Military Non-Service

[sandandfoam]

I think that way too. In this world, freedom takes sacrifice. It needs defending. It needs work. There are those who would wish to deny it others. As long as those people exist, freedom certainly isn't free. Those that don't realize that, I believe, take it for granted. While they have that freedom to take freedom for granted, I do find it saddening.

That's just plain recycled nonsense. It's like condescending cult talk.

 

[Draka]

That's just plain recycled nonsense. It's like condescending cult talk.

How so? People have fought and died to protect our way of life. To keep others from determining how we should live and what rights we should have based solely on how they feel. The Revolutionary War made the US what it is today. That freedom was fought for. it was earned. Sacrifices were made for freedom. To say that freedom is free, that it doesn't cost and hasn't cost, is to take it for granted and to take the lives of those who fought for it for granted. Those who continue to stand up and place themselves in a position to maintain that freedom are sacrificing for it. That sacrifice makes freedom all the more dear. How is it "recycled nonsense" and "condescending cult talk" to find it saddening that some people don't realize this? As long as there is oppression in the world..."freedom isn't free" is a truth, not a slogan.

 

[Caladan]

"Knee jerk"?
Try to be civil. Those are the rules.
I gave my reasoning & even dictionary definitions.
You're welcome to disagree, but we are all just giving our opinions...not verifiable inerrant truths.
Neither of us is right or wrong, so let's stick to issues instead of attacking the poster, eh?

Instead of getting defensive simply distinguish that your definition, which seems to be influenced by the Vietnam draft cannot apply to every context.
I simply find your opinions dismissive and simplistic. you treat this issue as if it is much more simple than it is. I can't seem to find a reasonable reason to refer to people who work with elderly as part of a national service as slaves. but that's just my opinion. then again what do I know, in your opinion, you are much more old and wise, and evidently I am a babe. over 30 YO and married, but a babe.. I'm starting to think your opinions are strange in general.

 

[Caladan]

FWIW, I typed "conscription is slavery" into Google and got more than 2 million hits.

Sorry Jeff, but seriously
there are over 51 million hits for slavery, and about 4 million hits for conscription. in fact I'm surprised you got such a low hit count. personally I get about 600,000 hits.

 

[Reptillian]

We each make our own decision about how to pay the piper.

[youtube]hDeOoS8b0zQ[/youtube]
Stonewall Jackson - Waterloo - YouTube

When one of our hamsters died I cried for a week.

I have a hamster. Hammie Miami, a.k.a. Hams the Man. I'd cry for a week if he died.

How so? People have fought and died to protect our way of life. To keep others from determining how we should live and what rights we should have based solely on how they feel. The Revolutionary War made the US what it is today. That freedom was fought for. it was earned. Sacrifices were made for freedom. To say that freedom is free, that it doesn't cost and hasn't cost, is to take it for granted and to take the lives of those who fought for it for granted. Those who continue to stand up and place themselves in a position to maintain that freedom are sacrificing for it. That sacrifice makes freedom all the more dear. How is it "recycled nonsense" and "condescending cult talk" to find it saddening that some people don't realize this? As long as there is oppression in the world..."freedom isn't free" is a truth, not a slogan.

Freedom is used as a rallying cry to get people behind a war. Wars are seldom about freedom. The Revolutionary War was mostly about a bunch of privateers and businessmen who didn't like Britain's tax policies and wanted to make more money. Several brilliant children of the enlightenment decided to make this war into an opportunity to try to create a new society. The American Civil War wasn't about freedom for slaves...it was fought over states rights and taxation. Abolition was tacked on and used as an excuse to get people behind the war. The Iraq War hasn't been about freedom for Iraqi citizens and weapons of mass destruction. These are just secondary excuses used to get American's behind the war. War is almost always about the all mighty dollar.

 

[sandandfoam]

The Revolutionary War made the US what it is today. That freedom was fought for. it was earned. Sacrifices were made for freedom.

Terrorists.

To say that freedom is free, that it doesn't cost and hasn't cost, is to take it for granted and to take the lives of those who fought for it for granted. Those who continue to stand up and place themselves in a position to maintain that freedom are sacrificing for it. That sacrifice makes freedom all the more dear. How is it "recycled nonsense" and "condescending cult talk" to find it saddening that some people don't realize this? As long as there is oppression in the world..."freedom isn't free" is a truth, not a slogan

The US, Britain and other countries send their soldiers into danger for many reasons - but 'defending freedom' isn't one of them. It's just blather.

