Anti-Conscription Movement

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: GUEST
Date: 31 May 02 - 10:13 PM

I like that analogy Ebbie. Quitting smoking was, for me, incredibly hard, and even the "last time" I smoked, I didn't really believe I was going to quit. I got up one day, and didn't smoke anymore. In fact, as I type this, I'm laughing because I can't even remember my last smoke--not a thing about it! I can't even remember how many years I've been smoke free! Around 10 years maybe?

People have asked me how I did it. What I did was quit doing the things I associated with smoking. I quit coffee, recreational drugs, and alcohol. I knew if I did any of those things, my will power would be shot, and I'd smoke. I didn't tell myself I could never have those things again. I just told myself I couldn't do them and stay off cigarettes. I still don't drink coffee, and I haven't done recreational drugs since. I probably went 2 or 3 years before I drank. And I didn't miss any of it Of course, food tasted so damn good I ate enough to gain 50 lbs! But eventually I lost that too.

Anyway, the analogy is a good one for any sort of behavior that has to change. Justifying not changing the behavior results in one thing, and one thing only--continuing the behavior. Maybe we should start with not recruiting/enlisting/drafting any more folks into military service. If we just did that--declared a moratorium on new blood coming in, we could also quit buying and building new weapons. Eventually you'll run out of soldiers and weapons.

And then what will we do?

Pax to you too Bobert. :)

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: Ebbie
Date: 31 May 02 - 09:57 PM

Bobert, an analogy to the 'striving for peace while preparing for war: When I finally knew I was going to quit smoking, for the first time I didn't make sure I had a closed pack on hand "just in case". All those times before, when I had tried to quit , obviously I knew, deep down, that I wasn't going to make it. Talk about lack of motivation!

My point is that if we know that war is unacceptable, totally out of the question, we will not go to war.

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: Bobert
Date: 31 May 02 - 08:53 PM

Ahhhh, make that the Natinal Liberation FRONT, thank you...

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: Bobert
Date: 31 May 02 - 08:40 PM

Well, whoever it was that pointed out that there was failed logic in the National Liberation Federation actually winning, well, the NLF did win and the US and its allies lost. But the NLF also lost because there are no real winners in war. Just victors.

Someone else said that we strive for peace, while preparing for war. Anything else would be folly. Hmmmmm? There's something inherently wrong with this thinking because, bottom line, if those are your thoughts, you cannot be working toward peaceful settlement of conflict.

As the WARRIOR NATION, the US can kick anyone's butt it wants to so, hey, with that a given anytime the US cannot impose the necessary circumstances for folks to not blow each other up, it has failed miserably. I mean, you give my 101 year old senile grandmother the US's might, and she would figure a way to create situations where folks don't go blowing each other up. Duhhhhh! Why is this such a difficult concept for folks to get?

The reason that the US continues to blow folks up and allow other folks to blow folks up is because of greed by the ruling class, lazines, shortsightedness, pride, heathens in sheep clothing and an absolute indifference to human life. There are no other ways to look at this. There are no logical rationales. If the US wants peace (or no war... since peace is harder to achieve...) then the US gets no war. Period.

But, no, my ol' buddy DougR etal, will say that the ol' Bobert just lives in a dream world. Why? 'Cause the DougR's of the world have been so programed over sych a long period of time that they are no capable of seeing that the world has changed so dramatically that war, as we know it, has to go. It certainly won't happen under the "Last Harrah" Warrior, George WWWWWWWWW Bush but he is a dinosaur and doesn't know it. It will happen because it has to. Period.

Now, for all of you who think that blowing folks up is inevitable, and have thousands of hours of tapes running through your heads that prove that blowin folks up is inevitable, it's your turn to run your tapes. Fire away. Ol' Bobert has made himself a big ol' target. Yeah, knock yourselves out...

End of rant.

Thank God

Peace

Bobert

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: artbrooks
Date: 31 May 02 - 05:51 PM

"Fuck Nixon"? No thanks...he's not my type, even when he was alive...and I don't swing that way.

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: DougR
Date: 31 May 02 - 04:50 PM

When one becomes wedded to a single point of view, there isn't much room for discussion. Preaching, yes, discussion, no.

DougR

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: Hrothgar
Date: 31 May 02 - 04:39 AM

PeteBoom, you've been watching "Yes Minister" again!

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: InOBU
Date: 30 May 02 - 09:33 PM

Hey Guest... thanks for the web page, very interested in that the Korean Quakes look, (at very brief glance) like Hicksites like myself! This is a rather American expression of Quakerism, most African Quakes are more along the English model (though there are liberal Quaker meetings in England). I have to go back and spend a little time reading this, it is possible that US involement in Korea is the sourse of American style Quakerism in Korea. Cheers Larry

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: GUEST
Date: 30 May 02 - 01:46 PM

Hey Larry--here's one for you--the Seoul Friends--enjoy the photo, and the COs everywhere!

http://www2.gol.com/users/quakers/korea_quakers.htm

And here is a somewhat chilling read, about what people of conscience are having to face, from the same Korean Quaker website:

http://www2.gol.com/users/quakers/suppress_anticonscription_system.htm

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: GUEST
Date: 30 May 02 - 01:21 PM

Not going there on the "guest" thing--and thanks Bill K for your support.

Lonesome EJ, I don't know that you and I have much left to say to one another, so I'm happy to let my conversation with you drop out of the thread.

