gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (05/19/91)
As long as you believe that cowards are worse than killers -- as
long as you are more afraid of cowardice than killing -- you will
have war, because it is a simple matter to manipulate a person
with such beliefs and feelings into attacking a stranger as a
matter of duty. It has been done again and again, for thousands
of years.
You may believe in war. It has many admirers. It is being
celebrated, currently, all over our country. However, you must
deal with the fact that human technology has advanced to the
point where the human race can annihilate itself. As Albert
Einstein said:
"Formerly, man could not do as he desired. Now,
he can do as he desires; and he must change his
desires, or perish."
Is continuing the romance (or the unwilling marriage) with the
institution of war worth it?
Because if it isn't, if we are going to have to start thinking
about peace, we are also going to have to start changing our
values. And that includes our values about "cowards" and
"cowardice."
--
Gordon Fitch | gcf@mydog.uucp | uunet!cmcl2.nyu.edu!panix!mydog!gcfgrossg@patriot.rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) (05/28/91)
In article <9105181851.6056@mydog.UUCP> gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes: >As long as you believe that cowards are worse than killers -- as >long as you are more afraid of cowardice than killing -- you will >have war, because it is a simple matter to manipulate a person >with such beliefs and feelings into attacking a stranger as a >matter of duty. It has been done again and again, for thousands >of years. Gordon, the issue is not one of love for war or fear of cowardice more than fear of killing another. This is a red-herring on your part, and I would expect much better from you. The point is one of personal duty, honor, and integrity. When you give your oath, your word of honor, that you will fulfill a certain responsibility or post, is it not incumbent upon you to do so regardless of the personal cost? If you for one moment think that any of us really found great pleasure in war and the carnage that takes place in war, then rethink your position. I will not speak for others on this group (soc.veterans), but as for me, war was the most distasteful and wasteful enterprize that I've been involved in -- except maybe cleaning out a septic tank. This is not to minimize the great heroism and glory that men and women sometimes attain to as a result of being in war. To ignore such is to ignore the very core of the human heart. No human ever rises above to make an heroic and courageous stand except when faced with extraordinary circumstances, be it war or something else. To the case in point, the men and women who refused to fulfill their obligation. I do not argue that a person can, through a veriety of means, come to the decision that they cannot in good conscience bear arms against another human being. I can respect that. However, so far, I have seen nothing that merits my reconsideration of my original opinion concerning the ones who refused to go to the Gulf. These people are merely shirkers of the worst sort -- they have no personal intergrity and honor. They are the ones who raised their arms to take the oath. No one was standing there holding a gun to their head. And they did this since the repeal of the draft and the institution of the all volunteer military. During the years of the draft, the status of CO was one that had honor to it. These people have turned it into something akin to an epithet. Why!? The answer is simple, in my personal estimation, they chickened out. The thought of putting in on the line took far more guts than any of them had. And now that it is time to pay for even this stand, they are screaming foul and seeking help. This is why I don';t believe in their claims of CO-hood. If they were really opposed to war and killing (which is the CO-stand as I understand it), they would stand tall and proud in the courage of their convictions. They would not whimper and whine before the court of military officers or the court of public opinion. Yet, what do we see but a bunching of sniveling cowards proclaiming that they are innocent because of their "new found views" of pacifism. Did Thoreau whimper and whine when he had to pay the price for his stand? Did Rev. Martin Luther King whimper and whine when he had to pay the price for his stand? Need I point to more men and women who had personal honor and integrity and a sense of personal duty? These are heroes not because they held to positions that I agree with, because some of the views I disagree with vigorously; they are heroes because they had the sense of personal duty and the personal honor and integrity to stand by their words, to maintain the course of their convictions regardless of the personal cost to them. And they did not whimper and whine like some delicate little flowers. And that is what the ire is all about. That is what has me sick and disgusted with these individuals. They are cowards who wanted a free ride until it was time to pay for it. Then they tried to escape their responsibilities. Well, sorry about that, Charlie! What ever befalls them is probably far less than they deserve. Gene Gross
alberti@donald.cs.umn.edu (Timothy Fay) (05/29/91)