 

[Caladan]

Soldiers in general do not believe they are taking part in crazy idealistic campaigns. they are very aware of the politics.
I find it ridiculous that the alternative to being mainstream in opinions about the military is to label soldiers or even people in national service as slaves, as people with a tribal mentality, etc.
that's not only non informative, but misinformative. soldiers are people. they are neither heroes nor zealous crusaders either. they are well aware of the system they are in, and the political circumstances. the whole rationale *some* members construct around soldiers is a bit hysterical. take it easy, just a little bit.

 

[Draka]

Freedom is used as a rallying cry to get people behind a war. Wars are seldom about freedom. The Revolutionary War was mostly about a bunch of privateers and businessmen who didn't like Britain's tax policies and wanted to make more money. Several brilliant children of the enlightenment decided to make this war into an opportunity to try to create a new society. The American Civil War wasn't about freedom for slaves...it was fought over states rights and taxation. Abolition was tacked on and used as an excuse to get people behind the war. The Iraq War hasn't been about freedom for Iraqi citizens and weapons of mass destruction. These are just secondary excuses used to get American's behind the war. War is almost always about the all mighty dollar.

Regardless of what some think about certain motives behind the Revolutionary War, it was that war which freed the US from British rule and allowed the people to create their own government and grant their own rights and law. That was freedom. It was paid for with blood.

I'm not saying that all acts of war are like that, or that there can't be other reasons to go to war however, somebody's freedom is almost always involved as well. As long as blood is paid for someone to be free from some kind of oppression, then it wasn't free now was it?

 

[Draka]

Terrorists.

Excuse me? The colonists were terrorists? What are you saying here?

The US, Britain and other countries send their soldiers into danger for many reasons - but 'defending freedom' isn't one of them. It's just blather.

See my response above. "Defending freedom" is almost always a side effect of any war, if not the cause, regardless of the perceived initial reasons for the declaration.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's just plain recycled nonsense. It's like condescending cult talk.

I agree with Draka about our tendency to undervalue freedom & fail to face the diligence necessary to preserve it.
You go, girl!
I'd add that we also fail to see threats to liberty from within. We readily trade liberty for security...or the illusion thereof.

 

[Revoltingest]

Instead of getting defensive simply distinguish that your definition, which seems to be influenced by the Vietnam draft cannot apply to every context.

You infer things which I don't intend.
When you become abusive, I will call you on it.
The rules are useful, & apply to us all.

I simply find your opinions dismissive and simplistic.

Be nice.
I don't share my opinion that I find you a pompous dogmatic & provincial Chauvin.
(See what awful thoughts run thru my curmudgeonly mind? I've learned that not all opinions must be aired.)
Let's just keep personal opinions to ourselves, & stick to issues, eh?

....ou treat this issue as if it is much more simple than it is.

Pot & kettle syndrome here.

I can't seem to find a reasonable reason to refer to people who work with elderly as part of a national service as slaves.

Let's keep the straw men out of it too.

.... but that's just my opinion. then again what do I know, in your opinion, you are much more old and wise, and evidently I am a babe. over 30 YO and married, but a babe.. I'm starting to think your opinions are strange in general.

There is no problem with your being young & having opinions. But there is a problem if your hubris blinds you to views of others.
Youngsters shouldn't be so quick & glib in dismissing those with more than twice your experience in the working world.
No matter how strange we find each other, let's be civil in agreeing to disagree.

I find it ridiculous that the alternative to being mainstream in opinions about the military is to label soldiers or even people in national service as slaves...

The issue here is forced conscription to serve, rather than the service itself.

 

[Reptillian]

Regardless of what some think about certain motives behind the Revolutionary War, it was that war which freed the US from British rule and allowed the people to create their own government and grant their own rights and law. That was freedom. It was paid for with blood.

I'm not saying that all acts of war are like that, or that there can't be other reasons to go to war however, somebody's freedom is almost always involved as well. As long as blood is paid for someone to be free from some kind of oppression, then it wasn't free now was it?

Look at the former British colonies of Australia and New Zealand...they didn't have bloody revolutionary wars but they seem pretty free to me. I'm saying that blood and glory are not necessary for freedom. Freedom is used to promote the idea that a war is "just".

 

[Revoltingest]

Look at the former British colonies of Australia and New Zealand...they didn't have bloody revolutionary wars but they seem pretty free to me. I'm saying that blood and glory are not necessary for freedom.

In WW2 they thought some blood & guts were needed.

Freedom is used to promote the idea that a war is "just".

Freedom is a thing worth protecting, even if it is sometimes disingenuously used as an excuse for nefarious purposes.

 

[Revoltingest]

To get back on track here, I'm curious about others' experiences in avoiding military service.
I think I did them a great service by letting them avoid dealing with me, & letting me help
provide them with better weapons & the money to buy them.

