Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    Yes, I believe that if there is a draft then it should include all
    sexes, races, sexual orientations, etc.  
    
    Would I register?  I don't know.
    
    Would I serve?  No.
    
                   Carol

    (Nice topic, Bob!)
    
    Yes, women should certainly be as subject to a military draft as men
    are.                                               
    
    Would I register?  Yes.
    
    Would I volunteer?  Knowing what I know now, no, probably not. But if
    hunger were rearing its ugly head and giving me threatening looks (as
    it was when I was 18, too poor to continue in school and untrained for
    anything else) yah, I probably would...unless I lucked out (as I did
    then...the feds were advertising for people good at learning languages,
    and I am).
    
    If I didn't volunteer, would I serve if drafted?  Yes.
    
    Would I rather our defence needs were solved in other ways? (you
    didn't ask this, but it's important anyhow)  Yes.  Would I resist
    the imposition of a draft?  You bet!
    
    						=maggie

    I think if men are subjected to a draft, women should be too.  There
    should not be a draft.
    
    I would register, and I would maintain my status as "Consciencious
    Objecter".
    
    If drafted, I would not kill.  Period.  My morals forbid it.  Yes,
    even defending my life, or the life of a loved one.  If you disagree,
    fine.  We disagree then.
    
    No suprise to those of you who know me.
    
    Lee

    
    
    	Would you really just let someone kill
    	you without fighting back or let someone kill someone
    	you deeply care for without tryig to help while they are 
    	screaming out your name for your help?
    
    

    If there is a draft it should be for men and women. If there
    were a draft I would register but I would also claim consciencious
    objector status. 
    
    I would not let someone kill me or my family without fighting
    back but that is not the same as combat.
    
    Bonnie

    In 1971, I turned 18, and registered. This was at the close of the
    Vietnam era. I would *NOT* register today. My philosophy is such
    that I can not cooperate with what I believe to be wrong. in this
    case, involuntary servitude. One of the reasons for drafting 18-
    year-olds is that they are seldom fully developed in the philoso-
    phical sense of the word. I would easily kill to defend myself or
    anyone entitled to my protection. But not as a slave. And most
    certainly not for a [country,church,mob] who claimed the right to
    enslave me.
    
    Dana

    	A slight digression.
    
    	How about total conscription, with some modifications?
    	Something to the effect that once you turn 18, you're
    	Uncle Sam's for two years. You can enter the military,
    	or work in a VA hospital, or whatever. You choose what
    	you want, based on available openings/needs.
    
    	Back in 1965, I enlisted in the USMC (for the uninitiated,
    	USMC = Uncle Sam's Misguided Children. USMC also stands
    	for some other things I can't/won't print here). Then,
    	in 1967, I volunteered for Vietnam. Fun part was, on
    	the ship to Vietnam, I was changed from a truck driver
    	to infantry. Boy, was I thrilled! (Lots of smiley faces)
    
    	With the current insanity going on in the Middle East and in
    	Nicaragua, I'm afraid that, knowing what I know now, I'd
    	opt for CO status. All war is stupid, but nothing since
    	WWII has been worth what we (and others) have paid.
    
    	My $.02
    	Scott

    
    I agree that women should be eligible to be drafted.
    
    I had to register the year I turned 18.  (They upped the drinking
    age in RI that year, too).  It was (and is) the law.
    
    I'd probably go, though any army that put me in the infantry deserves
    whatever it gets.
    
    DFW

    I'd register as a CO for war-type activities in somebody else's
    country. If my country were threatened, I'd probably fight.
    
    This whole war business is a hideous, unnecessary, crock - but I
    guess we haven't developed enuff as sentient beings to understand
    that.
    
    Somebody's gonna have to slap us around one of these days - Klaatu
    Barrada Nikto (sp?)
    
    --DE
    
    (I just looooove uniforms - sigh ;-)
    

    Good topic.
    
    I'd register too (I think).

    Depending on the type of war, I might claim CO status.  If it was
    a WWII, I don't think I would.  If it was any other kind of war,
    I would.  But if forced onto a battlefield during any war, I'd do
    the best thing to save my own life.
    
    	-Ellen

    I have thought about this a lot, I don't know what I'd do if I were
    drafter.  I'm a little down on the way the military works, right
    now.  My best friend enlisted in the Army Reserves under the GI Bill 
    to pay for college. She was completely broke, and 70% of tuition
    wasn't enough to get her to join.  They made deals with her, offered
    her 100% tuition in exchange for extended service on base in South
    Carolina and for extra years to serve in the Reserves. She did her
    part by staying in SC longer than she originally would have had
    to, and signed up for extra Reserves time.
    She started school this September, and suddenly started getting
    all kinds of bills from the school, threatening to kick her out
    if the remainder of her tuition wasn't paid.  She went back to the
    Army to find out what the story was. Knowing how they operate,
    she had gotten all the agreements in writing, but they told her
    that "so-and-so isn't authorized to sign this" and "we don't offer
    this-and-that under any circumstances" etc. etc. "Sorry kid, get
    a job."
    She is now killing herself working long hours after school so she
    can continue her education.  She is living in an apartment, not
    her promised dorm, and she barely gets by.  I don't think there's
    anything worng with working for your education, but she has already
    "paid"-through physical labor at her "extended" boot camp.  She
    goes to her Reserves drills faithfully.  Funny how they let her
    go through with all of this and didn't make good on their part.
    
    As far as myself, I wouldn't register, I don't think.  If women
    and men are equal, then women should have to fight.  Personally,
    I'm scared to death of war, and I can't picture myself letting my
    SO go in, either.  I'm not unpatriotic, I'm just afraid.
    
    What are the guidelines, anyway?
    
    Stacie

    When my sister turned 18, she registered, just to make sure they
    knew how she felt about the whole thing.  I'd be glad to register,
    but I'd only be eligible (if even then) for desk duty because of
    my allergies.
    
    My SO is filing for conscientious objector status.  He is not a
    sissy.  He just doesn't believe in wars, and has a long history
    of feeling this way.  He is going back to his high school teachers
    and his clergy and such to get their statements that will corroborate
    his filing information which describes stance on the subject of
    war and fighting (I believe this is required in order to file
    for CO status).

    -Jody
    

    <--(.11)
    
    Stacie, if your friend has the commitments in writing, she can escape
    from service since the commitments she made were contractual and the
    Army's repudiation of their obligation renders the contract null and
    void. The law requires that a valid contract must bind both sides. I'm
    not making this up, tell your friend to check with the local Legal Aid.
    The military has a long and scuzzy history of that kind of crap, and
    most people are too inexperienced to know what their rights are.
    
    						=maggie 

    One thing that bothers me about "conscientious objectors" ; you're
    willing to protest against fighting, but not slavery ? what *would*
    you defend ?

    I hate to tell some of you this, but conscientious objector status
    is very difficult to get.  It's not enough to be a member of organized
    religion anymore.  (Although I believe the Quakers can get CO status).
    And just being a peaceful person is also not enough.  I was told
    this by an Army officer who spoke at our Catholic High School...
    
    This is more strict than in the Vietnam era.
    
    I registered for the draft on my 18th birthday.  I will fight
    (to the death, if necessary) to defend my country.  I will fight
    (so I live) to defend Europe, the Middle East, etc.
    
    I have no problem with the idea of self-preservation when battle
    time rolls around...
    
    I also feel that both men and women should be drafted, and that
    both men and women should be given combat assignments if they are
    fit enough.
    
    Dave
    

    re .14
    Where does it say that conscientious objectors are willing
    to protest against fighting but not slavery?
    

    
     Well folk's I wasn't looking to get into the "combat" and war
     issues, but since its been brought up, this is what the higher
     ups in the military mind set think.  The idea of a draft that 
     extends to both men and women would increase the "person power"
     available to be trained for multiple roles.
    