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: catspaw49
Date: 30 May 02 - 01:14 PM

You can't carry on a private conversation (Personal Messages) with a non-member.

This one is so far out that I don't even want to try to start.....maybe later, maybe not.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 30 May 02 - 01:12 PM

I'm not bitter against those who really believed in their cause. And I don't think the war was justified in retrospect. My problem with you stems mainly from the fact that you are afraid of what people might think of you if you identify yourself. I have a feeling that you are someone known on the Forum under a member name, but are hiding it because of fear. There's nothing to be afraid of, is there?

Chanting that the Viet Cong were going to win does strike me, looking back, as disloyal and a cheap attempt to provoke bystanders and/or police. It's the kind of thing kids do for attention. I think I've grown beyond that. Am I ashamed of efforts I made to end the war? No, just ashamed of a lot of the tactics I used in that effort. And of the fact that I often viewed those who served in the army as unlucky dupes.

We were discussing reasonable views that would justify the status of a Conscientous Objector, and that is why I told my story. I don't think I qualified. I also don't think that a lot of others I knew qualified.

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: GUEST
Date: 30 May 02 - 01:12 PM

Well, this a bit trickier than "I agree to disagree" now, Folk1234. On the one hand, we have a long human history of warfare and forced conscription of soldiers. As we've discussed elsewhere in the past few days, the idea of "voluntary" soldiering is very modern. Sure, there have always been mercenaries for hire, but there haven't ever been that many of them to tip the balance of power.

Now then. We have a global situation where the militaries and the paramilitaries of the world are holding a gun to everyone's head, and saying "agree to disagree", and "respect our choice for deciding to hold a gun to your head".

We all know that soldiers are human. But just because they are human doesn't mean we have to allow them to get away with killing other people in our name.

There is nothing fascist about not compromising one's ideals and principles. And that is exactly what some here are demanding I do. Compromise my ideals, to accomodate the feelings of military people and their supporters who don't want us troubling their consciences.

Sorry, but I won't do that. But that IS NOT fascism.

Now, you insisting that war resisters respect the choice of soldiers to kill people--that is pretty bizarre. Let's remember Folk1234, it is a solider's job to kill. Just like the purpose of a weapon is to kill. That's what they do. I don't respect their choice to kill people in war.

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 30 May 02 - 01:08 PM

just to interject - this seems like a quibble you two could do privately, but I must say, Guests should be able to post to any thread unafraid of being called names and vilified as cowardds for not posting otherwise. I can see valid reasons for someone not using thier name, say if many of you knew them personally and would have to deal with them in the future. Disagreement with statements made shouldn't devolve into ad guestinem attacks (could't say ad hominem, cause it might be ad feminem!).

On a related track, however, to this non-musical, but to me worthwhile thread, I found it rather disheartening to hear Mr. Ambrose describe his new book, now that he is dying of cancer and hasn't long to live, as an attempt to set matters right, especially in respect to his opposition to the war in Vietnam. How can he actually think, now that even McNamara acknowledges his mistake (barely, but an acknowledgement of sorts), that the US was right in that conflict? Or that he and others was wrong in its criticism of the government? I would love to hear his explanation. It makes as little sense to me as the much offered chestnut, that is just a lie, gussied up to be passed of as some self-evident truth, that 'If your young and not a liberal you have no heart, and if your old and not a conservative you have ne head.' Bullshit. If you are a conservative, at any age, you are by definition a hypocrite. You want to be allowed to do anything you want and restrict others from doing whatever they want. You have no heart nor no head, no sense nor no soul. I feel a somg coming on! May have to write another!

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: folk1234
Date: 30 May 02 - 01:00 PM

I get it, I get, I get it! Please continue your noble efforts. At the same time, let others continue their's. Educate, but don't demand absolute obedience to your doctrine. If your message is believable, others will follow. In your intense fervor, don't eliminate others' freedom of choice, that's fascism. Soldiers are people like EJ, Norton1, Mick, S'paw, you and me.

Happy chords,

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: GUEST
Date: 30 May 02 - 12:57 PM

And some of us, Lonesome EJ, are still dedicated to the same convictions we held then. Why are you so bitter towards us?

I fail to see how someone yelling "Fuck Nixon and the war!" was a betrayal of the soldiers fighting the war.

Unless you were never sincere about your "objections" to the war, and you've come to believe the government was right, and the anti-war movement was wrong, of course. Then I can understand you do feel you betrayed the men who fought. I would too, if I only was involved in the anti-war movement because the draft and the war interfered with my partying. You are correct, you didn't do much to proud of in the anti-war effort.

But some of us did to something authentic and genuine in our involvment in anti-war efforts. Just like some of our life-long friends and family members did. And continue to do today. And raise our children to follow in our footsteps, not yours or the soldiers'.

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 30 May 02 - 12:49 PM

You mean those of us who are actually identifying ourselves, Guest?

I thought I said I wasn't a sincere anti-war activist in my previous post? Was it too subtle for you? I'm not sure what you think you might accomplish by accusing me of something I've already freely admitted.

Sure, I could carry on a charade of saying I did the right thing back then. Many people do. The fact is, I was young and dedicated to having fun. That became my philosophy. I had not discovered anything that I believed in strongly enough to die for it, and could not even grasp that concept.