 

[Alceste]

Look at the former British colonies of Australia and New Zealand...they didn't have bloody revolutionary wars but they seem pretty free to me. I'm saying that blood and glory are not necessary for freedom. Freedom is used to promote the idea that a war is "just".

As a Canadian, I was thinking the same thing. In fact, I think we are perhaps MORE free for having paid for our freedom with a century of tedious negotiation and the shipment of the occasional boatload of conciliatory beaver pelts to the queen than our neighbors to the south who paid for their freedom in blood. Not only do we have autonomy and our own constitution, we live in a compassionate, tolerant and diverse society.

The belief that freedom can only be paid for by the wanton slaughter of a country's youth in the prime of their lives is much more sad than believing in freedom won through persuasion and patience.

 

[Reptillian]

In WW2 they thought some blood & guts were needed.


Freedom is a thing worth protecting, even if it is sometimes disingenuously used as an excuse for nefarious purposes.

I'll agree that I can get behind the whole war to prevent genocide cause, but that wasn't what WW2 was about at its core.

To get back on track here, I'm curious about others' experiences in avoiding military service.
I think I did them a great service by letting them avoid dealing with me, & letting me help
provide them with better weapons & the money to buy them.

My ancestors usually avoided military service by moving to the frontier in a new country. They were fans of idea that "When the going gets tough, the tough get going." Looking at my male lineage, the last war my ancestors were involved in was the Thirty Years War. We were one of only a few families from our town to survive that war. One ancestor was the mayor of the town before the war, one after. Upon seeing the consequences of that war, my predecessors chose a quiet life of farming for a few centuries "out of history's way". One of my oldest ancestors from the 1300's was imprisoned for publicly declaring the duke of his region to be a fool and comparing him to a withered branch from which no good fruit springs.

I would feel better about providing them with armor and finding new ways to neutralize weapons. I could invent some aweful weapons if I wanted to, but feel I have a moral obligation not to.

 

[sandandfoam]

Excuse me? The colonists were terrorists? What are you saying here?
.

They were of course terrorists. What else were they?

 

[Father Heathen]

They were of course terrorists. What else were they?

People who fought against tyranny and for their own freedom and independence. People who set the standards for the modern world.

 

[sandandfoam]

People who fought against tyranny and for their own freedom and independence. People who set the standards for the modern world.

Show me a terrorist who isn't fighting tyranny and striving for freedom and independence.

 

[not nom]

Show me a terrorist who isn't fighting tyranny and striving for freedom and independence.

hamas, for example. from the hamas charter:

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).

The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Muslim generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Muslim generations till Judgement Day?

This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Muslims have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Muslims consecrated these lands to Muslim generations till the Day of Judgement.

It happened like this: When the leaders of the Islamic armies conquered Syria and Iraq, they sent to the Caliph of the Muslims, Umar bin-el-Khatab, asking for his advice concerning the conquered land - whether they should divide it among the soldiers, or leave it for its owners, or what? After consultations and discussions between the Caliph of the Muslims, Omar bin-el-Khatab and companions of the Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, it was decided that the land should be left with its owners who could benefit by its fruit. As for the real ownership of the land and the land itself, it should be consecrated for Muslim generations till Judgement Day. Those who are on the land, are there only to benefit from its fruit. This Waqf remains as long as earth and heaven remain. Any procedure in contradiction to Islamic Sharia, where Palestine is concerned, is null and void.

and so on...

and hey, the hezbollah one isn't better:

We see in Israel the vanguard of the United States in our Islamic world. It is the hated enemy that must be fought until the hated ones get what they deserve. This enemy is the greatest danger to our future generations and to the destiny of our lands, particularly as it glorifies the ideas of settlement and expansion, initiated in Palestine, and yearning outward to the extension of the Great Israel, from the Euphrates to the Nile.

Our primary assumption in our fight against Israel states that the Zionist entity is aggressive from its inception, and built on lands wrested from their owners, at the expense of the rights of the Muslim people. Therefore our struggle will end only when this entity is obliterated. We recognize no treaty with it, no cease fire, and no peace agreements, whether separate or consolidated.

We vigorously condemn all plans for negotiation with Israel, and regard all negotiators as enemies, for the reason that such negotiation is nothing but the recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist occupation of Palestine. Therefore we oppose and reject the Camp David Agreements, the proposals of King Fahd, the Fez and Reagan plan, Brezhnev's and the French-Egyptian proposals, and all other programs that include the recognition (even the implied recognition) of the Zionist entity.

and again, that's just a cute little excerpt.

and don't even get me started on palestinian TV, what they do to children. that's not fighting tyranny, that's cynically using people as cannon fodder for the greater glory of "the arab muslim nation". that IS tyranny.