Xref: utzoo trial.talk.politics.peace:120 alt.activism.d:748 talk.politics.misc:70294 soc.men:30845 soc.veterans:205
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!ucselx!bionet!rutgers!cmcl2!panix!mydog!gcf
From: gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: trial.talk.politics.peace,alt.activism.d,talk.politics.misc,soc.men,soc.veterans
Subject: Re: Conscience and Cowardice
Message-ID: <9105292014.4104@mydog.UUCP>
Date: 30 May 91 00:14:02 GMT
References: <9105181851.6056@mydog.UUCP><1991May28.143655.18701@dg-rtp.dg.com>
Lines: 69

I'm continuing this thread in soc.veterans because my own
experience as a soldier -- three years in the U.S. Army Infantry
-- taught me more about political power than any book, discussion,
or other experience.  If you don't think the newsgroup applies, 
take it out of the newsgroup line if you follow up.

gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch):
| >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.

grossg@patriot.rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross):
| 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.

What, the Sermon on the Mount?

| 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?   ... [oh, go back and read the
| article if you didn't see it] ....

"The point is one of personal duty, honor, and integrity."
However, these words are fundamentally meaningless.  Duty,
honor, and integrity are social, not personal.  There must have
been a hundred articles denouncing and reviling the "cowardice"
of the COs, yet I would bet dollars to dogbiscuits not one of
the authors knows one of the COs, much less can look into his
heart and see whether he is a coward or what the state of his
personal honor is.  "Cowardice" is a social invention, and its
use is to compel desired behavior in others.  What is the
desired behavior, in this case?  Submission to military
authority, the point of which is -- let's face it -- to kill
or subjugate other people.

This ugly fact has to be dressed up, so we have much talk of
oaths and duty.  Can we get away from the dim, misty tribal
forests, the blowing of horns, and the burning of living
sacrifices in trees?  What really has happened is that a number
of people made a contract with the Marines, which they broke.
If we're not going to make a religion out of warfare, then all
we've got is a broken contract.  The contract may cover its
breaking; many do.  For instance, many have clauses specifying
penalty on non-performance, or have provisions under which 
either of the participants can terminate the contract given 
notice, payment, or both.  The contractors also have a right 
to say bad things about the other party.  In terms of the 
Marines, the Marine Corps can reasonably sue the COs for some 
or all of the compensation they received, and give them a 
dishonorable discharge (say bad things about them).  This 
business of putting them in jail, and these fantasies posted 
on the net about shooting them or gang-raping them in the 
showers, are part of making war into a religion -- a 
particularly repulsive religion, in my opinion.

So is talk of "oaths" and "cowardice."  As I said, if you don't
clear this stuff out of your heads, you'll have war forever,
because the world is full of psychopaths who will use it.  

--
Gordon Fitch   *   uunet!cmcl2.nyu.edu!panix!mydog!gcf
      Bx 1238 Bowling Green Station / NYC 10274
       "All that is put together falls apart.  
       Work out your salvation with diligence."