Conscription. Would you fight?

2sheikhs said:
Gaylord du Bois said:
Ask me now and I'd say no. Ask me seventy years ago and I'd say yes.
Fuckin'ell how old are you GDB?
I was a hand grenade in my previous life.

My original point being that the social conscience at the time and the immediate threat from an imminent invasion coupled with daily aerial bombardment drove many to sign up without conscription. I'm pretty sure I would've been one too.
 
I would never fight for something I don't believe in. I'd rather stay at home and play with my daughter and her dolls and have a tea party.

Call me a coward I don't care wars end people forget, least I would have all my limbs. The way this country has forgotten about the veterans from the wars and the heroes/victims from Iraq and Afghanistan wars. I would rather WALK round (with my own limbs) with a white feather in my pocket for the rest of my life.

Also you should only be able to join the army at 21 or over, too many young people losing lives getting injured in wars they don't understand.

They call them terrorists what men in sandals? Seriously! What would most of us do if our country got invaded and all you see is your country's buildings getting destroyed! Neighbours getting killed, kids losing limbs, hospitals over crowded. Anyone of us would be out in a second if anything happened to our kids our houses. We can just about cope with cyclists and dog shit on the road it's all about oil, weapons of mass destruction my arse.
 
2sheikhs said:
If you were ever asked to take up arms and fight for your country, would you:
A: Of course. It would be my civic duty.
B: A possible conscientious objector. Depends who the enemy is.
C: Under no circumstances. I'm a strict pacifist.

Consciption isn't exactly being "asked" lol

Out of principle I would refuse. I would however fight a defensive war. I wouldn't need to be "asked"
 
Surely most wars are waged to free a country from tyrrany and/or an oppressive and/or aggressive regime that does not respect the borders and rights of other sovereign nations.
Agreed so far?
Good.
So we then 'liberate' these countries by military intervention,and restore their democracy and freedom,and hold the tyrants to account.
Again,all well and good.
So these countries are liberated in the name of freedom.
Is one of the basic tenets of that very freedom the right not to be coerced against your will to fight and possibly kill another human being?
Because if the option to refuse to go to war is denied to the citizen,then their 'freedom' is a freedom in name only,because when push comes to shove the state can force you to act against your conscience,and that is ultimately no kind of freedom at all.
Some folk on here seem to have issues as to what conscience even means,so they resort to the word cowardice instead,but those who simply cannot square killing another human being with their conscience are not cowards,they are just staying true to their fundamental belief that taking the life of another person is morally wrong,and I support and respect any person who cannot sanction this.
By the same token,I respect those brave enough to fight and possibly die for what they believe in.
I really don't see how or why respecting the moral stance of an individual is such a difficult concept - if any war can be justified,then it is to restore freedom.
Any such freedom must include respecting the human rights of it's people,and the right not to be forced to kill is one of them in my opinion.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.