Conscientious Objector??

[Shy Tall Guy]

I am watching a show on PBS (OOps!, sorry, it wasn't the History Channel ) about Conscientious Objectors during WWII, and thought it would be interesting to hear your opinions on this issue.

Having been a pacifist once myself I can understand the philosophy that most COs (Conscientious Objectors) although I no longer agree, but having served in the military, I have a little bit different view on anybody, CO or not who doesn't want to be in the military:

1) I do not believe in the draft; I do not believe that it is necessary, and moreover, I do not believe it is moral to force anybody to serve in the military by compulsion of law.

2) Having seen people who found themselves in the military, and then decided they didn't want to be there, wreak havoc on everybody else's morale and efficiency, I do not think it is a practical or necessary to have draftees in the military. I believe in a solely voluntary military - I would not want to serve with someone who didn't want to be there.

3) At the very least there are people who truly do have a conscientious objection to participating in war, and we should have some way to accomodate them.

What do you think?

 

[kiwiwolf]

As an ex soldier myself I totally agree although I have never served in a conscript/draftee army.

Why force someone into being there when it is going to have a massive impact on regular soldiers morale. Soldiering is a hard enough job as it is without having to put up with a COs impact on your mental and emotional wellbeing.

 

[WriterDom]

Times have changed. In WW2 they needed warm bodies.

 

[Mae13]

I agree STG! Another important point is that the LAST person I'd want to have watching my back is someone that abhors the military's true mission and what it's there to do in times of war. As prettyfied as people like to make it now, when the shit hits the fan our objective is to win by whatever means it takes. And that includes getting messy and killing people sometimes.

I sure as hell don't want the SP guarding my ATH to be a conscientious objector. I don't want platoon-mates of my infantry friends to be CO's either. They need to be able to protect themselves and their fellows in arms, and that protection definitely includes killing the bad guys before they can kill you.

And, well...honestly it still kinda bugs me that they have the whole forced "Selective Service" ideal but don't force (or even allow) women to be a part of it. Of course that's a whole different debate IMNSHO, you can't scream about wanting to be "equal" without being willing to take equal risks. Not to mention the fact that I'm stronger than at least half of the wussy "bus drivers" I work with *snicker*

It was a question I had to think about when I first was signing paperwork...I remember having to ask my mom what a CO was *laughs* So I thought...and realized that in the instances I'd be forced to make that decision (protecting my life, the lives of my coworkers, the lives of my patients) I don't *think* I'd have a problem at all. 'Course one never knows until you're faced with the decision, but my heart tells me self-preservation would win out every time.

Mae

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

I sure as hell don't want the SP guarding my ATH to be a conscientious objector. I don't want platoon-mates of my infantry friends to be CO's either. They need to be able to protect themselves and their fellows in arms, and that protection definitely includes killing the bad guys before they can kill you.

Umm, I think I might have been misunderstood; I have respect for those who choose to be COs, and I am not suggesting that they cannot be trusted to do what they say they would do. I have had to depend on others for my safety, and it had nothing to do with whether they felt they could harm others, and it had a lot to do with whether they wanted to be there or not.

Naturally COs don't want to be placed in a situation where they would have to harm somebody, but they are usually as brave as anybody else, and I would trust them to drag me out of a bad situation, or to give me medical care, etc.

What I was saying was that anybody that doesn't want to be in the military shouldn't be there, CO or not. Most of the people I knew who were pains in the ass during my military service were people who somewhere along the line decided they didn't want to be there any longer. I believe such people should be mustered out with a dishonorable discharge, or at least "for the good or the service" or something equivalent.

When I was in boot camp, there were people who really wanted to make it through, but couldn't because they suffered an injury, or got sick, or whatever, and they had to go home, whereas there were people who wanted to drop out, but were not allowed to drop out. I am saying such people should be allowed to leave without benefits. I have met these people later in their enlistment, and they are worse than worthless.

There are places in each service that are the garbage pit to collect these people; in the CG it was usually the group or district headquarters. For the 13th naval district that is Seattle. I went there once to stay for LE training and found such a group of misfits that were allowed to smoke dope on base, do nothing during the day, and just get away with almost anything until their enlistment finished or they could be discharged.

 

[Mae13]

Whoops, I was connecting CO folks with forced draft folks...thought that's what you were going for, sorry! I didn't mean CO's that had decided to participate in their military, I was talking about folks who are CO's but have been forced to accept their draft anyway.

I think people who have made the self-choice to serve regardless of their status do just great It's the people there that don't want to be there and were forced there when they shouldn't have been that are the scary ones. Think we were on the same page, just a different language?? hehehe

Mae

 

[Unclebill]

STG, gotta agree with you

I did serve with a couple of draftees in the Navy back in the 60's. Those few were actually good people; probably the exceptions that prove the rule, huh?

