Conscientious Objection

[Zeke]

With the recent prosecution of Lt. Col. Chessani and other soldiers for doing what always happens in wars, I'm advising my sons and those of anyone else I can reach to have nothing to do with the military.  We sent people to war in Iraq.  War, by definition, includes the slaughter of innocent parties who are in the wrong place at the wrong time.  We like to think OUR war is a just and righteous war, and therefor we think we can play by rules and not create any messes.  We're horrified when our "just and righteous" war turns into the messy chaos that all wars eventually become, and we have to have someone to blame.  It can't be anybody too high up in the chain of command because that gets too close to us as voters and citizens, and it can't be anybody at the bottom of the chain of command because, after all, they're our sons and brothers.  No, it has to be somebody far enough removed from both ends of the chain for us to point at them in horror and scream, "There's the guilty party!"

So no hard feelings, Mr. Chessani.  You were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Now where have I heard that before?

[wooderson]

We sent people to war in Iraq.

I didn't.

War, by definition, includes the slaughter of innocent parties who are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Well, gee, maybe we should think a bit harder about starting these wars.

We like to think OUR war is a just and righteous war

Again, who's this 'we'?

[Manedwolf]

We like to think OUR war is a just and righteous war

Again, who's this 'we'?

Americans. I'm starting to think you don't consider yourself one.

[Thor]

I don't buy the "Conscientious Objector" reason in today's military. Not only are there jobs available that has nothing to do with killing people, but......... one doesn't have to enlist/ join to begin with.

[wooderson]

How does being an American citizen make me complicit in the debacle in Iraq, manedwolf?

[Standing Wolf]

Land wars in Asia have an unfortunate way of turning uglier than intended.

[Perd Hapley]

How does being an American citizen make me complicit in the debacle in Iraq, manedwolf?

What part have your senators and representatives played? 

[zahc]

Wait, I thought we were at war with East Asia. We've always been at war with East Asia.

[wooderson]

What part have your senators and representatives played?

Well, the ones I voted for did nothing.

Because they lost.

Which is to say - I protested the debacle, I voted against candidates who supported the debacle, will continue to vote against candidates who support the debacle.

Which is to say, it ain't my war.

[Len Budney]

I don't buy the "Conscientious Objector" reason in today's military. Not only are there jobs available that has nothing to do with killing people, but......... one doesn't have to enlist/ join to begin with.

You're right; in a volunteer army "conscientious objection" is basically moot. The concept was pretty important during all the wars between the Civil War and WWII. The one thing Lincoln has done that I appreciate was allowing for conscientious objection. It was also recognized during the Revolution, notably among the Quakers, but then too there wasn't conscription. Some early drafts of the second amendment actually mentioned conscientious objectors, but the language was withdrawn lest government, for example, ban Quakers owning guns on the grounds that they're "conscientious objectors."

--Len, a gun-owning conscientious objector.

[Perd Hapley]

Which is to say, it ain't my war.

Sorry to hear that.  You'll get over the embarrassment one of these days.   

[wooderson]

An embarrassment of riches in being right, unfortunately.

[Fly320s]

I didn't vote for the war, either.  Nor do I support it, except for the direct actions on the Taliban in Afghanistan.

But it is my war because I am an American.  I support our troops over there and everywhere else. 

However, I do not tolerate "conscientious objectors" in a volunteer military.  Those who refuse to do the job for which they agreed to do deserve to be punished.  Put them in jail for the remainder of their service contract and then give them a dishonorable discharge.

[wooderson]

What does 'supporting our troops' have to do with bearing some (moral?) responsibility for the existence of the war and how it is conducted?

(side-question: where are these people who don't 'support our troops' anyway?)

The original statement excuses the conduct of individual soldiers and events of the war, blaming 'we Americans' for putting them in that horrible position and that's just the way war works and since it's 'our war' we have no standing to criticize. That's nonsense. Americans, collectively, do not take any of the blame (arguably no one but those conducting the war - on an individual or operational level - does).

[HankB]

There's no such thing as a "conscientious objector" in an all-volunteer army; that status is exclusively reserved for draftees.

[jefnvk]

Got no problem with CO's.  That is, if their life to that point has been lived in a way that would be consistant with a CO, they're willing, if given the chance, to take on some non-violence-supporting-position, and THEY DIDN'T VOLUNTEER TO SIGN UP FOR THE ARMY, PICKING UP FREE MONEY UNTIL THEY GOT ASKED TO DO WHAT THEY TOOK a JOB TO DO

[Archie]

My first father-in-law was raised Quaker and was a conscientious objector during the Korea War era.  So he enlisted in the U. S. Army (or at very least didn't fight being drafted) and became a Medic.  He wore a uniform and went where ordered and didn't carry a gun.  He's a slender, bespeckled man with a tenor voice and a large amount of sand.