     Since, by federal law, it is forbidden to place any female military
     member into combat, or area of possible combat ( yes, sexist, I
     know) it would preclude any female member from being sent into
     combat under any controllable situation. But since they would be
     a part of the total personal, they could perform all the rear area
     jobs, so that it would free up more men to perform the combat duty.
     Again sexist, but this is the current law and I doubt very highly
     that it would change under any circumstances short of this country
     being mass invaded.
    
     with the fact that you wouldn't be sent into a combat role, even
     in a time of any war or armed action, make any difference in your
     decision about being drafted and serving ??

                                Bob B

    I don't believe in the draft.  I don't believe that anybody (leaders
    of nations, for example) has the right to tell somebody else that
    they have to waste their life to either go out and die or kill other
    people.  If there has to be an army, etc., I believe it should only
    be voluntary for both sexes.
    
    I would not register for any draft, and if drafted I would not go.
     They could throw me in jail or kill me, but they'd have to find
    me first and they could never make me go out onto a battlefield
    to kill strangers who are just pawns in the game like I would be.
     I don't think I would feel differently if I'd been born male.
    
    So, no I don't believe women should be drafted.  But, I don't believe
    men should be drafted either.  
    
    Lorna
    

    re .16:
    
    > Where does it say that conscientious objectors are willing
    > to protest against fighting but not slavery?
      
    Not CO's in general, but people who say they would register for
    a draft, and when drafted sign up as a CO. Dana (and I) equate
    conscription with slavery, to object to the fighting but not
    conscription is to condone slavery.
    
    If the only way a country can defend itself is through conscription,
    then it probably is not worth defending. 
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    I feel that if we are going to insist on equal rights, we should
    take the bad with the good.  Therefore I believe women should be
    drafted along with the men.
    
    Would I register?  yes.
    Would I go?  yes.
    Would I kill?  yes.  

    But I have to admit (true confessions here) that the slimy, back
    stabbing, clawing side of me would prefer that only men get drafted.
    That way there would be fewer men to compete with in the work force,
    especially the engineering work force which is dominated by men.

    But for now I'll take the honorable stand and stick with my first
    paragraph.
    
    Sharon
    

    I think there are better ways to resolve conflicts than war.  I
    think there are better ways of preventing slavery than war.  I think
    better ways can be found, for a person, for a nation, for a world.
    The fact that any of us even considers violence, ever, for any reason,
    is barbaric, immoral, wrong.  We are thinking and feeling animals,
    and we can ALWAYS find better ways than violence.
    
    To serve in a non-combat position?  No thank you, unless I were
    working to end the war without violence -- economic war can be powerful
    when done correctly, as can political and diplomatic wars.
    
    When I state "conscious objector" I try not to bash your ideas of
    what is right and wrong.  I think we all deserve the same respect,
    eh?
    
    Lee

    I hope that we can find ways to avoid military conflict.  Violence is
    the last resort of the incompetent!  However, there are lots of countries
    out there run by incompetents, maybe even our own   8^{).

    If we or our allies were attacked (this includes our representatives
    outside the U.S.) or war declared upon us then I think that we MUST
    defend ourselves.  In order to expect their help we must help defend
    our allies from OUTSIDE attack.

    Under the above circumstances, I would certainly register, would go
    if drafted, would like to see women drafted and sent into combat.  The
    use of women in certain combat roles has been used some very effective
    armies (ie: Israel).  A woman can operate an anti-tank gun as well as
    a man (maybe even better   8^{).

    If we got into another Vietnam type situation I would have second
    thoughts.  I do not see defending some "Tin Hat" dictator against his
    own population as falling into the category of defending ourselves.

    Dick Schoeller

    Would I register? Yes
    
    Would I volunteer/Serve? Yes
    
    Would I go into combat/kill? Yes
    
    Would I re-up during peace? Probably not
    
                                 -sunny-

    Re: < Note 523.21 by GCANYN::TATISTCHEFF "Lee T" >

	>We are thinking and feeling animals, and we can ALWAYS
        >better ways than violence.
    
    	>economic war can be powerful when done correctly 
    
    
    So you believe that it's not OK to shoot someone, but it is OK
    to starve them to death (using the economic weapons).
    
    So much for the 'thinking and feeling'....         
    
    Dave
    
    
    
    

    
    	

    re .21, Lee:
    
    >When I state "conscious objector" I try not to bash your ideas of
    >what is right and wrong.  I think we all deserve the same respect,
    >eh?
    
    But in the above paragraph you say:
    
    >The fact that any of us even considers violence, ever, for any reason,
    >is barbaric, immoral, wrong.
    
    So which is it?  Either the fact that I would defend myself and my loved
    ones if violence seemed necessary (i.e. certain death if I did not
    act quickly) is wrong (and barbaric and immoral, hmmm, I can't say
    that I *like* to be told I'm barbaric and immoral) to you *or* you don't
    want to bash my idea that it is an okay action for me.  Which is it,
    Lee?  What I can't get over, Lee, is that you seem to be saying "X is
    wrong, but I'm not telling you not to do X".  Well, by telling me it's
    wrong, you just made a moral judgment about me because I might do X
    in some case.  Sounds like when JimB was saying he "disagrees" about
    homosexual preferences.
    
    I know you don't want to debate your preference vs. mine.  I would
    certainly not want to talk you out of your beliefs.  Now please
    give me the same courtesy and stop saying things like "violence
    under any circumstances is wrong".  Please qualify it by saying that's
    the way it is *for you*.
    
    I do agree with you that better ways than violence in our world can
    and should be found.  We need to break out of the old ways of thinking
    and use some creativity.  An excellent book that comes to mind is
    _Getting to Yes_, a book about negotiation, by a couple of people
    from Harvard.  It's full of real-life examples and how seemingly
    unsolvable differences and impasses were solved.
    
    	-Ellen

    Re: .24
    
    In an economic war it is conceivable that nobody will die due to
    starvation, lack of medical supplies, etc. and depending on with
    whom and how it is fought it might even be probable.
    
    In a military war it is difficult to imagine that noone would die.
    And no matter how either war were fought the military war would
    most certainly produce more casualties.
    
    I don't happen to agree with Lee's position in .21 but I do not
    see anything wrong with her logic.
    
    This discussion is obviously a rat-hole but I think it was inevitable
    given the topic.
    
    John

    
    Re: .25

    >I know you don't want to debate your preference vs. mine.  I would
    >certainly not want to talk you out of your beliefs.  Now please
    >give me the same courtesy and stop saying things like "violence
    >under any circumstances is wrong".  Please qualify it by saying that's
    >the way it is *for you*.

    Ellen, what exactly is it that bothers you about Lee's statement? Is
    is it that in the forth sentence of her paragraph she finally stopped 
    prefixing everything with "I think"?  It would seem to me that it is
    implied by the three preceding sentences that the whole paragraph is
    Lee's opinion and I don't think there is anything wrong with believing
    that violence is categorically wrong, nor with stating this if it is
    her belief.
    It does imply that most of us in the conference are barbaric because
    we would consider the use of force as an alternative but I would just
    as soon be told that, than for someone to keep silent for fear of
    offending me. Maybe it is something worth thinking about anyway.


    Re: what was .27

    My goodness Lee, you are really eager to delete notes lately.


    John

    re .25
    
    Yes, Ellen: I over-reacted to Mr Mahler's reply.  Every statement
    in .21 (especially the one with "barbaric and immoral") should have
    been prefaced with "I am of the belief that".
    
    My beliefs are simply that, and I tried back in .3(?) to head off
    such queries as "would you REALLY [insert awful horrible thing,
    an extreme test of an extreme belief]" because I cannot reply without
    being insulting to someone's whose morals do not coincide with mine.
    
    When it came, I should have simply written the author.  Instead
    I said it publicly, hoping that would make it very, very clear
    that I can't discuss it without being insulting.
    
    As far as the disagreement is concerned, is it so suprising?  If
    I believe X is right, absolutely, morally, and you believe X is
    right sometimes, and someone else believes X is never right, what
    do we do?  We try to agree to disagree, without saying that each
    of us finds the others beliefs to be horribly wrong and immoral.
    Some find it horribly wrong that I would do X, ever, ever.  I find
    it horribly wrong that there is an occasion where you would NOT
    do X in a particular circumstance.  I find it even more wrong that
    someone else would never, ever do X.  To ask me not to condemn you
    or the someone else for what I consider immoral is to ask me to
    compromise my morals.  For me to ask you not to condemn me is also
    to ask you to compromise your morals.  So I don't ask you to do
    that and you don't ask me to do that.  Does this mean we cannot
    be friends?  I don't think so.
    