Fuck Nixon? Sure. I still disagree with many of his policies, and the fact that he was a paranoid was obvious to even his supporters. That doesn't give me some kind of holy dispensation for the basic self-gratification philosophy I held.

I'm sure there were some of you who were selflessly dedicated to the anti-draft and anti-war causes at the time. I remember all the dogmatic, humorless statements fed to the hoi palloi at those campus rallies. I suppose even then you suspected we couldn't be relied on when the actual Revolution broke out.

You will find, however, that many of us now have the strength of character to stand up, identify ourselves, and speak the truth as we see it.

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: GUEST
Date: 30 May 02 - 12:33 PM

So Lonesome EJ, did you somehow disagree with the "Fuck Nixon" sentiments?

I certainly didn't. In fact, the night Richard Nixon resigned (now there was a day to celebrate!), I was at a concert given by the band War (you know--that great band nobody has ever heard of anymore who did classic pop songs like "All Day Music"), the audience went INSANE!!! It was well over an hour of dancing and screaming and carrying on--the band just put on their pre-concert tape and came out onstage dancing and carrying on with audience--it was one of the best celebrations I ever attended!

But you know what Lonesome EJ? IMO, you sound much too cynical to have ever been authentic and sincere about anti-war activism, if your last post is anything to go by. We saw a lot of so-called "peace activists" like that in the 60s and 70s. Mostly looking to party and get laid, as I recall.

Folk1234, you totally don't get where I, and other war resisters are coming from. We are opposed to the institutions of war, especially the institutions of war which are perpetually preparing for waging war. You can't, as many people (including Gandhi) have repeatedly pointed out, simultaneously oppose and prepare for/wage war.

War resisters oppose the soldiers choice to go to war--or aren't you understanding that difference? We don't support soldiers choices. That is exactly the point of what we do in the most positive sense. We support the people who refuse to become soldiers. We support the people who are trying to education the next generation to become war resisters, and to refuse to serve in and support the military IN ANY WAY.

I'm beginning to think some of you really don't get this... :)

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 30 May 02 - 12:16 PM

"Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh... the Viet Cong are going to win!"

Now there is a stupid phrase from a 1969 march I participated in. There were also many shouts of "Fuck Nixon" and I can guarantee you there was at least one non-FBI plant participating in the chanting and the shouts. I mean me. And it was wrong and stupid, but I won't deny it. It was a betrayal of people like Steve and Mick, and I won't deny that either.

I will not justify my actions at the time by claiming some high and noble belief. I enjoyed my free unfettered life, sleeping with my girlfriend, playing frisbee in the park, all-night rap sessions about the war and the meaning of life,etc. Sure, I celebrated the sanctity of life...don't most 19 year olds? There was a song popular at the time that said "I got this need, the need to stay alive/ Not ashamed of my creed...I want to survive/ Leave all your loving, your long blonde hair/Don't let them take me cause I'm easily scared". It was only partly tongue in cheek when we all sang along.

Should I have been excused from the War because I disagreed with the government's policy? Or because of my concept of the "sanctity of life"? I don't think so. I eventually got out because I showed high blood pressure on my draft physical.

My point is this : in the full shadow of conflict, when to serve may very well mean to die, it is easy to come up with high ideals to justify the fact that you just plain don't want to risk it. For the thousands who were like me in the day, it's just plain bullshit. For those who were like Spaw and had a true and abiding belief in the rightness of their action, the refusal to participate is justified.

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: folk1234
Date: 30 May 02 - 12:09 PM

Just a few thoughts re the issue of conscription. Thank you ,Guest Peace Matriot for putting this issue on the table. It is important for posterity that well meaning people on both sides of the issue exchange views.
A famous person (was it Churchill?) said, ".. war is diplomacy by other means." When our, and our adversaries', elected and appointed leaders fail in diplomacy, we send our young people to fight and die. When one or both sides has suffered enough, the diplomats find common ground upon which to make peace.
Whether the young sacrificial lambs are conscripts or volunteers makes little difference to society or the loved ones left behind.
As a young Marine 2ndLt in Vietnam, I had a number of draftees in my platoon. They were a little older and better educated than the 'volunteers', but no less willing to do what they they were asked to do (many times much more) in order to accomplish the mission, survive, and help their comrades survive. They suffered and bled the same red blood as did us 'volunteers/professionals'.
A person who has experienced the true horror of combat becomes forever 'anti-war'. Nevertheless, if called upon to serve again, most will, rather than send someone else.
Those of us who have different opinions, for example Guest and I, must work within our own realm to both strive for peace, while preparing for war, and most importantly preserving our liberties. To do anything else is pure folly.

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: GUEST
Date: 30 May 02 - 11:59 AM

As the loathed guest (along with Peace Matriot) in this thread, I just wanted to jump back in to say Pete Boom and Bill Kennedy have expressed their values through their writing here very well. I share those values, and in the context of these Memorial Day threads, I especially agree with Bill's statement:

"And though I have great respect for the people who sincerely believed in our 'cause' in any of these places, and felt that they had a duty to go, and then performed that duty well, there is nothing honorable to me about the cause in support of which they served and/or died. By saying that, I mean that whatever side you are on, pro-war or anti-war, just being on that side is not enough to warrant my respect and friendship".

I quote it in it's entirety, because I think it bears repeating.