grossg@patriot.rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) writes: >Did Thoreau whimper and whine when he had to pay the price for his >stand? Did Rev. Martin Luther King whimper and whine when he had to >pay the price for his stand? Need I point to more men and women who >had personal honor and integrity and a sense of personal duty? These >are heroes not because they held to positions that I agree with, >because some of the views I disagree with vigorously; they are heroes >because they had the sense of personal duty and the personal honor and >integrity to stand by their words, to maintain the course of their >convictions regardless of the personal cost to them. And they did not >whimper and whine like some delicate little flowers. I got through most of this post until I came across this paragraph. I'll leave the obvious contradictions for others to hack apart. I'll just point out that Thoreau and King (and others, like Gandhi) were forced to "pay the price" for their stands because cruel, hateful, vindictive people persecuted and, in two of the three cases, killed them. How does this compare with the behavior of the U.S. Military (and its supporters) toward the handful of "cowards" who refused to kill on command? Some resisters, still in shackles, were believed to have drowned when a Navy boat sank in the Persian Gulf shortly before the war with Iraq started. Would Thoreau, King, or Gandhi have approved of something like that? I doubt it. If this nation's military was as great as some claim, it would understand that the resisters made a mistake when they signed up, and the military made a mistake by accepting them. It should not compound that mistake by needlessly punishing these people. The people whose names you invoked were heroes because, among other things, they possessed great understanding and compassion. Perhaps those who want the book thrown at the resisters could learn something from them. -- ---------- "If we don't succeed, we risk failure." -Dan Quayle
Arne.Gehlhaar@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de (Arne Gehlhaar) (05/29/91)
grossg@patriot.rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) writes: >In article <9105181851.6056@mydog.UUCP> gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes: >>As long as you believe that cowards are worse than killers -- as >>long as you are more afraid of cowardice than killing -- you will >>have war, because it is a simple matter to manipulate a person >>with such beliefs and feelings into attacking a stranger as a >>matter of duty. It has been done again and again, for thousands >>of years. >Gordon, the issue is not one of love for war or fear of cowardice more >than fear of killing another. This is a red-herring on your part, and >I would expect much better from you. >The point is one of personal duty, honor, and integrity. When you >give your oath, your word of honor, that you will fulfill a certain >responsibility or post, is it not incumbent upon you to do so >regardless of the personal cost? If you for one moment think that any >of us really found great pleasure in war and the carnage that takes >place in war, then rethink your position. I think that the problem is, that most people are not aware what their post, duty or whatever really implies. It's kinda like shopping in a supermarket, where they make you buy things you don't really need by the means of advertisement. I don't think they tell you when you enlist that it makes a hell of a mess when you shoot someone, only how honorable it is. It seems to me that you put far too much weight onto the oath you give in the military, in comparison to the oath that you give in church when you get married... (just compare the number of divorces with those of people refusing to go to war. --not that I know any figures, but I do think divorces far outnumber 'desertations'-- ) >I will not speak for others on this group (soc.veterans), but as for >me, war was the most distasteful and wasteful enterprize that I've >been involved in -- except maybe cleaning out a septic tank. This is >not to minimize the great heroism and glory that men and women >sometimes attain to as a result of being in war. To ignore such is to >ignore the very core of the human heart. No human ever rises above to >make an heroic and courageous stand except when faced with >extraordinary circumstances, be it war or something else. So what are you saying ??? We should have wars, in order to give people a chance to show how heroic they are ??? Of course people take pride in whatever they get a medal for. So ? >To the case in point, the men and women who refused to fulfill their >obligation. I do not argue that a person can, through a veriety of >means, come to the decision that they cannot in good conscience bear >arms against another human being. I can respect that. However, so >far, I have seen nothing that merits my reconsideration of my original >opinion concerning the ones who refused to go to the Gulf. These >people are merely shirkers of the worst sort -- they have no personal >intergrity and honor. >They are the ones who raised their arms to take the oath. No one was >standing there holding a gun to their head. I would claim that a great number of people might be fully aware what it actually meant to enlist. I'd say, some see it as 'easy' or at least 'sure' money. How many housewives who enlisted as reserves in the US army for the few extra bucks were caught up with children at home, because they never thought that it could come to their mobilization. When they then suddenly realize "My god, this is not what I enlisted for ..." could you call that cowardice??? [stuff about cowardice and heroism deleted] I dare say you pushed it a little too far. There are actually some human beings which might not quite agree with the idea of how we all should be (brave, couragoues, strong, with a one-way mind, dutiful and the lot) according to what you were saying. >And that is what the ire is all about. That is what has me sick and >disgusted with these individuals. They are cowards who wanted a free >ride until it was time to pay for it. Then they tried to escape their >responsibilities. Well, sorry about that, Charlie! What ever befalls >them is probably far less than they deserve. Well, wasn't it a sence on duty, which made the SS officers of the Nazis kill the jews ? Where does you philosophy stand there ?? Arne
b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) (05/29/91)
In article <1991May29.055718.25895@cs.umn.edu>, alberti@donald.cs.umn.edu
(Timothy Fay) writes...
