objector must avoid serving our country   
   in noncombatant roles.  Only that he/she cannot be forced into   
   doing so.   
      
    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".   
      
    RW> Again see above.  Education at least through primary school   
    RW> is compulsory.   
      
   Home schooling is allowed, at least in most states.  However,   
   going to school is not nearly the same thing as going to war.   
   At least folks don't get shot at when going to school.  Except   
   in rare cases, such as in the school cafeteria when a kid goes   
   nuts when some other kid steals his french fries.   
      
    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.   
      
    RW> I could buy into that one as well.  Many otherwise   
    RW> intelligent young people have had to forfeit higher   
    RW> education.  Student loans and pell grants don't reach   
    RW> everybody.   
      
   President Obama floated that idea during his first year in office.   
   But apparently he never pushed it.  But then, this country has never   
   had a national education policy.  Nothing even close.   
      
    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.   
      
    RW> Indeed not, and there were some who just flat out weren't   
    RW> going to take it anymore, and like it or not, fear is a   
    RW> powerful motivator for change.   
      
   Love is more powerful, but takes longer to grab hold.   
      
    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.   
      
    RW> Right, but there is still no real lasting peace between   
    RW> INdia and Pakistan.  IN fact, Pakistan is quite radicalized.   
      
   I am not so sure that Pakistan is "radicalized" so much as it is   
   misunderstood.  Remember, the so-called "war on terror" is on   
   their doorstep, their (Afghan) neighbors being not just across   
   their border, but also within their own.  In fact, many Pakistanis   
   view Afghans as being no different than themselves, with both   
   peoples regularly crossing the border that separates them as if   
   there were no border at all.   
      
   The Pakistan military has lost many more soldiers than the US   
   and NATO has.  The Pakistan military knows who their enemies are.   
   The Pakistan military also knows who their friends are.  What   
   makes the situation so scary is that the Pakistani military   
   considers India to be a far bigger threat than either the Taliban   
   or al-Qaeda.  But then, Pakistan has fought four wars with India.   
   And losing each and every time.  Including Bangladesh, which used   
   to be the eastern part of Pakistan.   
      
   But fear not.  A fifth war between Pakistan and India will   
   be short, as both countries have nukes.  And when the missiles   
   fly, say bye-bye to one-fifth of the world's population...   
      
    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.  :)   
      
    RW> visiting yes, but I know plenty of people who are from India who choose to   
    RW> live here.  A good ham radio friend of mine,   
    RW> recently deceased chose to take his share of his inheritance and move   
   here.   
    RW> YEt he was one of the lucky ones there, his   
    RW> family had wealth and privilege.   
      
   A friend of mine, from India, returns back home once every ten   
   years or so, and when he gets back to America always tells me the   
   same thing - "Too many people, too many people."  It is a beautiful   
   land, he tells me.  But too many people.   
      
    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.   
      
    RW> Indeed we are, but ask many of the untouchables if they   
    RW> wouldn't prefer to be here where they have a better chance   
    RW> of overcoming their caste.  Ask the untouchable who's a   
    RW> pediatric cardiac  surgeon how it kicks him right in the gut when parents   
   of   
    RW> an upper caste child don't want him   
    RW> operating on their daughter because of his caste.  Ask the   
    RW> untouchable businessman who hires someone of a different   
    RW> caste to represent his company because if he, an untouchable approaches   
    RW> potential clients/customers he'll be turned away. YEt he owns the company,   
    RW> it's his skill that delivers the   
    RW> product the customer wants, but he cannot talk to financial   
    RW> backers or potential customers on his own, because of the   
    RW> caste he was born into.   
      
   The government of India is trying to change things, especially   
   in regards to the old ways (such as the caste system and untouchables,   
   etc.).  But some things never change.  Such as eunuchs crashing wedding   
   receptions.  Eunuchs are considered as being lower than untouchables.   
   When eunuchs show up at wedding receptions, people want them to go   
   away.  Quickly.  So what happens is somebody pays them off.  Not   
   sure how much.  But it must be enough to make them (eunuchs) happy.   
      
   --Lee   
      
   --- MesNews/1.06.00.00-gb   
    * Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)