I also agree strongly with Pete's suggestion that the vociferous reaction by Mudcat member US veterans and their Mudcat friends is firmly rooted in the American tradition of honoring of *US* military dead exclusively. I think that Bush made an effort to counter that perception among the Europeans (his trip to Europe over US Memorial Day is the first time a US president has ever been outside the US on the day). But the United States has never done much to memorialize people killed in war and armed conflict beyond it's own borders, except it's own soldiers. There are some rare exceptions, most notably the Holocaust memorials (but is that because of the power and influence of the Diasporan Jews and the Israeli lobby? I dunno.

Despite that, other communities of US citizens and residents descended from "old country" folk do memorialize their ancestors in US celebrations. But there is only the begrudging and patronizing "multi-culti" support given to those efforts. I'm thinking of one--Cinco de Mayo--which is gaining in popularity here in the US because of the increased Latino population. But there isn't much else.

I'm pretty cynical about Bush going to Normandy on US Memorial Day (and really, it still came off to me looking like he was there to honor American war dead, not really to honor all the war dead). I think it was done because of those sorts of mounting criticisms of the way most involved (at any point in their lives) in the US military industrial establishment views our US military as the only war dead worthy of being "honored". I suppose Armistice Day could be viewed as an attempt to honor all the war dead, but really, in the US the military/families of military both present and former, don't seem to like to share the podium with anyone who mentions that it is millions of civilians, not millions of soldiers, which are routinely slaughtered in war.

I think of US Memorial Day as the military's holiday. I include the entire military family, which includes many people who have never seen combat or lived abroad. I'd like to believe that US military personnel and their families who have lived and served abroad had a more cosmopolitan and internationalized view of the world, but in my experience they don't. They are often hostile about the natives of the countries they get stationed in, and feel isolated (because they are, of course) and often persecuted by the locals. You see almost identical mentalites on US bases towards the locals.

All just my opinion, of course, which hasn't been terribly welcome here.

And about forced conscription being a thing of the past in most Western nations (it isn't, and a quick web search makes that clear), it is easy to dispense with conscription in peace time. But when (not if, when) the Western democratic republics decide to go to war again, conscription/the draft will be reinstituted in a heartbeat.

I am, however, quite heartened to see the United Nations' movement against the use of child soldiers in armed conflict, forced conscription and sexual slavery that goes with it, making so much headway in recent years. When combined with the United Nations and other human rights organizations' work to end all conscription and forced volunteerism, and international human rights treaties being forced to the top of the international agenda as we have seen in the past decade, including the War Crimes Tribunals treaty the US has refused to sign, I have a tremendous amount of hope for the future.

I really do believe we are on the eve of a global transformation, and that a global, just, enforceable peace without the use of military and paramilitary violence, is what our future holds. Too many people have suffered too much, for too long. Anti-war work is some of the most important work a person can do to effective those changes practically, on the ground, today. Over 25 million people, mostly civilians, have been killed in war and armed conflicts worldwide since WWII ended.

I believe that the smaller the world becomes, and the harder we fight ALL the institutions of war funded by global capitalism, the sooner we will see that future become our present day reality. The anti-war movements around the world have made tremendous progress in the past 100 years.

The people who have been involved in those movements, while highly deserving of our society's highest honors (as someone previously mentioned), receive about the same reception that Peace Matriot and myself have received here. The anti-war and peace activists are mostly reviled by those currently or formerly involved with wars, as the statements we have seen in these threads reflect, IMO. Statements like "you are the type of people who spit on returning war veterans" or "anti-war people shouting fuck Nixon/war" shows how little experience those people have had with the anti-war and peace movements of our time. Those are tired, stale stereotypes, and inaccurate ones at that.

We all make choices about the sorts of people we choose to formally and informally "honor and respect". I choose not to honor or respect the choice people make to serve in the military. Rather, I choose to honor those who refuse to serve, who work to end war, armed conflict, and the use of violence to rule instead.

Just like the Native Americans who view US Thanksgiving Day as a day of national shame, I view US Memorial Day as a day of national shame. I know that will set off the vets and their friends here, but that's the way it goes. But I can suggest we all come together to honor ALL the war dead, and do all we can, including engaging in antimilitarist activism, to honor the declaration of War Resisters' International:

"War is a crime against humanity. I am therefore determined not to support any kind of war, and to strive for the removal of all causes of war".

War Resisters' International exists to promote nonviolent action against the causes of war, and to support and connect people around the world who refuse to take part in war or the preparation of war. On this basis, WRI works for a world without war.

I honor all peoples' human right to refuse to kill.

I honor and participate in 15 May - International Conscientious Objectors' Day activities. I honor and participate in 1 December - Prisoners for Peace Day. I honor and respect people going to jail for engaging in civil disobedience at the School of the Americas, who hammered swords into plowshares at GE, Vietnam draft resisters who went to Canada and/or jail.

The Triennial Conference of War Resisters' International will be held this year in Dublin in August. For anyone who might be interested in attending, or learning more about it, here is the website for the "Stories And Strategies Nonviolent Resistance And Social Change" conference:

http://www.wri-irg.org/tri/2002/index.htm

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 30 May 02 - 10:34 AM

if peace is the goal, war & violence can never be the means to attain that goal, it will never work. That means people need to take responsibility for their own government and its policies, that means reading, studying, researching, thinking, talking and deciding for oneself what is in the best interests of one's country and the world. Conscription should be resisted whenever possible.

There is no 'honor' in just going along with the herd, not bucking the trend, entering the service and then getting killed somewhere.

