Someone must have hit a nerve, somewhere. My draft number, as it happened, was very high, unlike several of my friends. I had told myself I'd go to Canada if my number was low, and had my passport ready, quietly telling some friends, and hinting at it with my family. Whether I would have had the courage to go there is an open question. As events turned out, it didn't become necessary to leave family, friends, girlfriends, fellow students and co-workers, a church or synagogue, had I belonged, or the myriad of things we take for granted. Texas weather, with the occasional T-shirt in January. You know, things that would largely not be in the cards up in Canada. I didn't have to see if I had the courage to leave those things, in order to stay true to my moral convictions. I think it's a pity that you can't see the courage involved when making such a decision, when it's based on your personal morality, and not whether you possessed personal courage of another sort, which is something altogether different. Perhaps it's because you've been lucky to have had a simpler set of choices in your life, when it comes to war. Keep D&D Civil.
Hehehe after pages of name calling on your part. I'm sure you don't. How about the media and the American people? Just sentences after decrying insults and the personal. Consistent in your support for elective war by others, but your level of self awareness is not "consistent". You'e right I think people should volunteer and put their money where their mouth is. Mr taught not to volunteer for anything as the highest form of honor, demands total sacrifice or someone else has no principles Again, not consistent on the self awareness scale. FYI I was appealing my CO status when the draft ended and was never called to go to my hearing. I was planning to go to Canada if I lost.
Yet you wouldn't have stayed and gone to jail for your principles. That option might involve some moral courage of your convictions. Running off to another country? Meh.
I always like it when Hayes has to backtrack on previous statements he made. Not that it's hypocritical per say, more that it makes it a lot harder to take his proud touting of "factual clarity" as anything more than braggadocio. I also like how he changes other people's arguments, i.e., in this case going from "moral obligation to avoid unjust war" to "opt out of anything you find that is unpopular". Makes it hard to take debate with him seriously.
I haven't backtracked on anything. You and I can see the same event differently. That's part of debate. But if it bothers you, put me on your ignore list.
Let's see: Note, that I did not say it was hypocritical. It's important to me merely because you often go to great lengths to lamblast another poster for being "inconsistent" and/or "jumping to conclusions". Woah Hayes - don't be so pissy. I disagree yes, but always appreciate the relative civilty with which you debate. We have our own views, but I do think it important to hear all sides, lest one become ignorant. On that note, I have not even given an opinion yet on the article originating this thread. Hayes is wrong
Mr. taught to not volunteer for what he claims to believe in. I would be embarrassed to admit as much. Oh well.
That is the problem. Like Colbert said about Bush. He is "steadfast" or "consistent" , whatever. Believes the same thing on Wednesday that he believed on Monday, regardless of what happened or what we find out on Tuesay..
Sigh. Yes, I said if drafted I would fight. Then someone said 'oh yeah well you would fit in well in Nazi Germany.' So I responded that this wasn't Nazi Germany. Since there seemed to be some confusion over the context of my statement I went further and said that there might be a situation where I wouldn't - like if there was a COUP and a fascist government here (in which case I'd probably be fighting for the resistance). I think that's a big stretch to say I'm being inconsistent. My original statement was talking about what I would do 'in this world.' I guess I should have made a caveat originally that I reserve the right to clarify if someone projects me into some other world. I am pissy because I don't appreciate people like glynch questioning whether I have principles - then I subsequently lash out in kind - and then I regret doing it because its not really productive. Fair enough?
Not sure how its a good point. I believe the US should have intervened in Iraq. That doesn't mean I have to be a soldier. If there intervention necessitated a draft - I would go and fight. There is no inconsistency there. Pot meet kettle.
I don't think it has to be something as extreme as a genocidal fascism in order to be morally opposed to a war. Agree/disagree? Quite.
Likewise, I believe the US should not have intervened in Iraq. That doesn't mean that I have to go to jail if drafted. If the intervention necessitated a draft - I would not go and fight. There is no inconsistency there. Simply, one is "not volunteering" the other is "avoiding forced volunteering". Hrrmmmmm - let me try putting this another way. The accusation (by you) is that being morally opposed to a war implies one should go to jail to protest it. Yet you are angry with those who proclaim you should "volunteer" since you support the war so much. That is rather inconsistent, IMHO.
I can't think of a war/intervention the US has been in where there has been a draft that I would have dodged the draft. I'm not sure what else to say about it. I could potentially conjure a situation where I would - as in a coup. Other than that I don't think so. That is the dual nature of my position - there is a reason, a debt to the country to answer when called - and also a reason to stand by your fellow citizens who've answered the call. That is what distinguishes Iraq from a draft situation. Because another citizen volunteers for something does not require me to also volunteer. If the need is great the draft will come and I would go.
