Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10    5/3/83; site cornell.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!ddw
From: ddw@cornell.UUCP (David Wright)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re:  The draft
Message-ID: <5076@cornell.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 18-Aug-83 22:24:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: cornell.5076
Posted: Thu Aug 18 22:24:56 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 19-Aug-83 04:47:12 EDT
Sender: ddw@cornell.UUCP
Organization: Cornell Computer Science
Lines: 81

From: ddw (David Wright)
To: net-flame

I'm opposed to war and the draft myself, but God help us all if David
Wexelblat represents the kind of arguments we're going to be hearing
on the subject.

     Here's an original idea -- abolish war.  In this so-called "civilized"
     day and age, you would think we could find better things to do with
     our time, money, and knowledge.  (Help the poor, sick, unemployed,
     handicapped, etc., etc.)  Killing is stupid.  Therefore, sending cannon
     fodder to die, just for the the purpose of adding more ground to your
     dominion is even stupider.  And forcing people to be in that military,
     even in a non-combat role, if they have a moral obligation against
     killing is unjust, unfair, and downright unkind.

Very true.  Now, why don't you go over to Libya and explain this to
Kaddafi?  I'm sure once he's heard your stirring words, he'll say,
"David, you're right and I was wrong.  I'm pulling all my soldiers
and weapons out of Chad.  Thank you for helping me see the light."
Christ, what if someone attacks YOU?  Are you being immoral in resist-
ing?  For that matter, do you think you're the first person to come up
with the idea of abolishing war?  It's a fine idea, but who bells the
cat?

     By the way, I did register.  I had to.  I have over $11,000 a year
     financial aid riding on it, and without that money I would not be
     able to attend the school that I do.

A fine state of affairs when money wins out over principle, but we
all know the country is going to hell in a handbasket anyway.

     Why don't women have to register?  They cry about their ERA, but when it
     comes time to register, they all of a sudden become frail and weak and
     afraid.  Also, our blasted Air Force is spending millions of dollars
     training female fighter pilots (to get the feminists off their backs).
     That is an incredible waste of money, seeing as the Supreme Court has
     declared it unconstitutional for them to ever fly in combat.

Are you ABSOLUTELY SURE about this?  As far as I know, the Supreme Court
has ruled that it is not unconstitutional to FORBID women to serve in
combat roles, but I've seen nothing to the effect that it's unconsti-
tutional for them to be PERMITTED to serve.  I think I'm being reasonable
in asking for a reference on this one.  (As for this "ERA...weak and afraid"
stuff, well, you're admitting to the same thing, more or less, right?  Hey,
let's get out there and make preposterous generalizations, ok kids?)  Any-
way, it's the fault of the Congress that women don't have to register.  Let's
put the blame where it belongs, not on the feminists.

     Why the hell do people think that 18 is old enough to go out and kill
     people (or be killed), yet they feel that it is too young to drink (or
     gamble)?  You must be kidding.  That is the ultimate in stupidity.  I am
     not in favor of a lot of screaming teenagers out drinking every night, but
     I think they should have that option open to them, especially since it is
     possible that the next day they might be dead.

Ironically enough, the 18-year-old vote went through during the Vietnam era,
when the same sorts of arguments were raised about voting.  Also, I seem to
recall that the drinking age was lowered from 21 in many states during this
period.  (It had been 18 in New York since the end of Prohibition, and they
just raised it to 19 last year, but I digress.)  Also, it's not "the ultimate
in stupidity."  Electing Reagan may have been.

       Now I'll leave you with one last novel idea:
       To get rid of unemployment, employ the same number of people to take
       apart the nuclear weapons as you have building them.  There! Perpetual
       motion, and more people left alive.

Uh huh.  Who arranges that all countries owning nuclear weapons do this?
Also, this would hardly "get rid of unemployment."  There aren't 10 million
people involved in the building of nuclear weapons.

Well, Dave, glad you were able to get this all off your chest, but it
would be just as effective if you took up punching pillows or went into
a closet and screamed, and then we wouldn't have to read it.

        The Overwrought Keyboard of David Wright

                    {vax135|floyd|allegra|decvax|ihnp4|uw-beaver}!cornell!ddw
                    ddw.cornell@udel-relay
                    ddw@cornell (Arpanet and CSnet)