There is no 'honor' in accepting whatever story the news is feeding you about the 'enemy' and going off to kill them, and then being killed yourself.

There is no 'honor', in and of itself, in just being killed in a war for any reason, combatant or non-combatant.

There IS 'honor' in having examined the issues and deciding to join in a cause one believes in and being willing to fight for it.

There IS 'honor' in behaving honorably in wartime situations, combatant and non-combatant.

AND

There IS 'honor', in and of itself, in refusing to join, refusing to fight, refusing to support, refusing to work in any role that supports war, and suffering the consequences, because that requires a decision.

The largest most powerful conscripted army in the history of the world could not beat a small nation of volunteers who were defending their own country against an outside agressor allied to one side of a civil war.

IMHO the reasons for our being in Vietnam were wrong, the reasons for our being in Kuwait were wrong, the reasons for our being in Afghanistan are wrong, the reasons for our being in Grenada, and Panama, and as 'advisors' in Colombia and the rest of Latin and South America are wrong.

And though I have great respect for the people who sincerely believed in our 'cause' in any of these places, and felt that they had a duty to go, and then performed that duty well, there is nothing honorable to me about the cause in support of which they served and/or died. By saying that, I mean that whatever side you are on, pro-war or anti-war, just being on that side is not enough to warrant my respect and friendship.

One quick aside - the comment about the anti-war people who always had to shout fuck/Nixon/war/etc. and generally acted the fool during those demonstrations were probably FBI plants who were trying to incite violence that they could later prosecute. (not that there weren't some just plain general assholes around, as I know there were in the services as well)

Just my opinion of course, but -

Mothers and fathers, do not give your children to a government to use and dispose of.

Children, teach yourselves before you go marching off, with or without your parent's blessings.

People, get involved in your government.

I often wonder if there would be wars if more women, and elder women at that, were in charge, but women can be warmongering idiots too, I guess, so it will always be up to each individual to take a stand. If you are for peace, you cannot be for war.

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: leprechaun
Date: 30 May 02 - 09:58 AM

I notice that when I see the word Guest, by itself, if I just click rapidly on the right mouse button a few times it makes this thread much more coherent.

I think there are a few things worth dying for, but I'm only speculating because I haven't actually died yet. I think there are even fewer things worth killing for. But they exist.

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 30 May 02 - 09:43 AM

Let me clear here, once again, about where I stand on war and all it stands for. I oppose it. I have spent my life after my tour in Viet Nam being very active in opposing it.

But I will not "chill" when some whiney ass hole denigrates those who made different choices. I have stated, and will state again, that I respect those fought against the war as much as those who fought in it.

So I will say what I feel. And I'll do my best not to hold back *BG*. Spaw, Bobert, DougR, CarolC, Katlaughing, Justa Picker, and many others have different views on how this subject can be approached. I respect those views, and Spaw you are SOOOOO right - it does take both sides to change this craziness, and expect the same respect for my views and choices.

I love this place and the people in it - it has helped more than any of you will ever know to be able to come to a table and discuss, and cuss, the bent up pieces of my life that evolved from serving in Viet Nam.

I choose to be proud of my service - I'll be damned if I'll be ashamed of the ideology I took to the war and my participation in it under those same auspices.

Bless you all on this Memorial Day -

Say a prayer for those who are far away

And most likely in harm's way

Right or wrong they go believing their service will help others.

Steve

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: PeteBoom
Date: 30 May 02 - 08:57 AM

OK Hrothgar, I'll concede your point.

Please substitute "western style democratic republic with representative governmental processes to exercise the will of the electorate or, depending on organizational structure, act on the behalf of the electorate as opposed to totalitarian/oligarchical/absolute-monarchy based authoritarian regime held in place by military power over its own people" in place of "free society".

Thanks so much -

Pete

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: Hrothgar
Date: 30 May 02 - 08:38 AM

"...a free society that practises conscription..."

Um, no. Oxymoron warning!

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: InOBU
Date: 30 May 02 - 08:30 AM

Hiya guys...
I am a little out of it today, had a wee biopsy on my right little finger, big crater, annoying when typing... but to the point... Religion and faith are two different things, as is faith and spirituality. One of my best friends who I used to teach (HA!) Quaker first day school, gave the following quote to a Quaker adult ed. course for new Quakers... "Universalist? Well... I'd like to call myself a Universalist, but in reallity, ... I don't believe anything!" he went on to say "but something in meeting makes it all clear to me, I have to live with reguard for others..."
So, what do we make of that in reguards to religious objection. There are things we can't describe, but we know we must not kill.
As to human nature, in the history of humankind, when one includes prehistory, war is a very recent development, tied to planting. In my openion, when India, Pakistan, Isreal, a mess like the former USSR, (and yes, even the us that is the US) has the ability to end life on earth, it is time to evolve - where is Tom Lehr when ya need him.
Peace (ouch) friends,
Larry

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: PeteBoom
Date: 30 May 02 - 07:50 AM

Tried to post this last night - kept throwing errors - so, going to try again...

Just to be troublesome - I find it interesting that there was nary a word of protest over the threads on ANZAC Day or the various discussion on Eric Bogle's "No Man's Land."

Could it be that folks are upset specifically because Memorial Day was originally set aside to honor the War Dead of the US? That General Logan's (by the way, Logan Avenue in Lansing, Michigan was named for him) General Order whatever to the Grand Army of the Republic to set aside May 30, 1868 to place flowers on the graves of the dead marked the day indelibly.