I would take this tradeoff simply because it takes out the (IMO) silly argument that I must volunteer for Iraq to avoid hypocrisy if I support the intervention. However, since glynch insists on stating that it is the case that I should volunteer to stand by my principles then he should go to jail for his - he should have stood his ground and refused to fight - not run away. Not at all. That is my response to those like glynch who make the 'volunteer' claim. IF they are to be consistent and not hypocritical then they should have stood their principled ground, not run away. It is an indict of glynch's logic - while he claims the high ground he did not himself live up to the standard he declares I should meet. I'm not sure I agree with this - but it is not because you would inconsistent in your opinion. Its because there is a difference between not volunteering and not answering the draft.
So we each are policymakers onto ourselves? I think probably gets to the heart of the debate. I think often of Socrates death, where he stayed despite the ease with which he could have fled. Because although the sentence may have been unjust - brought by jealous enemies - he recognized that he had lived in the bounty provided by the democracy, and should thereby abide by the decision rather than circumvent it. I also see the other side that we can protest unjust laws - but i'm not convinced we work outside the law to change those - but rather should work inside the system to do so. None of that is 'fact' but it is a debate I have with myself on occasion.
Most certainly. And that is (would be) a fun debate. Let's not forget the immortal last words of Socrates: "I drank what?!?" Seriously, I think that Socrates also illustrates the dangers in operating strictly within the confines of governmental authority. Corruption makes such a venture more complicated than simply "fighting the system". Certainly you're not arguing that Socrates' death was justified? One might even argue that his death was his grandest foray into revealing the ignorance and anti-intellectualism of the Athenian elite.
So there is no contract to abide by the decisions of 'the people' - then what is the point of having laws at all? The thief certainly feels they are justified in stealing, the murderer in killing. Certainly I am not arguing that Socrates death was just. Yet it was virtuous for him to put his principles above his life. His decision strikes at the heart of the above debate - whether one should abide the decisions in a democracy only when they are in your favor or even when they are not.
Smedley Darlington Butler, Major General - United States Marine Corps [Retired], was born in West Chester, Pa., July 30, 1881, educated at Haverford School, married Ethel C. Peters, of Philadelphia, June 30, 1905. He was awarded two congressional medals of honor, for capture of Vera Cruz, Mexico, 1914, and for capture of Ft. Riviere, Haiti, 1917. He was also awarded the Distinguished Service Medal in 1919. He joined the Marine Corps when the Spanish American War broke out, earned the Brevette Medal during the Boxer Rebellion in China, saw action in Central America, and in France during World War I was promoted to Major General. Smedley Butler served his country for 34 years, yet he spoke against American armed intervention into the affairs of sovereign nations. Throughout his life, Butler demonstrated that true patriotism does not mean blind allegiance to government policies with which one does not agree. Unhappy with the Marine Corps bureaucracy, he took a leave of absence to act as director of Department of Safety, Philadelphia, 1932 but encountered much opposition from government officials who were in league with the illegal liquor syndicates. In Oct. 1, 1931 General Butler retired. To earn extra income he became a lecturer throughout the 1930's, was a Republican Candidate for Senate in 1932, and was asked to head an alternative government by right-wing industrialists. He died of cancer at Naval Hospital, Philadelphia, June 21, 1940 Producer Andy Lanset profiles the two-time Congressional Medal of Honor winner whose words still have resonance today. 1914. Maj. Butler was eminent and conspicuous in command of his battalion. He exhibited courage and skill in leading his men through the action of the 22d and in the final occupation of the city. Smedley Butler on Interventionism -- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC. War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag. I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket. There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism. It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service. I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents. Capture of Fort Riviere, Haiti, 1915, by D. J. Neary; illustrations of Maj Smedley Butler, Sgt Iams, and Pvt Gross (USMC art collection) HAITIAN CAMPAIGN 1915 As Commanding Officer of detachments from the 5th, 13th, 23d Companies and the marine and sailor detachment from the U.S.S. Connecticut, Maj. Butler led the attack on Fort Riviere, Haiti, 17 November 1915. Following a concentrated drive, several different detachments of marines gradually closed in on the old French bastion fort in an effort to cut off all avenues of retreat for the Caco bandits. Reaching the fort on the southern side where there was a small opening in the wall, Maj. Butler gave the signal to attack and marines from the 15th Company poured through the breach, engaged the Cacos in hand-to-hand combat, took the bastion and crushed the Caco resistance. Throughout this perilous action, Maj. Butler was conspicuous for his bravery and forceful leadership.