During my late high school years - right before I enlisted in the Marine Corps - I knew a number of conscientious objectors.  Most of them objected to being killed, wounded or otherwise inconvenienced.  They couldn't claim to object to war on moral grounds; most of them had no morals.  They simply were not going to expose themselves to anything other than their cushy lifestyle.

Anyone who enlists or signs on as an officer has absolutely no claim to CO status.  End of discussion.  Cowardice is not the same as conscientious objection to violence.  Not having the moral fibre or fortitude to serve one's country is not the same either.

My elder son served in the U. S. Navy for four years on board an aircraft carrier.  My younger son is in the Army stationed in Korean right now.

"Who doesn't support the troops?"  Someone asked.  Well, for starters those members of Congress who are stalling funding the U. S. military RIGHT NOW in a attempt to get soldiers killed so they can claim "...the war in Iraq is going badly".  They know the surge is working, they know we are winning and they know they're going to lose big time if they don't get some more Americans killed to make President Bush and by extention all Republicans look bad.

Those are who don't support the troops.  And those who support those members of Congress. 

[roo_ster]

What does 'supporting our troops' have to do with bearing some (moral?) responsibility for the existence of the war and how it is conducted?

(side-question: where are these people who don't 'support our troops' anyway?)

All over.  Here's a start:

http://www.godfuckingdamnit.com/story.html?story_id=1332

http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?action=profile;u=311

http://paperdove.org/drupal2/?q=node/99

The following folks are explicit in their hatred of the USA, so I think it can be deduced that the do not support the troops:
http://www.chomsky.info/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Noam_Chomskyb

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=what_the_left_thinks_howard_zinn,_part_i&ns=DennisPrager&dt=09/12/2006&page=full&comments=true
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=what_the_left_thinks_howard_zinn,_part_ii&ns=DennisPrager&dt=09/19/2006&page=full&comments=true
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Zinn

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

lots of em in congress too

[wooderson]

Well, for starters those members of Congress who are stalling funding the U. S. military RIGHT NOW in a attempt to get soldiers killed so they can claim "...the war in Iraq is going badly".

Oh for God's sake. Yes, that's exactly how "stalling funding" works - soldiers are abandoned without transport and ammunition, left to die.

Do you really believe this nonsense?


...

The following folks are explicit in their hatred of the USA, so I think it can be deduced that the do not support the troops:

Hahaha. No, really. That's cute.

Which passages, exactly, can be found to support these claims? I ask because I have read quite a bit of Zinn, and a bit less of Chomsky - and there's not a single sentence I can find from either that indicates they revel in the death of Americans, or even that they "hate America."

So your big "Lots of people hate the troops!" are two blog posts and a member profile (where I see no indication that he hates America, the troops, etc.).

Well done.

[Gewehr98]

A subtle reminder, folks.

We attack the arguments, not the arguer. 

There will not be a second reminder.   

[Boomhauer]

Ah, yes, Howard Zinn.

I had to read one of his books on early American history...

A People's History of the United States

I had to read that trash. He'd write about whatever the chapter was about for a couple of pages, then wander off into a rant.

Here's the deal, IMHO. If you hate the US with the bitterness that you claim, then LEAVE! Go to the socalist utopia that pleases you the most and see how you like it!

[wooderson]

Here's the deal, IMHO. If you hate the US with the bitterness that you claim, then LEAVE!

Do you see a difference between "hating the US" and being angry that it doesn't live up to what it could be?

[Nitrogen]

Here's the deal, IMHO. If you hate the US with the bitterness that you claim, then LEAVE!

Do you see a difference between "hating the US" and being angry that it doesn't live up to what it could be?

Wooderson beat me to something I wanted to point out, so I'll expand upon it.

I really have a problem with people saying "YOU OBVIOUSLY HATE THE USA! GET OUT!" if they disagree with some policy.

This argument makes no sense to me.  Our founding fathers disagreed with how their colony was run.  The loyalists would have told them, "YOU DON'T LIKE IT, GET OUT!"
Instead, they were patriots.  They fought for what they believed in, and shaped the country into what it is today.

People that argue and fight for what they believe in are patriots.  Feel free to disagree with them; feel free to tell them they are wrong, and explain why.

Questioning their Americanism and "Patriotism" is disgusting and unconscionable, and those that do it should be ashamed of themselves.

Now back on topic.

I have to agree that conscientious objection in an all-volunteer army is silly.  If you object to killing people for your country, you shouldn't join the armed forces.  If you object to serving your country (in just or unjust wars) you shouldn't join up.

There are plenty of other ways to serve your country other than joining the armed forces.

[Sergeant Bob]

I think most everyone hear missed the whole point of the OP and just want to argue the technicalities and definitions. What more could we expect?