Conference repair::reserve_forces

Pending something longer...

I desire peace, and if I was being selfish I would take an "I'm alright Jack" 
attitude. To me this is what some (not all ) conscientious objectors do. Yes I 
admit that some can work for peace through a political process, but I feel that 
I do more for the peace enjoyed by my wife and family, not to mention the rest
of the citizens of this land, by doing what I am good at, and doing it in the
service of the Crown.

The military are, and always have been, a small minority of the people. If you
like I was born into a military caste: my father, his father, and his father 
before him all served, indeed there have been Philpotts in service in Britain 
as long as there  has been an army (the name incidentally comes from Early 
French "philipot" meaning "horse lover" and is a job name used by a knight's
horse tender). My ancestors came over from France in the army of William the 
Bastard (and yes he was called that before he called himself William the 
Conqueror), and have been professional men-at-arms ever since. I feel that in
shouldering a small part of the burden of peace I am doing my bit towards 
helping the majority live the good life in peace. If the pacifists of the last 
generation had had their way I would probably now be writing this note, if at 
all, in German.

/. Ian .\

    Re .0:
    
    My kids asked me the question why I serve in the reserves when there's
    no war, why do I put myself through all that aggravation?
    
    My answer was December 7, 1941 and the disasters that followed up
    until Midway. I said a lot of good people died unnecessarily because
    they were either ill-trained or ill-equipped or both. I told them
    if I ended up serving in a shooting war on a beach somewhere, I
    wanted to survive and come back. I also mentioned that unfortunately
    it was an imperfect world and there were some not very nice people
    out there. By serving in the reserves, in a small way I was helping
    say to the bad guys, "Don't even think about starting a war."
    
    To paraphrase Winston Churchill, "A reservist is twice a citizen."
    
    Mark
    RMC USNR

    Marc,
    
    I read in another conference that one reason there was no invasion
    after Dec 7 was the vast arsenal of personal weapons owned by the
    population, and the potential guerilla force.
    
    Dave

    Re .3:
    
    Hmmmm....good point. The sheer physical size of the continental
    US makes life tough for any potential invader. However, there's
    no doubt about it.....the US was *unprepared* or at best barely
    prepared for WWII.
    
    Former SecDef Weinberger was in the US Army in 1941 and recalls
    training on wooden guns because there weren't enough of the real
    thing to go around. At Pearl Harbor, machine guns couldn't fire
    back at the Japanese aircraft because their belts were of WWI vintage
    and fell apart when used. Navy PBY Catalinas flying out of the
    Phillipines right after WWII started had no armor piercing ammunition
    for their 50-cal. MG's - only the pre-war ball stuff. The list is
    endless.....
    
    We (and the Brits, thank the Lord for small favors) had plenty of
    technology that by mid-1943 was making life very difficult for the
    Axis but things were pretty bleak in early 1942 until that technology
    was available.
    
    Mark
    RMC USNR

    That's a profound question, Dave.  One that's had books written trying
    to find some answers.  I think that Ian pretty much hit the crux of it
    for me.  So long as there are some of us who are willing to do whatever
    it takes to protect our way of life and who believe in the freedom and
    dignity of our brothers, there is security in the world.  When that
    commitment fails or when we start becoming "reasonable" and willing to
    compromise our ideals, the world becomes a much more dangerous place
    for all of us.
    
    The misinformed and the apologists don't understand how anyone can love
    peace but be willing to die for it.  They must lead pretty miserable
    lives.
    
    Len
                                                

    The Army recruiting campaign in Britain has slightly changed tack
    recently, it now shows a tank, plus crew, with the slogan,
    "Peacemongers".  This goes along with Len's comments; there are
    people prepared to fight for peace.  
    But one mans peaceful life could be anothers hell( eg Middle East) so 
    there must be a willingness to allow the other man to lead his way of 
    life,if he so choses.
    And that implies a compromise doesn't it?
    
    Dave

    For many years the US Stategic Air Command's motto has been "Peace is
    Our Profession".  If there's an organization in the world better
    prepared to deal out large scale death and destruction, I don't know
    what it is.  The idea that war is abhorrant to military leaders is well
    established.  After all, few are more familiar with the realities of
    war than those who are chartered to wage it.  And few are less familiar
    with war than the politicians who usually start it.
    
    Compromise is a fact of life in any viable society.  The question is,
    what is subject to compromise?  IMHO there are certain ideals which
    cannot be subjected to debate or compromise and our basic freedoms are
    among them.  
    
    As soldiers (I'm not leaving out sailors and airmen) we should not go
    eagerly into battle.  But, once committed, we should leave the
    compromising to the politicians.
    
    Len

        
        
        
        Try this for size;
        
        
        Si vis pacem para bellum.
        
        It's probably still true.
        
        Ed 
        RNR

    I never did find out what Si vis pacem para bellum means. At a guess
    something like "Plan for peace but prepare for war"

    Latin - "If you wish peace, prepare for war".