    Lee

    I'm starting to  think that:
    
    If I think some action is wrong, I can say "it would be immoral
    for me to do that."  However, if I truly believe in the freedom
    of the individual to define one's own morality, then I am precluded
    from condemning someone else's act that is counter to my own moral
    judgement.  Otherwise, I am laying the groundwork for the enforcement
    of the moral judgement of the majority upon the minority.
    
    	bruce

    For the large number of us who are 35 or over, I think it's an academic
    point whether we would participate.  I don't think they would want
    us!

    re .28
    
    Lee, thanks for the explanation.  But can't you work on not being
    insulting about it?  I look at it one way and my point of view is
    just as valid for me as yours is for you.  Period.  No need to get
    insulting.  If I sound POed about what appears to me to be a superior,
    holier-than-thou attitude on your part, I am.  I am sorry about
    that, but that's the feelings I get when I read your notes on this
    subject.
    
    Just to keep up the argument, I might argue that I love myself and
    my boyfriend, parents, siblings, and friends more than you do yourself
    and yours *because* I would defend with physical force if necessary.
    Now, Lee, I'm not saying that's true, but it's an argument that could
    be made.  And the way I feel about my family is with *very much*
    love.  We're a big, raucous family and pretty close.  Any violence I
    might ever need to do to save them would be because of
    
    	LOVE!
    
    Is that *really* so hard for you to understand?
        
    	-Ellen

     
    
    Great Idea! There are lots of jobs that need doing that don't
    require guns or killing. 
    
    National Service should include everyone with a pair of hands.
    
    There are roads to be fixed, and kids to be taught, and shutins
    to be looked after, and beaches to police up, and park trails
    to mend, and..., and....
    
    Sorry, guys, not much glory there... But did you know there are
    F airborne rangers now..? 
    
    Guess they won't be singing 'Blood on the Risers' anymore...

    Lee, I can sympathise with what you are saying. There are a lot
    of things that I feel strongly about that I don't have your courage
    to speak out so strongly about....it is hard to open up about personal
    feelings in a public conference and I admire you for it.
    
    and Ellen I also admire you for your willingness to speak out on
    issues that you care strongly about. 
    
    My husband was a CO and my dad worked for the DOD. I have killed
    animals that were eating my chickens but I don't want guns in my
    house. If someone was attacking my children or husband I would
    defend them....but I would not want to have to fire a gun in battle
    (unless perhaps it was in a guerilla action). 
    
    So I guess I fall somewhere in between what the two of you have
    expresed to date.
    
    Your are both special and valuable memebers of this community.
    
    Bonnie

    and if the draft meant that everyone would serve their country
    from the years 18-20, which would include fixing roads, and weather
    proofing homes for the elderly, and working in the inner cities,
    etc etc etc and serving in the military as options...then I do
    not regard that as slavery....but a way for young people to do
    community service without prejudice as to station in life.
    
    Bonnie

    Re. 35  sounds suspiciously like Heinlein's "Starship Troopers".
    
    But conscription is not the way to achieve this end, either. Ends
    never justify means. In ST all these gov't. jobs, up to and including
    military service, were voluntary. The *reward* - the franchise.
    Of course, the 'warm body' theory of voter eligibility makes this
    approach unlikely. 

    re .30, it's true *I* am over the hill as far as military service
    goes (thank God, first I stopped getting pimples, now I don't have
    to go to war, and in 10 years I won't have to worry about birth
    control - middle age isn't all bad :-) ).  But, I find the thought
    of my 13 yr. old daughter being eligible to be shipped to a war
    in 6 years to be pretty horrifying.  I remember when she was born
    and I didn't want any more kids.  I asked my husband if he minded
    not having a son and he said, No, I'm glad I don't have a son. 
    I don't ever want a child of mine to go to war.  He was in the Marines
    during the Vietnam era and hated everything about it.
    
    I think any military service should be strictly voluntary, but that
    women should be eligible for combat if they want.  I don't believe
    anybody should be forced to go, even to fix roads, etc.  It sounds
    like what I read about the cultural revolution in China where they
    forced all teenagers to work on farms, etc.
    
    If somebody were beating up or killing a friend or loved one, I'd
    fight them off if I could.  But, I would never let somebody fly
    me half way around the world to kill or be killed by complete strangers
    which is what happens in wars like Vietnam.
    
    It really bothers me when people say that if women want equality
    we should be eligible for the draft.  I feel like saying fine when
    the average woman in America is earning $1.00 for every $1.00 earned
    by a man, instead of .69, then think about drafting us.  When half
    of the board of directors of Digital and half of the VP's of Digitals
    are women then think about drafting us.  I sometimes feel that *some
    men*, *some men*, *some men*, think that having women have to
    experience the horrors of war would be a good punishment for daring
    to try to have as much money and power on the home front as men
    have.  Is the only choice to be a wife, or a soldier?
    
    Lorna
    

    To all you who said that, in time of war, you WOULD register; if
    drafted WOULD serve; if in combat WOULD kill, I would like to ask,
    WHY would you wait to be drafted? Volunteering is also an option.
    
    A war like Vietnam, I would do none of the above and protest with
    all my ability. A war like WWII I would volunteer. I see absolutely
    no reason for conscription. 
    
    Those of you who think the draft is NOT slavery, try to tell me the 
    difference between them. People are plucked out of their normal lives,
    stripped of their individuality and forced to do the service demanded 
    of them by their "superiors" (master|commanding officer). Disobeying 
    these commands results in severe punishment (whipping|prison).
    
    > ....but a way for young people to do community service without
    > prejudice as to station in life.
    
    a way to FORCE young people to do community service without prejudice
    as to station in life. It is the FORCE that makes it slavery. The
    victims of conscription have NO CHOICE in the matter. Even indentured
    servitude is entered into VOLUNTARILY. It makes no difference that
    once drafted they may be given a choice of service; the fact that
    they are being required, by force, to do so makes it no better than
    slavery. THE ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    
                               

	Sheesh, what IS your problem anyway? All I did was ask [frankly,
    I  couldn't  believe  it]  if  you  REALLY  WOULD  not  kill in that
    situation,  since  I  truly doubt that ANYONE wouldn't, and the next
    thing I know i'm being accused of being insulting.  What color horse
    DID you ride in on ANYWAY?

    RE: .39  by Diehrd::Mahler
    
    I believe the problem was simply that when one doubts what someone
    else says is their belief then one is implying that the other person is
    either lying or too stupid to have the "proper" opinion.  Perhaps
    you meant to imply neither of these, but this is a common way of
    interpreting such comments.
                                    Carol

>    I believe the problem was simply that when one doubts what someone
>    else says is their belief then one is implying that the other person is
>    either lying or too stupid to have the "proper" opinion.  Perhaps
>    you meant to imply neither of these, but this is a common way of
>    interpreting such comments.

    In the case of something like this, I would add a third way to take
    such comments.  The doubter can't believe that the person in question
    would be able to live up to his/her standards when pushed to it.  It
    runs similar to the theory that there are no atheists in fox-holes.

    My own personal belief is that there are people who can come very
    close to their ideals.  There are not many however.  I hope that
    those of us here with high ideals are able to live up to them.

    Dick

    I also believe violence is wrong.  However, if this country were
    actually under attack (not a "protectorate" on the other side of
    the world under attack, or under attack that the CIA probably
    provoked), but there are foreign soldiers landing on our land and
    shooting at us, I would probably fight.
    
    I also believe the draft is slavery.  Even the "community service"
    version.  In any of these case, these young people are plucked from
    their ordinary life, jobs, school, etc., to perform something that
    the government feels is worthwhile.  If you feel that these things
    are worthwhile, either do them yourself or pay for them.  
    
