Xref: utzoo trial.talk.politics.peace:117 alt.activism.d:737 talk.politics.misc:70246 soc.men:30792 soc.veterans:194
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!unido!uniol!Arne.Gehlhaar
From: Arne.Gehlhaar@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de (Arne Gehlhaar)
Newsgroups: trial.talk.politics.peace,alt.activism.d,talk.politics.misc,soc.men,soc.veterans
Subject: Re: Conscience and Cowardice
Message-ID: <5633@uniol.UUCP>
Date: 29 May 91 11:18:00 GMT
References: <9105181851.6056@mydog.UUCP> <1991May28.143655.18701@dg-rtp.dg.com>
Followup-To: trial.talk.politics.peace
Organization: University of Oldenburg, Germany
Lines: 83

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