Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (209448)	11/29/2006 8:50:12 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Congratulations on the reasonable views you presented in your very well written post. I can't say that you're wrong. It is, after all, a philosophical issue and thinking people may differ. I would add, however, that the answer to the hardest question ultimately hinges on how you view your duties and obligations in a democracy when the leadership selected by a majority of your countrymen decides to involve the country in a war you don't support. The choices, with a draft, come down to whether you choose to: Run, Look for a technical way out, Openly refuse to serve, or, Accept the will of the majority and serve while doing everything you can to change the will of the majority. Either running or looking for a technical way out don't bother me too much but I don't think I could be comfortable with either of those options. I think that either openly refusing or serving while trying to change the will of the majority are honorable options. Openly refusing to serve is morally cleaner. The only mark against that is the argument that democracy only works when its citizens are prepared to accept the will of the majority when they personally disagree. The last option was the one I chose. It presents some tough moral choices. Going along with the majority on things like highway funding, sentencing laws or states rights don't present the same angst as killing people in a war you disagree with. I can imagine some wars where I would be so repulsed by the war that I'd refuse to serve, majority will be damned. Vietnam was not, at the time I went over, that kind of war for me. I had some questions that weren't answered until I got there and by then I'd become a part of a group that was fighting for survival and I wasn't willing to opt out. The war in Iraq was another war where even though I thought we were betting the farm on a sucker bet I wasn't absolutely sure that I was right. As events unfolded, however, I saw that my view of reality was much more true to the facts than the view presented by those of you who were war hawks. Would I have served in that kind of a war? I'm guessing that if I was young or if I had no one whose happiness was on my shoulders, I'd have served. In my case, however, it wouldn't have been out of patriotism or some sense of idealism, it would have been because I've always been drawn to the action. So I don't know whether the philosophical argument would have been enough to bring me to service. I'd guess that if I were risk averse it would not have been enough and I'd probably have found myself agreeing with your posted views. And no, I don't encourage my way of thinking in either of my sons. Like all dads I hope they're better and smarter than I was. It's not a lot to ask but I don't like to set the bar too high. g. Ed