    Elizabeth
    

    I disagree with the "compulsory" servitude also.  The basic "feminist"
    stand on the questions asked in .0 goes something like this: we
    disagree with the draft, the military experience should be *voluntary*,
    however *if* there had to be a draft, then women should be included.
    
    I agree with that sentiment.  If this country were *truly* in danger,
    I think that there would be enough volunteers to defend ourselves.
    We should *never* need compulsory conscription.
    
    I also find the more general "compulsory service" for 18-20 year
    olds pretty intolerable.  It all really does amount to slavery and
    I haven't heard anything that would make me think it doesn't.
    
    	-Ellen

    1) I don't think there should be a compulsory draft, but if there
    is one, it should be enforced without regard for sex, i.e., women
    should also be required to serve.
    
    2)  I would probably register.
    
    3)  I would have to decide whether or not I would serve.  It would
    depend on the circumstances (not on the fact that I am a woman).
    
    -Tracy
    

    I would like to expand on my previous response.

    I am not particularly fond of the idea of being drafted.  That's because
    I really want to do no more than I must for the common good  8^{).  However,
    if we enter a war (as explained earlier), it would be nice to know that
    most of soldiers at my side had had more than 2 weeks of training before
    entering combat.  The speed with which you can retrain someone far exceeds
    the speed of initial training.

    Those of you who argue against compulsory service, remember that >30% of
    our time at work is really Uncle Sam's time.  That in a way is compulsory
    service.  8^{)

    Dick

	My better judgment strongly indicates a nonresponse
to this note but ...

FLAME

	Conscription is not slavery.  Suggesting they are even 
similar is nonsense and insulting to all who have been unfortunate 
enough to be slaves.

	Do we not owe a debt to our country and is two years out 
of a life expectancy of 70 + years too great a price to pay for the
freedom and comfort we enjoy?  Or are we to repeat the sins of the
the 60's when only the poor and those without political connections
were expected to protect all of us?  Remember, the peace movement
did not gain much strength until the affluent were being forced to
fight beside the less affluent.

	Freedom and safety are not free, they are expensive but
can't be purchased with money.  We in the U.S. have tried to 
purchase freedom and safety in many of our cities by hiring local 
military (the police) and leaving the job entirely up to them 
while we sit in our homes and ignore the cries of people being 
mugged and murdered in our streets.  Our children are being force 
fed drugs and we are losing control of our cities.  The local military, 
in turn, tell us we are fools if we display gold while walking in 
our cities or riding on public transportation.  They tell us we are 
fools if we walk down certain streets in the hearts of our cities.  
They tell us how bad things are and that they can't insure the safety 
we are trying to purchase.  The local military are telling us they 
can't protect us without our direct assistance.  We respond by
complaining how expensive it is to hire more protection when our
response should be personal involvement.

	We must pay with that which we hold most dear, ourselves
and our children, if we are to keep our freedom and safety.  Learn
from history; no hired military is going to fight as strongly for
your freedom as you will.  The hired military will, in time, side
with the the stronger army.  Learn from history; our armies were
not ready for World War I or World War II.  Fewer people would have
died if the military had been ready.

	Freedom and safety are very inexpensive compared with the
alternatives.

FLAME OFF

Douglas

    <--(.46)
    
    Oh _well_ said, Douglas!
    
    						=maggie

    re .46:
    
    Been reading STARSHIP TROOPERS again? No of course you haven't,
    half the book speaks of the duty one owns to one's country, etc,
    etc, just as you speak of in your note. But the other half speaks
    of why that service MUST be voluntary.
    
    Really, Except for the first paragraph is absolutely true and I
    agree with you. But nowhere do you justify conscription. 
    
    I think that a job as important as defending our freedom and security
    should be done only by those who WANT to do it. You call the police
    the "local hired military", would you rather the police scooped
    up random 18 year olds, put them in uniforms with guns, and told
    them to capture criminals? 
    
    Yes, each citizen should be personally involved, but it can only
    be voluntary. To expect SLAVE labor to be any more effective than
    PAID labor is simply foolish.
                                          
    > ...no hired military is going to fight as strongly for your freedom 
    > as you will.
    
    Neither will a conscripted army.
    
    If you feel so strongly about the debt you owe to society, volunteer!
    Why do you want to force everyone to pay?
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    <==.48
    
    	I have volunteered.  I served in the USMC for four years, was
    a Peace Corps Volunteer for almost two years, did volunteer work
    in the Boston system for a year, etc.
    
    	The people who went to war for the U.S. during World Wars I
    and II were conscripted, at least some were - I don't know the
    percentages at present.  They fought bravely and well.
    
    	The same can be said for the people who fought for the U.S.
    in Korea and Viet Nam.
    
    	I don't propose a conscripted police force but I do propose
    a concerned citizenry who support the police and look out for each
    other.
    
    	You do owe your country and society a great deal, whether you
    recognize it or not.
    
    Douglas

    re .49:
    
    > You do owe your country and society a great deal, whether you
    > recognize it or not.
      
    I am not saying I don't. I am saying that conscription is not the
    way to pay it.
    
    I asked earlier for the difference between slavery and conscription.
    You provided none. 
    
    All you said was that equating the two was an insult to the slave.
    I do not know what you meant by that. 
                                          
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

>    > You do owe your country and society a great deal, whether you
>    > recognize it or not.
      
>    I am not saying I don't. I am saying that conscription is not the
>    way to pay it.

    As with any other debt, there are many people out there who need to
    be forced to pay up   8^{(  .

    
>    I asked earlier for the difference between slavery and conscription.
>    You provided none. 

    With conscription you are forced to serve in order to pay your debt
    to the society which has given you so much.  With slavery there is
    no partictular reason, you just happened to be there.

    With conscription when your time is up that's it.  Slavery is usually
    lifelong.

    Dick

    Let's stop taking 'debt to society' for granted. 'Society' is a
    fiction, a convenience used to mean a large group of people.
    Individuals. I owe *nothing* to 'society'. I owe it to each individual
    to respect his rights as an individual. including his right to choose
    in what manner he will defend himself, his country, and his fellow
    citizens. And in return, he owes me the same respect. If he tries
    to conscript me, he shows a lack of respect for my rights. Why,
    then, should i defend his ?
    
    (Please excuse my use of the masculine pronoun throughout - all
    statements are equally applicable to both sexes)
    
    Dana

  >	Do we not owe a debt to our country and is two years out 
  >of a life expectancy of 70 + years too great a price to pay for the
  >freedom and comfort we enjoy?  Or are we to repeat the sins of the
  >the 60's when only the poor and those without political connections
  >were expected to protect all of us?  Remember, the peace movement
  >did not gain much strength until the affluent were being forced to
  >fight beside the less affluent.

  Well, maybe we do and maybe we don't.  I think *I* owe such a debt and
  that's why I joined the Air Force when drafted rather than going to
  Canada.  I do not think my debt extends to fighting and dying in whatever
  military adventure the administration in power sees fit to start.  

  I don't think the claim that every citizen in this country owes such a
  debt can be supported.  For example, let's take a middle-class white
  male suburban type (like me, f'rinstance).  I aced the suite of aptitude
  tests and was careful to list typing as skill.  I ended up with a cushy
  job running computers.  Contrast my case with that of an inner-city,
  black, male, high-school dropout.  This guy is going to end up as a
  rifleman.  You may say I paid off my large debt very cheaply but the
  point is that the "less affluent," as you put it, are paying a much
  higher price to pay back a much smaller debt. The same case can be made
  for women and the draft.  Some may feel they owe such a debt and some
  may not. 

  I don't see any way to make this situation fair unless the person has
  some choice in the matter.  Yes, every resident of this country benefits
  from living here but most residents also pay taxes.  For a more serious
  transaction, like laying down one's life for one's country, there should
  be a similar quid pro quo -- you give your services to the nation and
  you get something (first class citizenship, educational benefits,
  whatever) in return.  Note that there is no benefit commensurate to the
  chance of getting parts of one's anatomy blown away.  But the fact that
  there is value given and value received and that both parties have a
  choice in the matter makes the difference between a master/slave
  relationship and a citizen/government relationship. 