TF> [...] Would Thoreau, King, or Gandhi
TF> have approved of something like that? I doubt it.
I like Thoreau's writing since I believe in personal responsibility
and family over big goverment and globalism anyday, but Thoreau's
disobedience of spending one night in jail for trivial matter's is
hardly worthy of standing beside King or Gandhi. Willingness to
take a stand, and commitment to a cause are honorable traits, which
should be encouraged. King & Gandhi merit honor for just such
traits. Men of integrity, commitment and loyalty certainly have it
in themselves to "understand" the shortcomings of the immature or
confused. They would not overlook disloyalty to their brothers and
sisters.
TF> If this nation's
TF> military was as great as some claim, it would understand that the
TF> resisters made a mistake when they signed up, and the military made
TF> a mistake by accepting them. It should not compound that mistake by
TF> needlessly punishing these people.
"This nation's military," is an abstraction. Those good souls, who like
our firemen and police, stand vigilant against criminals, fanatics, and
power mongers, do so through diligence, discipline, and drill. There is
plenty of time to think out your beliefs before the call. When it comes
that is the time your fellow ** warriors ** need you to act not debate.
The profession of war is something we need to be clear on, so that our
young men and women know even before they join what is required of them.
Discipline and punishment mean the same. There should be no doubt about
what is required when the call is given.
TF> The people whose names you invoked were heroes because, among other
TF> things, they possessed great understanding and compassion. Perhaps
TF> those who want the book thrown at the resisters could learn something
TF> from them.
We do understand, many hundreds of times during the drills and prepara-
tion, you get that chance. It is not compassionate to indulge a coward.
It is not compassionate toward the people who rely on him, both those
in the breech and those at home.
What would you say of a fireman who fails his team? The "resisters", as
you call them and show your real agenda, deserve the punishment they'll
get.
Shall we talk of real cowardness now. The cowardness that makes "life"
shallow by fearing death. The cowardness that thinks shortsightedly that
mankind will all be benevolent if left to their own devices. What is
life without love or truth or freedom? War is a terrible waste, we all
agree. Every billion spent on arms would better be spent on that which
uplifts us, every drop of blood and sweat better spent on improving
our condition. No matter, life is short for each of us, and for all we
know for the race as well. It's possible that despite our best efforts
that reality may end anytime. I have to live with myself now, and after
death the only thing I might carry with me is my experience. I know I
was there when my brothers depended on me. Can you say the same?