I wonder if there will be a similar protest over Armistice Day/Veterans Day/Remembrance Day in November.

Conscription is rarely viewed as a good thing, particularly by those conscripted nation-states. Right? Conscription practiced by war-lords is kidnapping.

Invariably, in a free society that practices conscription, there will be change. The blood-bath that was the Gallipoli campaign resulted in the decline of the Colonial mind-set in Australia and New Zealand and a rise in the self-identity - national identity if you will - of those far-flung branches of the empire.

The conscription of WWI led to social changes in the UK following that war - which set up an entire series of changes that were accelerated by MORE conscription in WWII, which set much of Britain's class-structure on its ear. (Think its bad now? Try living in your great-grandparent's time... ick.)

Similar things happened in the States following both World Wars. Draftees returned home having seen amazing things. Some were terrible, others were amazing. They had walked through buildings hundreds of years old when the oldest building in their home town was maybe 75 years old. They were changed not only by combat, but what they sensed and felt. Many folks in the States on this board grew-up living in the society that resulted from those changes.

Returning Viet Nam Vets, who were conscripted, marched alongside anti-war protesters and eventually helped bring an end to that war. This also brought an end to the all-powerful view many had of the government. People began asking questions for the first time in generations. Some were hard to take and resulted in all sorts of amazing things.

Combined with the Civil Rights Movement, the anti-war/anti-draft movement shook the center of the nation to its very soul.

Do I criticize those who answered the "birthday present" of the Viet Nam era? No. Nor do I criticize those of the 1940's and 50's. Most (not all) went because it was a dirty job and felt that if they did it, maybe their kids would not need to. That is something that is not in vogue these days among the elite intellectuals - Duty, Honor. They are powerful words. Don't despise them because people have mis-used them to their own ends. They symbolize high ideals - among the highest there are among humanity.

My oldest grandson in 8 years old. I will do everything I can to see that he does not need to "study war" and that he might study mathematics and geography - so that his children might study philosophy.

Set rant bit off <_>

Pete

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: GUEST
Date: 30 May 02 - 03:29 AM

Chuck all the little fuckers that like to hang out in gangs and shoot people into a war zone. When they get tired of violence, have them clear land mines for a living. Sometimes ya just gotta fight, there's no other solution. Human condition that wont go away.

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: CarolC
Date: 30 May 02 - 02:59 AM

How about "I ain't fighting in this war because it is against my spiritual and ethical beliefs. But I will serve in your hospitals because it isn't against my spiritual beliefs to do that."

So I have to disagree with you DougR, and pretty vehemently, too. There are many, many people in the world now who have very strong spiritual and/or ethical beliefs, but who do not belong to any particular organized religion. I'm one of them. It would be no less wrong to expect me to violate my spiritual and ethical beliefs by making me kill people (especially if it's for any reasons other than the protection of liberties), than to expect me to violate religious beliefs for those reasons.

And I will take any challenge to my right to hold and honor my spiritual and ethical beliefs in the same way that a member of any organized religion would take a challenge to their right to practice and observe their religion. And by that I mean that I would not take such a challenge lying down.

The only difference between spiritual beliefs and religious beliefs in this context is the presence (or the lack of it) of a larger body that is built upon the shared spiritual beliefs of the group, and in some cases, the reliance upon a book or document of some kind as "proof" of the validity of the spiritual beliefs of the group.

Conversely, it could be argued that governments have a pretty wide door to go through when determining what constitutes a valid reason to send the citizens of their countries to fight in wars. I think it could be argued that the Vietnam War was entered into by the US on some pretty shaky moral and ethical grounds. The Gulf War also.

As much as I hate to say this, sometimes it's our own government that is the biggest threat to our liberties and to our democracy. And at those times, it's the ones who refuse to cooperate who are fighting in the front lines in the battle to preserve and protect the very qualities (freedom, liberty, democracy, etc.) that we say make our country great. At those times, it's the resisters who are defending our country and everything it supposedly stands for.

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: katlaughing
Date: 30 May 02 - 02:18 AM

So, Doug, are you saying that since I don't belong to an established "religion" I shouldn't be allowed to refuse to go based on my own sense of spirituality and sanctity of life, or even on my own deeply held convictions about same? Your argument about picking cotton, etc. is a bit facetious. I am sure there would be a lot more screening before any reason would just be accepted.

PLus, so much klling has been done in the name of the "established religions" it seems kind of ironic that some should be able to use that as a reason, while others who oppose both war and shun "religions" should be excluded.

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: DougR
Date: 30 May 02 - 01:52 AM

Yep, LEJ, I think it went very well! :>)

Carol C: "reasons of conscience." The problem with you reasoning, in my opinon, is that leaves a pretty wide door to go through. One could refuse conscription for almost any reason one could come up with. "I ain't going because I got to pick cotton." "I ain't going because I don't look good in olive drab." "I aint going because I hear the food is terrible." Religion, as a reason, has been a long established reason for refusing to serve in the military (ask Larry)and I think it makes sense to stick with that.

DougR

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 29 May 02 - 10:25 PM

And of course, we all know what a favor Nader and the Green Party did for the country in the last election. That went well, didn't it?