  Re: others

  In practice, conscription by the U.S. government does not resemble
  slavery very much.  But the relative ease of a conscript's life is a
  result of choice by the government, not of the rights of the conscript.
  If you are a member of the U.S. armed forces, the Secretary of Defense
  can give you any assignment s/he likes!  This means that if you sign up
  for the Air Force because you were told that you'll be an aircraft
  mechanic, once you take the oath, the Secretary of Defense may decide
  that what this country really needs is more Marines to storm a beach,
  you put down your wrenches and pick up an M-16 and there is nothing you
  can do about it.  

  In addition, those WWII conscripts were not drafted for a specific period
  of time.  "For the duration" was the operative phrase.

  JP

    re:.53
    
    You *do* get "educational benefits" for serving in the Armed
    Forces. It's called the G.I. Bill.
    
    --- jerry

		The fact that anyone who reads this file has asked
	for the difference between conscription and slavery to be
	explained both amuses and amazes me.

		To conscript someone is to draft them into military 
	service.  While a member of the U.S. military your rights
	are protected under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
	Granted, your rights under the UCMJ are somewhat limited
	compared with those of civilians in the U.S. but you are
	still guaranteed the right to a fair trial, etc.

		To enslave someone is to reduce the person to being
	chattel - a piece of personal property which can be bought
	or sold, etc.  A slave has no rights.

		I do agree the poor of the U.S. experience the
	military less favorably than many of the more affluent.  
	This in no way negates conscription, however.  My family
	was poor.  I enlisted in the military without having
	completed high school.  My MOS (job category) reflected
	my ability and not my formal education (I was not a grunt-
	dog soldier).  The job I had in the military could have
	led to a job in civilian life if I had chosen to pursue 
	same.

Douglas

    Re .56, I believe that *most* poor people experience the military
    less favorably than affluent people.  More affluent people of average
    intelligence are able to go to college and go into the military
    as officers.  Poor people have to be more exceptional to rise above
    their conditions, go to college, or develop themselves to the point
    where if enlisted they would not become foot soldiers, but have
    some easier and/or loftier military duty.  If you were able to do
    this then I think you are an exception.
    
    So, if more rich people either escape the military by being in college
    or once in the military are offices, and most poor people wind up
    being drafted and sent as foot soldiers, then I'd say the poor do
    much worse in the military.  The military has a viscious class system
    and officers are treated *much* better than enlisted.
    
    In a sense my ex-husband "lucked-out" in the military, too.  He
    was from a working-class family, had 2 yrs of college, enlisted
    in the Marines during Vietnam (because he was going to be drafted
    and the Navy and Air Force had long waiting lists), 1967.  He happens
    to be very bright and wound up as an enlisted instructor, teaching
    a basic engineering class on a Naval Base in California for the
    entire time.  However, he still hates the military and said if he
    had it to do over again he would go to Canada, jail, or somewhere
    instead of serving.  I've always admired that about him.
    
    As for conscription being the same as slavery, certainly it isn't
    exactly the same.  But, maybe to some people being in the service
    would be just as bad as being a slave, and maybe to some people
    having the freedom of choice taken away means you *might as well*
    be a slave.  Two or three years of hell can seem an eternity to
    a miserable 19 year old, and in a war many of them never live through
    it anyway.
    
    My basic opinion is if you want to go to war and kill and/or be
    killed in order to help out the ruthless, power hungry men who run
    this world, go ahead.  I can't stop you, but leave me out of it.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .57 (Lorna)

    >    My basic opinion is if you want to go to war and kill and/or be
    >    killed in order to help out the ruthless, power hungry men who run
    >    this world, go ahead.  I can't stop you, but leave me out of it.
    
	I think this raises an important point in the whole should-women-be-
        drafted issue.  Certainly, if we want to be treated as first class
	citizens, we have to be willing to defend our country from foreign
	invaders.  But I think many women (and men) feel that since we have
 	had no part in creating this political, hawk-infested mess that 
	this world is in, why should we risk our lives and the lives of
	our daughters and sons to defend the (largely) economic interests
	of those privileged few who will never risk their lives?  I might
	consent to participate in a worthy cause, but I can't think of a
	single spot in the world today where I think war is the best or
	only solution or where I feel that it would be morally right for
	me or anyone that I know to risk her or his life.    

	Justine                                                             

        Re -.1
          I wonder if it is valid for a woman to use this excuse any
    	more.  Woman have had the vote for over 50 years, and we are
    	52% of the population.  A single individual may have voted 
    	against the current government, but as a group we have had
    	the opportunity to elect whomever we like, and have not taken
    	advantage of it; or maybe alot of woman (the Jean Kirkpatrick
    	and Phyllis Schlafley think-alikes) think going to war is 
    	appropriate in some cases.
    	   Linda
    	  

    Lorna,
    
    I'm going to try to hang on to my hat, so bear with me, please.
    
    You said,
    >"...maybe to some people being in the service would be just as
    >bad as being a slave..."
    
    and I can't quite figure out how to say without offending you
    what I mean, but... I feel it NEEDS to be said.
    
    WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT????!!!!
    
    I have a book which quotes directly from slaves which includes stories
    like, (and I paraphrase) master took 60 boys and girls (14-17) stripped
    them naked and put them in a barn and a cold night.   Out of that
    came 20 babies.    (Which was the idea--the 'master' wanted more
    'stock')
    
    Or the woman caught escaping who was beaten with her dress stripped
    to her waist, and when the 'master' tired of beating her, he snuffed
    out his cigarette in her flesh?!!!
    
    Draft in America as bad as slavery--NO COMPARISON!
    
    
      
    Lorna, I know what you mean...  I believe we must be careful what
    orders we follow, and the military with its orders-are-meant-to-
    be-followed attitude would be difficult for me.   BUT,
    CONSCRIPTION/DRAFT IS NOT AS BAD AS SLAVERY!
    
    Tamar
    

>    So, if more rich people either escape the military by being in college

    This is one loop-hole we could close.  Eliminate student deferment.

    Strictly my opinion here, if we have a draft, it should be similar
    to the Israeli one.  Everyone should serve, period.  CO would simply
    be asked to serve in an at home, non-military function.
    
    Dick

    re .60:
    
    It was almost that bad, from what I hear, for enlisted men, 100
    years ago or more.  They could be and were regularly physically
    beaten for small, stupid offenses.  The life of an enlisted man
    was pretty hellish, bordering very closely on slavery in my opinion.
    That has, of course, greatly improved during this century.
    
    The people on the "conscription is slavery" side have a good point.
    The person conscripted is the same as a slave in that he (or she,
    if it applies) has NO CHOICE in the matter.  Comparisons between
    conscription and slavery end there, however.
    
    	-Ellen

    	Enough of this "conscription is slavery" nonsense.  During the
    period when the U.S. had a draft any man could fight being drafted
    through the courts.  Very few managed to avoid being drafted but
    some did.
    
    	The arguements against conscription seem to be terribly self
    serving and ignore the simple fact that we don't live in a perfect
    world.  I would be as pleased as anyone if there was no need to
    maintain a strong military but not to do so is to invite defeat
    - either our defeat or the defeat of our allies.  Yes, we do have
    allies and we need them!
    
    Douglas

  Re: .53, .54

  I didn't there were no educational benefits; I said that educational
  bennies were one of the things that might make for a good return on the
  investment of a few years of your life.  I've used the GI bill and it
  was a nice deal (my bennies ran out in 1984).  However, I am a "Vietnam
  Era" veteran.  The deal used to be that anyone in military service for
  whatever length of time (barring undesirable or bad conduct discharges)
  got full educational benefits.

  I was under the impression that today's military offered various
  benefits depending on the branch of service, job selection, and duration
  of enlistment.  Can anyone comment on this? 

  Douglas, I'm a little surprised that you're not willing to admit the
  similarities between conscription and slavery as well as the obvious
  differences.  One such similarity is that the owner (e.g., Simon Legree
  or the DoD) has no interest in the conscript's/slave's health and
  well-being except to the extent that those things affect the ability to
  do the job at hand. 

