SWP's back said:
It was actually lighthearted (in much the same way as my idea to provatise the police and army in the other thread) fella but seeing as you pulled at the thread I shall go on.
I have already said I would only be an A) in the event of something like WWII where our borders were threatened (as opposed to a Vietnam style situation). There would be many ways to help the war effort without having to kill people, would you object to any role in the nations defence?
I couldn't have looked myself in the mirror if I had been this age in the 40's and avoided having to do the dirty work. Nor would I have been able to look the returning troops in the face when they returned from the war. I would have reaped their benefits whilst safe and sound at home.
I don't think I would enjoy it, I am sure I'd be scared witless, you only have to go paintballing (where the worst the happens is a few painful bruises) to realise how scary being in a firefight must be (and scary is underselling it some). But I would feel it was my duty to my peers and further generations to defend our borders as my grandfathers did before me.
That is an admirable attitude and outlook that I can understand totally,and I have nothing but respect for those who pay the ultimate price.
War is a horrible business that should always be avoided whenever possible,as there are seldom any winners other than the arms industry and those companies who hoover up the rebuilding contracts for wherever has been reduced to rubble.
But if individual freedom is to be enshrined as a basic human right,then we must respect the wishes of those who choose not to engage in combat.
Maybe they should be offered some civilian role in the war that does not involve actual fighting as a compromise - I believe that military chaplains are exempt from frontline duties on similar compassionate grounds,so already such a non-combative distinction exists in the armed forces.
I just hope that none of us are ever forced to make the decision in our lifetimes.