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 May 02 - 10:23 PM

Two quick notes here.....First, there was a handbook printed in the 60's that covered the religion and ethics issue quite well and I recall it being titled, "Ethics As Religion." It was a difficult road to get CO status using ethics but it could be done.   On the other hand, for many serious protesters, myself included, CO was not the point whereas removing public support toward the war was. Worth mentioning is that anti-war people were a mixed bag and included the requisite percentage of complete flakes and assholes just as you'd find in other groups. These were the jerks who couldn't resist yelling fuck the war/Johnson/Nixon/the pentagon at every chance they got and being the ones responsible for the spitting incidents and other sad acts. There was certainly also a group consisting of those who had been there, the anti-war vets, and those who were actively standing against the government through civil disobedience. It did not seem them and does not seem now that these two groups made "strange bedfellows," but rather were a natural alliance.

In any case, the issue of ethics was a hot topic then and I was surprised not to be able to find that book or a reference to it on the net. And just for the record, I'm all for some kind of mandated service........Let them choose the options. Military of course, but then bring back the WPA and the CCC (still around actually) as well as VISTA and other newer programs....I can think of a few service areas! Frankly, I'd like to see a situation where no one could enter college til their service was up. I think you'd find a lot more serious minded students at our universities.

AND MICK......LMAO here! "And GUEST, there you go again. You build that phony crap. I didn't respond because you just aren't correct and you are just baiting. Furthermore I don't want to see this thread hijacked by a no name troublemaker. Got a new guitar yet, BTW?".....Not so oddly, I was having that conversation with another 'Catter concerning our Guest! (:<))

Spaw

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: Bobert
Date: 29 May 02 - 10:03 PM

First of all, yo GUEST and Steve. Chill! Give peace a chance and all that. Think, "win-win".

Now as for the ol' Bobert's favorite song and dance routine. Military thinking is: "Logistics, logistics, logistics." Conscription is just one facit of the overall logistical plan and in the thinking of those who see military solutions as a means of solving problems, is no more than that. (Just as long as it ain't their sons or daighters...)

Yeah, I think that peace is a second step with anti-war being the first. We gotta quit blowing up other folks and our kids over differences of opinions. We gotta dtep to the plate, as partisally enlightened Earthlings and say, "Hey, this war stuff don't solve too many problems. Might of fact, the danged stuff just creates more of itself..."

Well, how is this done? Easy. Not really. But doable. The US is is the world's "WARRIER NATION" and not too many folks in the US, irregardless of their beliefs, have any control over the US's appitite for blowing up other folks and their stuff. So, we gotta get alternatives on the table. And these alternatives have to have some credibility. A good start would be for the Green Party to get 5% in the 2004 presidential election so that in 2008 a Greenie would be in the election debates. That would give an alternative voice some crdibility and then maybe we, as USA'ers would take time to think, "Hey, maybe this war crap ain't all it's cracked up to be...?"

After that happens then maybe the USA'ers might just get to the next step and say to themselves, "Hey, what's the next step?"

Think PEACE

Vote Green

Bobert

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 29 May 02 - 09:27 PM

Conscription has been a fact of life in most civilizations that have maintained the tradition of a "citizen army". In ancient Athens and Sparta, in the early Roman Republic, and in other countries who prided themselves on their status as Republics or Democracies, mandatory military service was a way of insuring that citizens were responsible for the preservation of their own freedoms. The alternative to this philosophy was exemplified by the paid professional armies of powers like Persia, and by the mercenary armies of the Roman Empire. These professional armies posed two threats to the State : They tended to be independent entities with loyalties to their own generals and as such were constant threats to the standing government, and they created a disconnection between on the one hand rights and freedoms, and on the other the duty to protect them. For these reasons, professional armies came to be associated with totalitarian states.

The notion of a citizen army was a strong tenet of the young United States of America, but the scale of ensuing conflicts meant that an army of volunteers was sufficient. At the onset of the Civil War, numbers among the standing Union army were insufficient to suppress the Confederate rebellion, but the cause was unpopular enough to prevent the needed influx of recruits. For Lincoln, the answer was a draft. The abuses were many, including the use of paid substitutes by the wealthy, but the end result was successful.

Conscription or required military service is not necessarily the hallmark of representational government, though. The Prussian Army, one of the most effective of the 18th and 19th Centuries was essentially a conscript force serving under a brutal, repressive government.

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 May 02 - 08:10 PM

Yeah, Carol, I think that is an important distinction. For too long we have linked morality and conscience to established religions. But as you so correctly point out, there are many that are just opposed on the basis of their own values whether religiously based or not.

And GUEST, there you go again. You build that phony crap. I didn't respond because you just aren't correct and you are just baiting. Furthermore I don't want to see this thread hijacked by a no name troublemaker. Got a new guitar yet, BTW?

Back to the subject at hand. It is true that I believe that in this imperfect world things like the draft/conscription are necessary tools to use to protect the freedoms that are often taken for granted. But the key to not allowing the powers that be abuse them is a well informed citizenry with diverse views and the ability to express them. The war in Vietnam was ended because people had the right to protest, question authority and influence opinion. To be sure there were other factors but the protesters were a huge factor. Something we learn in political activism is that it is always a fight for the middle. The strident folks on the fringe are the ones that ultimately, through their questions and consciousness raising tactics, cause the middle to examine their positions. The anti-conscription movement is vital to this argument in order that the abuses don't occur, or if they do attention will be called to them.