  Again, the fact that conscription is not as harsh an existence as it
  might be is because of the decency of the people in the chain of
  command.  Without that decency, your life can be made a living hell
  and/or shortened considerably.  So another similarity is that the
  conscript/slave thrives or wilts at the whim of the owner or DoD. After
  all, some slaves had merciful and good masters, too. 

  To Douglas regarding:

  >    	Enough of this "conscription is slavery" nonsense.  During the
  >    period when the U.S. had a draft any man could fight being drafted
  >    through the courts.  Very few managed to avoid being drafted but
  >    some did.

  On what grounds did they avoid being drafted?  Certainly not because
  the draft is slavery or unconstitutional for some other reason.

  >    	The arguements against conscription seem to be terribly self
  >    serving and ignore the simple fact that we don't live in a perfect
  >    world.  I would be as pleased as anyone if there was no need to
  >    maintain a strong military but not to do so is to invite defeat
  >    - either our defeat or the defeat of our allies.  Yes, we do have
  >    allies and we need them!

  The trouble is that this argument is also self-serving (I'm not saying
  I disagree with what it espouses, I'm just saying that the argument is
  ill-formed).  It sacrifices principles on the alter of expedience.  I
  imagine complaining to a mugger about his taking my wallet and hearing
  him say, "Alas, Friend, I understand why you are upset but remember that
  we do not live in a perfect world."
  
  I find the discomfort level (evinced by some responders) caused by the
  comparison between slavery and conscription to be somewhat interesting.  
  Ideas are being tossed around -- you agree or disagree about these
  comparisons but why get all worked up about it?  We are having a 
  philosophical discussion here -- no one is asking anyone to sign a
  petition, help draft a law, or anything like that.  Anyway, should
  the government see a need to call up lots more cannon fodder, they
  will do so.  They know all about expediency...
  
  JP

    Re .63, you and I view the world differently.  You appear to view
    the world as country against country, Capitolism against Communism
    or Fascism.  I view the world as the ordinary people who have to
    work for a living (from laborers on up to engineers & managers)
    against the super-wealthy, power hungry people who declare war on
    each other, but never have to go and fight.  They send us instead.
     Little people who are just pawns in the game going out onto a battle
    field and killing other little people who just happened to be born
    in another country, whose leaders are vying for power with our leaders.
     As the main character in the movie "Matewan" says, There are only
    two classes of people in the world those who work and those who
    don't.
    
    Perhaps in WWII we were actually fighting to defend our country,
    but I don't believe we have since then.  I refuse to be a little
    pawn in the big game for power and money that these greedy, ruthless
    men play.
    
    Lorna
    
    P.S. (Flame) Re "Enough of this 'conscription is slavery' nonsense."
     I'm sick of men telling when a conversation is over.
    So...conscription is slavery, conscription is slavery, conscription
    is slavery...there!  (Flame off)
    

    Some observations from a former conscript:
    
    	Another key difference between conscription and slavery
    	is the right of the slave owner to dispose of his/her
    	property any way s/he wants. . .including death.
    
    	The slave has no alternative; the conscript can challenge
    	conscription in the courts.  Yes, the conscript will almost
    	certainly go to prison for refusing to serve, but that is
    	still more choice than a slave has.
    
    	Once *in* the service, I feel that wealth makes a good deal
    	less difference than it does on "the streets".  I think there
    	are several factors at work including the life and death
    	nature of the military - along the lines of the Emerson,
    	Lake, and Palmer tune "What a Lucky Man" (". . .No money
    	could save him;  So he lay down and died;  Oooo what
    	a lucky man he was. . .").  Plus, in a combat situation,
    	the an officer is preferred as a target (vs. enlisted 
    	men) for obvious military reasons.
    
    	Then too, the military places value on things like conformity, 
    	adherence to SOP, and in general, support of the military 
    	bureaucracy; in this scheme, wealth is of generally less
    	importance.  In fact, particularly in the enlisted ranks,
    	there is a kind of disdain for wealth ("I don't care who
    	you are, kid" said the sergeant, "Your money and fancy
    	clothes don't mean nothin' here.  Your ass is grass and
    	I'm the lawn mower").
    
    	Whether or not an draftee becomes cannon fodder or not
    	depends on the skills he brings in and whether or not
    	the military needs those skills.  The lawyer who bunked
    	above me became an infantryman; apparently Uncle didn't
    	need his legal abilities at the time.  The two guys from
    	Roxbury (and I) became M.P.s (those who know me know how
    	*really* weird that is); apparently Uncle needed cops.
    
    	This isn't to say that wealth makes no difference, simply
    	that once drafted, it doesn't make as much difference as
    	it otherwise might.  Conscription and slavery have some
    	common characteristics (mainly the non-voluntary nature),
    	but, I think it's inaccurate to equate the two.
    
	Steve
    
    	P.S.  for the record:  I think military service should be 
    	voluntary but some kind of service should be mandatory for
    	all "able-bodied" citizens.
    

From the Constitution, Amendment 13:
    SECTION 1.  Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction.
    SECTION 2.  Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation. 

    It seems to me that the draft, BY DEFINITION, is involuntary servitude,
    and therefore would not pass constitutional muster if brought before
    the Supreme Court (but the Court isn't a pure interpreter of the law;
    there's a lot of room for interpretation). If it wants to, Congress can
    pass another ammendment to make it legal.

    Arguing whether or not "the draft" is exacatly the same as "slavery"
    isn't relevant. Nothing is exactly the same as anything else. The point
    being brought up earlier is that they're both involuntary servitude.
    The exact situations, punishments and rights (or the lack of them) may
    be different in some cases, and the same in others, but the basic
    similarity is the same.
    
      ----------------------------------------------------------------

    Personally, I could never serve in the military. I did register for the
    draft when I turned 18 in 1973, although I wondered about it. There
    didn't seem to be any reason not to. I don't remember the sequence of
    events, but the war had ended, and the draft was either inactive or
    stopped, so there wasn't much to protest by not registering. I thought
    about what to do, and finally registered on the last day.

    I've thought a lot about what I'd do if there were a war (and I were of
    drafting age). If I'd been called up during Vietnam, I'd have gone to
    live with my mother's cousins in Montreal, or on my own elsewhere. Even
    if I didn't do that on my own, I think that my mother would have sent
    me. I'm named for her older brother, who was killed in WWII, and that
    was enough for her.
    
    I cannot possibly see myself being trained to kill and  going into
    battle. Absolutely inconceivable. I recognize that war will always be
    around. (Even if most nations decided that it was a bad idea, there'd
    always be one which needed to gain advantage, and would do so via
    battle.) I don't have any alternatives, but I'm not going to be
    involved.

    What if it were a "just war" (the Catholic Church has such a concept,
    hasn't it?)? I don't know. I've wondered if I would have, for example,
    enlisted to fight Nazis who were killing near (or distant) relatives,
    but I don't think so. It's a hard choice, but killing just doesn't seem
    right. You can argue that it would be to stop others from killing, and
    that there might be a net savings of life. (That's an argument used for
    dropping the atomic bombs on Japan.) Perhaps so, but I cannot do it
    myself.

    Alternate service is just that, an alternate form of conscription. I
    guess that I'm too much of a libertarian to accept forced service of
    any form.

    					-- hal

    re: .38
    
    I would also volunteer actually instead of waiting to be drafted,
    but the base note didn't ask about voluntary service...it asked
    questions concerning the draft.
                                         -sunny-

    	I do not have a vote.
    
    	I have no particular interest in any particular government or
    country.
    
    	If some government provided me with a gun I *might* use it to
    defend myself and my family here, in this house, but for the moment
    I would have to make do with the chain saw or carving knife.
    
    	Changes in any of the above are very unlikely.

    		Dave

    RE: .67
    
    	Then are we to take it that you feel you have a RIGHT to
    	enjoy all the good of living in this country without any
    	responsibility towards it?  Sounds an awful lot like a
    	man I know that hasn't worked a day in his life (and he's
    	now 34), his comments, "why should I work and pay taxes
    	when I can sit home and have someone else do it for me?".
    	How do you feel about this man? Do you feel a little like
    	he's using you cause you go to work and pay your taxes and
    	then he gets his "money" from your tax money? I know I sure
    	do. The same with Military service, I didn't like it, but then
    	again, it does have to be done and I do enjoy live in this country.