But I agree with you that the volunteer military is by far the best.

Conscription is wrong. Period. It is an overt declaration that the government owns the lives of its citizens which is in direct opposition to the principles and concepts on which the USA is founded.

P. S. - I almost forgot probably the most famous CO ever - Alvin York.

 

[Mensa]

Different strokes, different folks

If you live in a country with a large poulation, you might get away with having an all-volunteer army during wartime, others are not so fortunate.

During peacetime the all-volunteer is the way to go but, in war, you need a lot of people and you need them fast.

 

[Tungwagger]

The PMS brigade...

I agree that the draft isn't the way to go....a popular war will result in an abundance of "warm bodies"...

But let's put a little twist to it.....

Women want to have the right to fight in combat.....

Create an infantry battalion of women....over time, their menstrual periods will synch up, as will the timing of PMS...

When the PMS starts.....send them into action...

Can you imagine the look on the enemies faces when they see a whole battalion of PMS induced warriors charging over a hill??

Just having fun.....nothing personal....got the idea from a different thread about PMS....

 

[Mensa]

Re: The PMS brigade...

I agree that the draft isn't the way to go....a popular war will result in an abundance of "warm bodies"...

But let's put a little twist to it.....

Women want to have the right to fight in combat.....

Create an infantry battalion of women....over time, their menstrual periods will synch up, as will the timing of PMS...

When the PMS starts.....send them into action...

Can you imagine the look on the enemies faces when they see a whole battalion of PMS induced warriors charging over a hill??

Just having fun.....nothing personal....got the idea from a different thread about PMS....

Actually, the Tsar's armies in Russia during World War I did have all-female battalions. By all accounts they acquitted themselves admirably.

 

[Tungwagger]

Re: Re: The PMS brigade...

Actually, the Tsar's armies in Russia during World War I did have all-female battalions. By all accounts they acquitted themselves admirably.

That does it then!!

Allow women into combat, create all women battalions, and thereby possibly eliminating the need for the draft......

Just not my daughter...ok??? There is the conundrum.....

 

[T.H. Oughts]

I thank all those that trained or served or gave their lives to give us freedom.

I hope if there is another "major" war that looks to take away the freedom that we have, that "all" able bodied persons would give what they could do to help.

But because of the freedom of speech that we have I think those that do not want to go to war be allowed to say so.... then they go find some hell hole and live there... not live with what others gave their lives to protect!

In the end the ones that go fight the wars do so in another type of hell hole to save the lives of some that should be living in hell holes.

I would go give my life if it meant my children and their children can live in freedom......

 

[Lost Cause]

Having a draft number of thirty-six, I volunteered so I could make my choice of what branch to go into. I read where CO's oftened joined the medical corps as long as they didn't have to carry a weapon, or maybe the chaplin corps. It takes as much strength to stand in oppositon because of your beliefs, as it is to charge an enemy position.
Through the screening process, people genuinely profiled as CO's should be excluded from combat duty, and assigned to rear echelon duty. If they interfere with morale or dicipline, a quick other than honorable discharge would remedy the problem.

 

[Astro]

I think it is important to make the difference bewteen CO's and cowards. A coward will put his squad mates lives at risk because he is too scared to go over the top. A CO will put them at risk because he believes he should not go over the top.

A draft army is not as effective as a volounter force, this has been known for years. However in WW1 & 2 Britain needed bobies for the front - remember the USA pretended it wasnt involved in the war and made money from both sides in both wars for a few years.

CO's who are drafed should not be sent to the front, not because it's wrong to send them, but because they are more of a hazard than a help. Logistics, medics etc all need able bodies men and these positions are essential to the armed forces.

As for all women forces, I THINK it was the US Navy that said all it's submarines should be staffed by women. This is because they are usualy shorty (which would help) use less oxygen and eat less than men, so allowing the subs to be out of port for longer.

 

[MidnightAngel]

My view

Here is my view on CO's. No, I say don't "force" them into the military. HOWEVER......what bothers me (BADLY) is those who choose to voluntarily enlist in the military for the free education, salary (although I know it isn't much, it IS a job), etc., and then when they are called to serve in a war/war zone, THEN they become "conscientious objectors". This happened in the US during the Gulf War.

My opinion? If this happens, and these individuals wish to claim CO status when asked to serve in a place where they could be in danger, then make them pay back all the salary and benefits that they have received over the years while they were training to be soldiers......which they no longer want to be.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

But because of the freedom of speech that we have I think those that do not want to go to war be allowed to say so.... then they go find some hell hole and live there... not live with what others gave their lives to protect!