Mick

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: CarolC
Date: 29 May 02 - 07:54 PM

The main thing I would take issue with about your wording, DougR, would be the use of the word "religion". I think people should be able to use the conscientious objector option for reasons of conscience even if what their conscience tells them is not a part of any particular established religious doctrine.

In other words, if someone believes that their country is requiring them to kill people for reasons such as protecting oil interests for instance, rather than to preserve liberties, I think the individual should have a right to follow their conscience and not kill people for oil. (This is just one example. I'm sure there are many different scenarios where this would apply.)

I have no problem with the concept of "alternative service" in such a case.

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: DougR
Date: 29 May 02 - 07:37 PM

I have no objection to one using their religious belief as a reason for not serving in one of the armed services. I do not believe one should be excused from the draft solely on the basis that they don't want to go to war. No sane person wants to go to war. Those who are deferred for religious reasons can serve in non-combatant positions, or serve their country in times of war in other capacities such as medics, etc.

Steve: Do you have any strong feelins on the subject? I don't think you should hold back :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: CarolC
Date: 29 May 02 - 07:24 PM

This is a pretty tricky subject, isn't it? On the one hand, it could be argued that conscription, and/or the draft, is necessary to protect us in situations like WWII. On the other hand, it could be argued that when governments have conscription and/or the draft available as an option, it becomes much easier for them to wage war for reasons that may not be very legitimate.

I don't have any answers except that I think it's necessary for there to always be a conscientious objector option available so that if individuals believe that a war is being waged for reasons that are not legitimate, they have a way to follow their conscience, just as those whose consciences tell them to fight have that option available to them.

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 29 May 02 - 07:01 PM

Here's some legitimacy GUEST - go fuck yourself - you're a whining, cry baby, little asshole, who don't know shit. Probably got your little wimpy ass kicked enough that you are afraid to come and play with real people.

If the Nazi's were still recruiting you'd join to feel better about yourself. You had any sense at all you'd be Thanking some of the folks for helping keep your sorry ass in a position to speak openly. But you can't even do that can you? Climb off the cross ya jerk - someone else needs the space.

Steve

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 29 May 02 - 06:51 PM

Well, golly. I thought I made a legitimate post regarding Union Conscription during the Civil War as an example of a reasonable application of the draft. I'm neither angry, nor trying to shout someone down.

Sometimes, when you have an emotional investment in the Rightness of your Cause, any disagreement, logical or not, feels like you're being repressed, doesn't it? And if you state that you're being "shouted down" by pro-war neanderthals, it gives your cause even greater legitimacy and pathos.

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: GUEST
Date: 29 May 02 - 06:35 PM

Actually, the historic anti-conscription movement is a fascinating subject. Too bad no one here can get beyond the fact that they are angry because someone had the audacity to speak their mind about Memorial Day and honoring veterans. It seems to be more important to members to shout down and silence the people they disagree with, rather than hold a conversation.

BTW, CarolC, it was the Almanac Singers who first became infamous for singing "C is for Conscription" and Pete kept it in his repetoire over the years--it has a pretty interesting story behind it. But it looks like Mudcat isn't a very welcoming place for discussing it.

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: DougR
Date: 29 May 02 - 01:43 PM

That's funny Mrrzy! :>)

I wonder, Guest who posted this thread, why you felt compelled to start a thread as a "counter-balance" to the Memorial Day thread? I suppose it has never occured to you that one of the reasons you can post such a thread as this one is because many men and women from many countries sacrificed their lives in wars in order that we might be free to say and write whatever we bloody well please. Or perhaps you feel a Nazi regime would have been more lenient on it's citizens than are the governments of free people.

I rarely reply to guests who post threads primarily to incite others but I couldn't resist this one.

DougR

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 May 02 - 12:45 PM

(Sorry, I misread this as the Anti-Constipation Movement. Sounded redundant to me!)

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 29 May 02 - 12:28 PM

Too much logic, Doug?

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: DougR
Date: 29 May 02 - 12:11 PM

It came in pretty handy at the beginning of WW2, also, LEJ.

DougR

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: GUEST
Date: 29 May 02 - 12:09 PM

The no/anti-conscription movement in the wake of WWI was worldwide. It really was the first international anti-conscription movement, and is therefore the most interesting to me personally, hence my interest in the Australian anti-conscription songs. My guess is they are songs that likely migrated throughout the anti-conscription, anti-war movement of the era.

Anyone have any knowledge of songs of that era's anti-conscription movement, whether Aussie or not?

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: GUEST
Date: 29 May 02 - 12:07 PM

More song links:

The Radical Song Book by Peter Hicks:

http://www.trump.net.au/~glazfolk/archcat.htm

The Catbox Times' "People's Songs" Songs & Songbooks page:

http://aztec.lib.utk.edu/~pelton/music.htm

George Shrub/Dave Lippman song pages:

www.davelippman.com

"Non-violence requires more than the courage of the soldier of war."

-Gandhi

Subject: RE: Anti-Conscription Movement
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 29 May 02 - 12:00 PM

In the early years of the American Civil War, and particularly after First Manassas, the cause of the Union was not an overwhelmingly popular one. In fact, had Lincoln not instituted the draft, it is quite possible that the North would have lost the war, settling for an armistice in the face of numerous early defeats. I would state that, because conscription effectively ended and preserved the Union, that the Great Emancipator was justified in his use of it, and that in this case, it was a good thing.

Disagree?