    Being a Canadian and the mother of an American daughter, it does
    worry me that the time might come when she will have to decide whether
    she volunteers, registers, goes to war; etc. As a feminist, I believe
    that women have a responsibility to defend their nation and their
    individual ideals. I hope to instill this "feeling" in my child.
    
    By "defence of the nation", I mean from invading forces. By " defence
    of individual ideals", I refer to willingness to fight for what
    you believe in. There will come a time when each person will have
    to decide how fervertly he/she believes in a particular cause. It
    is at that point, that one decides to join in the struggle. To say
    that there are absolutely no areas in there world where injustice
    and oppression do not exist is to bury ones head in the sand. A
    fascist state like Germany exists for many peoples of the world.
    We, on the other hand, have the luxury of living in relative comfort
    and freedom.  War is not always wrong. Civil disobedience is not
    always wrong. But each of must determine how immoral war is,
    in the face of oppressive, immoral regimes that seek to subjegate
    or eliminate races of people. (Black South Africans, Iranian B'Hai,etc)
    
    Unfortunately, the primary reason this country will go to war is to
    protect its economic interests. I'm not saying this is necessarily
    bad but I do wish there wouldn't be so much pretense, saving the
    world for democracy, stopping the wave of communism,etc.
    
    Carol
    

    Re .71, But, what if the "cause" or "ideal" that a person most believes
    in is not doing violence to other human beings?  
    
    Lorna
    

    Re .72 In the face of violence and illegitimate force, non-violence
    is definitely a counter-survival philosophy. Self defense is the
    one legitimate use of force. An ideal that does not allow one to
    survive in the face of wrong is not rational. 

    re .73, I wasn't including self-defense in the sense of a person
    coming up to you or a loved one and commencing to beat the shit
    of you/them.  Self-defense during an immediate physical attack is
    different than being sent half-way around the world by the leaders
    of one to country to kill the people of another country who have
    been ordered to war by their leaders.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .73, also, I'm really not sure I agree with you.  Who is to say
    that self-survival should be the ultimate goal of a human being?
     In fact, one who chooses to die in a war for their country is deciding
    that dying for the so called freedom of their people is more important
    than living.  Another person might decided that being killed rather
    than harming another living person is more important than living
    on after they have forsaken their own beliefs.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .73
    
    There are ways of avoiding and/or escaping violence when one is
    assaulted.  Talking carefully, running, fainting (that one kept
    one of my friends from getting raped) are all very powerful tools.
    
    Lee

    
    re: .76
    
    It ought to be a last resort, but not just of the incompetent.
    
    Lee, no offense.  Your personal stance here's been made quite clear,
    and I respect it.
    
    DFW

    re .72
    
    Life is constantly a battle of balancing causes/ideals against another.
    If your predominant ideal is in maintaining a non-violent posture
    no matter what the conflict, that's fine by me.  I personnally believe
    violence can be justified in certain circumstances. (I recall a
    paper that was titled "Why Reason is the Antithesis of Violence"
    or some such title. It argued that what is presented as "reasonableness"
    to an oppressed class of people often gives them no outlet for
    participating in the modification of policies which may affect them and
    therefore often times the only way to get change or attention is
    through violent means.)     
    
    I believe that WW II was a justifiable war and it was necessary for
    the sacrifices to be made. If a racist, supremacist force came to 
    power in this country, I would fight against it.  Unfortunately 
    I haven't the guts to go and physically fight it in other
    parts of the world. Instead I use my idea of "economic terrorism"
    and refuse to buy certain goods or deal with companies who do business
    there.                                  
    
    
    Carol
    

    re .74

, I wasn't including self-defense in the sense of a person
    coming up to you or a loved one and commencing to beat the shit
>>    of you/them.  Self-defense during an immediate physical attack is
>>    different than being sent half-way around the world by the leaders
>>    of one to country to kill the people of another country who have
>>    been ordered to war by their leaders.
    
Lorna, 

I wanted to comment on your last sentence.

When I was interviewed by my draft board when I filed for 
Conscientious Objection (1972/3) they asked me that very question.

They (draft board) *did not* make any distinction.  In fact, one of 
the men on the board kept after me with this line of questioning.

"What if I got you in the corner and...."

It was very intimidating for me.

All I am trying to say is that the people who will make the decision 
as to how gets drafted or not, do not make the above distinction.

They have a body quota to provide and that's it.

- Howard

    I was in the army during the vietnam war, my father was in vietnam,
    I learned alot, I'd register or volenteer if the country needed
    me.  I would fight, I would follow orders. 
    I love america and the freedoms here as an american. I
    will fight to maintain those freedoms.  I would want my daughter
    to do the same.  I stand up when the star spangled banner is played.
    I came from a poor military family, I only had a high school education.
    when I took the aptitude test upon enlistment, intelligence was
    what counted.  I was trained as a medic, then a surgical technician.
    I feel proud when people talk about freedoms that we have here,
    I feel that I stood up and was counted as a patriot and have no
    shame for being in the military.  I also respect your right to not
    stand up. 


    vivian

       re .80:
       
       I love America and the freedoms that this country has represented.
       I'd fight to maintain those freedoms.
       
       Along with many others, I considered the Vietnam War and all that
       it represented to be utterly contrary to freedom, and utterly
       opposed to the principles that made the rest of the world respect
       the United States.  
       
       You clearly disagree with me, and with the others who stood up for
       what we believed in.  But we did stand up.  And make no mistake --
       it is profoundly unjust for you to question our patriotism as you
       do in your note.  
       
       Of course there were some people who avoided military service in
       the 60s/70s because they were chicken.  But they weren't the ones
       who gave up whatever else was going on in their lives to speak out
       against the course that Johnson/McNamara/Humphrey/Nixon and the
       others were taking.  The sacrifices of the people in Berkeley and
       Cambridge and Grant Park and throughout the country -- especially
       in the 60s, when the anti-war crowd was small and those in the
       movement risked opprobrium from friends and family -- were real. 
       
       Maybe your military training taught you to follow orders blindly.
       Maybe your military training taught you to question the motives
       of anyone who disagrees with those who give you orders.  Maybe
       you feel it's necessary to question the motives of the anti-war
       people in order to justify your own actions.  I don't know.
       
       I don't know.  I don't understand why you figure it was
       unpatriotic to stand up and oppose a war that sought to prop up a
       government that we preceived to have neither popular support nor a
       commitment to honest democracy, or to stand up and oppose a war
       that we perceived to be just damned wrong. 
       
       To me, patriotism is standing up for what's right.  The Domino
       Theory was, as history has shown, a lie, and the politicians that
       the US supported in SE Asia were, to be kind, no better than those
       supported by the Soviets.  (Would anyone care to discuss Pol Pot?)
       
       So, Vivian, I'd ask you to rethink your notions of patriotism. I'd
       ask to consider the notion that those who did not join the
       military considered themselves to be standing up for their
       country, just as you considered yourself to be standing up for
       your country. 
       
       --Mr Topaz

    Re .80, Vivian, did you serve in Vietnam?  (Did you volunteer to?)
    
    (I was curious if we had any female Vietnam vets in DEC.)
    
    Lorna
    
    P.S.  If you didn't volunteer or want to actually go to Vietnam,
    I'm curious as to why?
    

    re .81, Mr. Topaz, I think you're being a little hard on Vivien.
    In her last sentence in .80, she said:
    
    >I also respect your right to not stand up.
    
    I'm not taking sides with either of you, because I think you're
    both entitled to your own opinions and ways of dealing with this
    issue, as I have my own.
    