Most Sincerely,
Stephen Tice (b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu) "life's a stage ... W.S."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Navy: SEAL2(86-87) Apache(85) NWS-satcom(82-84)
AAWC-GTMO(80-81) IUWG2(79) Nuke-ET(77-78)scw@ollie.SEAS.UCLA.EDU (05/30/91)
In article <1991May29.055718.25895@cs.umn.edu> alberti@donald.cs.umn.edu (Timothy Fay) writes: >grossg@patriot.rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) writes: > >I'll leave [...] behavior of the U.S. Military >(and its supporters) toward the handful of "cowards" who refused to >kill on command? Some resisters, still in shackles, were believed >to have drowned when a Navy boat sank in the Persian Gulf shortly >before the war with Iraq started. BULLSHIT. You don't carry prisoners (of that sort) on a Liberty boat, PERIOD. This is typical of the bald face lies that you folks continually trot out to support you unsupportable position. Why don't you try the truth for a change. I would have more respect for you (general alt.activism folks) if you were supporting those poor deluded swabbies that are up on muntiny charges. At least they have the courage of their convictions. > ...]Would Thoreau, King, or Gandhi >have approved of something like that? I doubt it. If this nation's >military was as great as some claim, it would understand that the >resisters made a mistake when they signed up, and the military made >a mistake by accepting them. It should not compound that mistake by >needlessly punishing these people. No, it IS important to punish those people, lest we waste further resources (limited, and growing more so) on training people to be good infantry, tankers and arty types (did you know that it takes about a year to produce a reasonably well trained infantryman?) and then have them say. Opps sorry, I don't want to fight in this war, I just joined for the bennies. Those people didn't just make a mistake, they lied, repeatedly. They took an oath, on their 'sacred honor' to 'protect ond defend the Constitution, from all enemies, both foregin and domestic...and to obey all lawfull orders of those appointed over me...so help me God'. In so doing they gave up some of their rights, they deligated their authority to decide which wars to fight to Congress and the Executive branch. I suspect that they will be convicted of Missing Movement and AWOL (Absent With Out Leave), their sentence will almost assuredly be 6/6 and a kick (6 months detention, at hard labor; 6 months loss of all pay and allowences; and a Bad Conduct Discharge). This is no more or less than they deserve. I also suspect that the 6 months detention will be waived, and that they will be discharged quickly. ----- Stephen C. Woods; UCLA SEASNET; 2567 BH;LA CA 90024; (213)-825-8614 UUCP: ...{ibmsupt,hao!cepu}!ollie}!scw Internet:scw@SEAS.UCLA.EDU
gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (05/30/91)
I'm continuing this thread in soc.veterans because my own experience as a soldier -- three years in the U.S. Army Infantry -- taught me more about political power than any book, discussion, or other experience. If you don't think the newsgroup applies, take it out of the newsgroup line if you follow up. gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch): | >As long as you believe that cowards are worse than killers -- as | >long as you are more afraid of cowardice than killing -- you will | >have war, because it is a simple matter to manipulate a person | >with such beliefs and feelings into attacking a stranger as a | >matter of duty. It has been done again and again, for thousands | >of years. grossg@patriot.rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross): | Gordon, the issue is not one of love for war or fear of cowardice more | than fear of killing another. This is a red-herring on your part, and | I would expect much better from you. What, the Sermon on the Mount? | The point is one of personal duty, honor, and integrity. When you | give your oath, your word of honor, that you will fulfill a certain | responsibility or post, is it not incumbent upon you to do so | regardless of the personal cost? ... [oh, go back and read the | article if you didn't see it] .... "The point is one of personal duty, honor, and integrity." However, these words are fundamentally meaningless. Duty, honor, and integrity are social, not personal. There must have been a hundred articles denouncing and reviling the "cowardice" of the COs, yet I would bet dollars to dogbiscuits not one of the authors knows one of the COs, much less can look into his heart and see whether he is a coward or what the state of his personal honor is. "Cowardice" is a social invention, and its use is to compel desired behavior in others. What is the desired behavior, in this case? Submission to military authority, the point of which is -- let's face it -- to kill or subjugate other people. This ugly fact has to be dressed up, so we have much talk of oaths and duty. Can we get away from the dim, misty tribal forests, the blowing of horns, and the burning of living sacrifices in trees? What really has happened is that a number of people made a contract with the Marines, which they broke. If we're not going to make a religion out of warfare, then all we've got is a broken contract. The contract may cover its breaking; many do. For instance, many have clauses specifying penalty on non-performance, or have provisions under which either of the participants can terminate the contract given notice, payment, or both. The contractors also have a right to say bad things about the other party. In terms of the Marines, the Marine Corps can reasonably sue the COs for some or all of the compensation they received, and give them a dishonorable discharge (say bad things about them). This business of putting them in jail, and these fantasies posted on the net about shooting them or gang-raping them in the showers, are part of making war into a religion -- a particularly repulsive religion, in my opinion. So is talk of "oaths" and "cowardice." As I said, if you don't clear this stuff out of your heads, you'll have war forever, because the world is full of psychopaths who will use it. -- Gordon Fitch * uunet!cmcl2.nyu.edu!panix!mydog!gcf Bx 1238 Bowling Green Station / NYC 10274 "All that is put together falls apart. Work out your salvation with diligence."