In the end the ones that go fight the wars do so in another type of hell hole to save the lives of some that should be living in hell holes.

I would go give my life if it meant my children and their children can live in freedom......

Having been one, I do not believe that COs are cowards or are unwilling to give their lives for what they believe in, they just do not wish to kill anybody else for what they believe in.

 

[Skibum]

I have mixed feelings on this. As a former armor officer, I would not want a reluctant crewman on one of my tanks, but I also have problems with people who are not willing to fight for the rights they have under our constitution.

It comes down to the fact that we can not legislate morality. Perhaps we should limit citizenship to those who are willing to serve. You earn the right to vote through government service.

 

[Spinaroonie]

The draft has only gotten worse since Veitnam.

Back then I'd be exempt from it because I could show I was making forward progress towards a degree. Now I'd just wait until the end of the semester to be shipped off.

I've bitched about it before on this board, it's not right for Uncle Sam to tell me that because of a failure in Diplomacy, that I have to go off and die somewhere.

I had an uncle during vietnam who was drafted and pulled the Conscientious Objector trick. They put a red cross on him and refused to give him a gun, they made him drag the bodies of those who had been shot back through the lines to get them to the nearist infirmary. They made him a medic when he had no medical training.

 

[Weird Harold]

I have mixed feelings on this. As a former armor officer, I would not want a reluctant crewman on one of my tanks, but I also have problems with people who are not willing to fight for the rights they have under our constitution.

It comes down to the fact that we can not legislate morality. Perhaps we should limit citizenship to those who are willing to serve. You earn the right to vote through government service.

Don't confuse Conscientous Objectors with draftees. There is a long tradition of Conscientous Objectors dating back to the revolutionary war and laws, rules and customs that prevent them from being assigned to tank crews (among other things.) I'd have to do some research, but I believe something on the order of ten perent of Medal of Honor Winners were Conscientious Objectors! (Medics who went unarmed into enemy fire to save lives, etc) It is NOT necessary to fight in order to serve with honor and courage.

FWIW, UncleBill, Alvin York was NOT a Conscientious Objector despite his Quaker faith and numerous attempts to convince him that he should be.

The "most famous" conscientious objector is Muhamed Ali -- Despite the US governments refusal to grant him official CO status. He held firm to his personal beliefs and went to prison for them -- something that requires as much (or more) courage as going into comabat, if a different sort of courage. Sometimes going into combat is is the result of a LACK of courage!

I'm a Vietnam Vet and retired after 21 years active service. I have a great deal of respect for Conscientious Objectors and those who opposed the Vietnam War and the Draft based on their personal beliefs. That doesn't mean I approve of their tactics in every case, nor does it mean I share their beliefs -- only that I understand and respect the courage it took in many cases to stand up for those beliefs.

 

[Spinaroonie]

Re: STG, gotta agree with you

P. S. - I almost forgot probably the most famous CO ever - Alvin York.

Muhammed Ali....

 

[BuzzDupp]

Part of the make up of this country (uSA), is that we all are entitled to our own views and beliefs.Who am I to say what is right or wrong in the eyes of others? All I know is what I believe.oh, btw, for all the europeans who want America to embrace gun control...which part of europe are you from . the part whose ass we saved or the part whose ass we kicked?

 

[bluespoke]

The part that has its own views and beliefs.

The part that has opinions but does not try to force them on everyone else.

The part that sends it Primeminister round the world doing your PR.

The part that was the first to back your war against terrorism.

Just that part.

 

[BuzzDupp]

I'm not trying to force anything on anyone, bluespoke, but it seems a lot of others are trying to do just that to us...
oh, thank you for your reply at least someone is paying attention

 

[Mensa]

Just asking

Perhaps we should limit citizenship to those who are willing to serve. You earn the right to vote through government service.

Does this limitation extend to conscientious objectors who were born in the U.S.?

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

Perhaps we should limit citizenship to those who are willing to serve. You earn the right to vote through government service.

I know this is popular among some people, especially those who have read much Heinlein, and it seems an attractive idea, but it conflicts with a basic ideal I hold dear; that the power to govern derives from those that are the governed. In short, everyone has the right to have a say in how they are governed.

If you say someone has to have some qualification to have input into how they are governed, then for some people there is no difference between requiring government service, requiring literacy, requiring property ownership, requiring a certain gender, requiring a certain race.

With the exception of requiring government service we have had all the other requirements sometime in the history of our country. Those requirements were removed one by one because we recognized that they were an evil, and we are better off now for their removal.