    	-Ellen

       re .83 (re .81/.80):
       
       Ellen, the sentence you quote (while demeaning by itself) is out
       of context.  In the preceeding sentence, Vivian appears to tie in
       joining the military and supporting the government's war efforts
       with patriotism.  She says that she respects the right of people
       to disagree with her views, but the implication seemed to be that
       the patriotism of those who did not join/support the war effort
       was doubted:
       
       .80> I feel proud when people talk about freedoms that we have
       .80> here, I feel that I stood up and was counted as a patriot and 
       .80> have no shame for being in the military.  I also respect your 
       .80> right to not stand up. 

       If I misunderstood Vivian's meaning, if she in fact does not
       question the patriotism of the anti-war people, then I apologize. 
       
       --Mr Topaz

    RE -.1

    I think the point is that you can stand up and be counted as a patriot
    by resisting the call to serve in a conflict which you believe is not
    in the best interest of your country.  Where Vivian is saying that
    those who did not serve did not stand up.  THEY DID IN THERE OWN WAY!

    Dick

RE:81
    
    	If nothing else the war(s) in S.E. asia have shown that the
    "dominoe theory" is VERY effective. The communists have succeded
    in absorbing nation after nation, using internal unrest then military
    intervention,usually by the "request" of the troubled government (a propped
    up regime sound familiar ??).
    
    	I think that had you had a chance to speak with the refugee's
    who have come from S.E. asia AFTER the american defeat, you would
    certainly not say that the current dictators are benevolent. As
    I recall, Pol Pot was not installed by western forces but by the
    khmer rouge, and commited some of the worst atrocities known to
    modern man (20% of the population killed ???).
    
    
    
    
    
    									GL

    Did anyone see "Secret Government" on (I think it was) 60 minutes
    last Saturday night?  It certainly gives one pause to think about
    what our government does and why.

    re .87:
    
    You may be thinking of a Bill Moyers special on PBS called
    "Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis".
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    Mr. Topaz:

    You attack my inteligence, you attack my beliefs. I did not condemn
    anyone at anytime for their beliefs. 
    I am not an automaton or I would never have entered my reply for
    fear of being different.  You have attacked me for your percieved
    misconception.  I cannot apologize for something that you have read
    into my reply.  You could have asked me to clearify, but instead you 
    attacked.  
    Makes me feel that I do indeed have something to fear by being honest
    in this file.
    
    vivian

    oh yeah, you do indeed owe me an apology.
    
    vivian
    

       re .89/.90:
       
       Vivian, your ad hominem remarks, the standard canard about "having
       something to fear by being honest", and insistence that you were
       misunderstood do nothing to answer the questions that were raised
       about your note (.80).  Specifically, 
           
           1. Your expression "to not stand up" in reference to the
           war resisters sounds demeaning.  Is there some other way
           that you meant it?
           
           2. You speak of your patriotism and "standing up", then you
           refer to those who "didn't stand up".  Do you question the
           patriotism of those who sought to end the US' involvement in
           the Vietnam War and who refused to be in the US military
           in support of that war?
       
       --Mr Topaz

    RE Mr_Topaz,
    
    I also felt a tinge of pain when I read the, "I respect your right
    not to stand up" part of Vivian's note.  But I suspect that if
    instead of attacking Vivian's alleged motives for what you (and
    others, including myself) perceived to be a lack of sensivity to
    the feelings of those who protested the war, you had responded to her 
    with how her words made you *feel*, you two would be having a 
    conversation now instead of a battle.  
    
    I'd be willing to bet that if we were to survey all of the fights that 
    have errupted in this file, we would find that many of them turned
    into fights when one person accused the other of some wicked thing 
    instead of describing how he or she feels.
                                             
    Here's hoping that our kids won't ever have to decide whether to
    fight or protest...
    
    Justine    

>    I'd be willing to bet that if we were to survey all of the fights that 
>    have errupted in this file, we would find that many of them turned
>    into fights when one person accused the other of some wicked thing 
>    instead of describing how he or she feels.

    This is certainly part of it.  But, I still agree with Mr_Topaz.
    We read the meaning of Vivian's note a certain way.  She has not
    responded here whether that was her intended meaning.  If it was,
    then we can get into discussion of how we feel about that meaning.
    If it wasn't, then I for one will certainly apologize for jumping
    to conclusions.

    Dick

    I have reread Vivian's note.  To me, it is clear that she feels
    that what she did is *one* way to be counted as [for example] a
    patriot.  My opinion on her last sentence is divided.  It could
    mean 1) She had {gotten tired of writing | finished what she
    really had to say | run out of time}, but wished to acknowledge
    that people-who-did-not-do-what-she-did are not necessarily bad
    people, 2) She has never really bothered to formulate an opinion
    of people-who-did-not-do-what-she-did, and so did not write about
    something of which she was ignorant, or 3) She really understands
    that people-who-did-not-do-what-she-did can be massively patriotic
    and so forth, and feels that what she wrote says that.
    
    							Ann B.

    On the other hand, Vivian may well feel that those who protested
    were behaving unpatriotically by her standards.  Surely that is
    not a burden too heavy for us here to bear?
    
    						=maggie  

    who was it that said  "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel"?
    
    Personally, I think patriotism is a lousy reason for killing people.
    And I don't think I can think of any good reasons.

    re .93
    >>  ...She has not responded here whether that was her intended meaning.  
    >>  If it was, then we can get into discussion of how we feel about that 
    >>  meaning.
    

    Here's where I disagree with you, Dick.  I don't think you have
    to wait for the author to tell you what she meant before you can 
    say how you feel about what she wrote.  I think that when we read 
    notes here (especially notes about subjects that are important to us), 
    we have an emotional response to the words... regardless of what the 
    author intended those words to mean.  If the words of someone make us 
    angry, and we say so, then the author will probably say, "Gee, I'm
    sorry you're feeling angry, but this is how I feel," or "what I really 
    meant to say was.."    But if we read words that make us angry, and we 
    say, "Gasp! How dare you accuse me of cowardice..?", the ability to 
    understand one another is greatly diminished, if not altogether lost.

    Justine

    
    >who was it that said  "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel"?
    
    If it's the same person who said that violence was the last refuge
    opf the incompetent, then that's twice that person was wrong.
    
    DFW

    Alright, I'll reply.  I just got a little insulted by being accused
    of saying something I didn't say.  I also felt that Mr. Topaz was
    entitled to misunderstand if he chose to.  The actual meaning of
    what I said was, I enlisted and wasn't ashamed of it.
    I have been attacked before because
    it was taken for granted that since I was in the service, I was
    ignorant, a whore, gay, looking for a husband, or just plain viscious.
    No one ever asked me honestly why I enlisted.  
    So instead of fighting with someone who felt the above HAD to
    be true, I just ignore their need to argue.  In all honestly, I
    have NEVER considered anyone who wasn't in the service, never have
    been in the service, or protested the war in VN, as cowards or
    unpatriotic!
    I have gotten in many a lively discussion regarding differences of
    opinions without either party having to *defend* their beliefs.
    It has always been ok to believe whatever people chose to believe.
    I didn't question anyones beliefs of how they felt about the draft,
    the service etc. cause its their beliefs..  So I figured
    I would venture in and say, ok, the comments so far say one thing
    but Myself, I did this, and its ok too. what I was saying 
    was that I considered myself a patriot *too*.  Any misunderstanding
    of what I wrote was not my intention.  

 
    
    vivian

    RE .99

    Vivian,

    I would like to apologize for having misunderstood what you intended
    to say, and for having gotten angry based on my misunderstanding.

    My intent in that discussion was to make clear that SOMETIMES resisting
    the military rather than joining may be more patriotic.  At others
    there is no question (in my mind   8^{) that joining is the ONLY
    right thing to do.

    Dick

    re:  .91
    
    In referring to .80 you say:
    
       "1.  Your expression "to not stand up" in reference. . ."
    
    Am I missing something?  I reread .80 several times and do 
    not see the words you quoted.
    
    Steve
    

       re .101:
       
       Perhaps if you reread the note just one more time, then you'll
       see the quoted words in the closing sentence of the note.

    re: .102
    
    Apologies, Mr. T; you're entirely correct.  Apparently it was
    an even longer week than I thought it was  :-{.
    
    Steve (whose background music lately is the Twilight Zone Theme)