Conscientious Objection, the Draft, and War

Post Reply New Topic

Hello,

As Congress is debating whether to bring back the military draft, and the war in Iraq is still going, I thought this might be a good time to start asking this question: Are you a conscientious objector?

According to the Selective Service System (SSS), which registers men between the ages of 18 and 26 in case the draft comes back, the definition of a conscientious objector is:

See the official page

According to the language in the bill before the House and Senate, all men and women between the ages of 18 and 26 will be required to register, and if selected, serve a two-year term in the military, with the possibility of being required to serve more at the President's discretion. ( See Senate's version (Senate Bill 89)

Also, according to the SSS (see link above), you only have 10 days after you receive your draft notice to apply for CO status, provide documentation of your beliefs, appear before the draft board, and receive approval of the status change or else you are not eligible for that status.

Post here with your thoughts and opinions - I will post mine soon. All sides will be respected, although the debate could become pretty fierce.

Looking forward to the reading,

mentalman

Last edited by mentalman on 17 Jul 2004, 11:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Seeing as how there calling back the retired reserves who have not fullfilled their 8 year obligation, I would not be suprised if we saw the draft come back next year. Reading about how the draft system would work, at this point I'm not too worried about being drafted since I'm reaching the end of my elligiblity, but if I do, I guess I'll go.

Edit: When we discuss this, we need to keep in mind the original reason why were over there today. Three years ago, a group of extremists, driven by religous ideology decieded to hijack a bunch of planes and fly them into key buildings in an attempt to cripple the US military and economy. As for the religous ideology, it's arguably the most powerful motivator known to man. Were dealing with people who would kill you, your siblings, parents and family members, and wouldn't think twice about doing it if given the chance. All becasue we don't conform to there beliefs. Granted were dealing with a VERY small number of people, people who have the most extreme views tend to be the ones to aquire power becasue they can most effectively manipulate the masses into following their lead. Put aside all the politcal squabbling, speeches, military blunders, self-servedness, and conspiracy theorys that happens during ANY war. The events of september 11, 2001, is the core reason as to why we are at war today, and being someone who feels strongly about the US, I would hope that things will come to a point where we don't have to worry about an event like that ever happening again.

But as long as we have the bureaucracy in the way, that'll never happen.

Last edited by Scoots5012 on 17 Jul 2004, 12:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

This is the one thing I don't get about the system, no matter how many times it's explained to me: with a government like this, in a supposedly "democratic society", shouldn't the population at large be able to vote on whether they want this to go through or not? Considering the number of lives it would affect.

I'm not terribly political. I just don't relate -- I could attribute this to my Aspiness. My mind most certainly does not think in straight lines! I believe increased hostility in wars often culminate in a type of superviolence (i.e. atomic bomb, decapitations and mutilations of bodies as in Serbia), so as awful as it is, why isn't superviolence the FIRST, swift action instead of the last? At least everyone would be too shocked to do anything... for awhile. No, I don't advocate it, but I do ask questions. Other things I don't get are "rules of war". Now, I am loathe to use a term like "neurotypical" so I will instead point to: which human beings came up with, and more importantly, continue to propogate this?

The government is ignorant of techno music (RAVE Act). If its knowledge of America's fun dance parties is stunted, how can I trust them in even more serious matters involving lives and deaths of human beings around the world? I know I embrace contradictions, but this is beyond me. I am not opposed to all government, but my gut feeling of the current administration makes me downright uncomfortable.

Conscientious objector or unconscientious objector, the words "morals" and "religion" are tossed around like sugar cubes in a salt factory... they may mean something different but it all looks the same when you're staring it down.

I support the decision of others to protect the nation, and I have nothing but the utmost respect for the tragedies suffered by War Veterans -- however, one thing came to mind for me the other day, and that is what Donald Trump said about Bush.

I am a YUGE Donald Trump fan. In fact, he is one of my obsessions. For me, I see it this way:

-I see how Trump has risen to power, dropped down like a failure, and risen back even higher. All in the public eye.

-I have not seen the same hold true for Bush (and really, if he is the most powerful man in the "free world", more powerful than Trump, his words and actions are to be accounted for in their entirety)

The Donald has said:

"What was the purpose of the whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and no legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who've been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!"

My disgust increases. It increases even more upon hearing the speeches made by lawmakers who are not actually out there on the front lines, and they try to word their b.s. similarly, variations on a theme. I see heuristic speech patterns redundantly repeated in the news, the same outraged families crying because a son or daughter or other loved one dear to them is lost forever. I see fools try to employ logic to deal with vicious beheadings, and meanwhile, Hollywood rolls on and will make some profitable movies about this in a few years. You can dress a frog up with a crown and a regal suit but the frog is not Prince Charming.

So, would I conscientiously object? Yes, I would. I am an Aspie Christian Humanist who believes in evolution and in the power of science but I let faith guide me in my decisions. Yeah, you can see how messed-up it can sound, but for me, it's quite simple. My morals, while in flux (ask me again while I'm reading Stephen King), keep me firmly in the "NO" dept. This "military draft" thing started as a circulated urban legend just a few weeks ago and it draws closer to reality, spread from one mouth to another. By participating in horrors I do not support, I am only perpetuating the mistakes others have made and am contributing to them by adding mine to the pile of shame and dishonor. On top of all of this, I would have to object because I am "not in my right mind" and am not a person who would generically be considered to be "mentally well", as I am Autistic. I have been trampled on enough times in the past and now I know better, and I want to help others to stand up too and make their own well-informed decisions.

It's too late to clean the slate now but I suggest Bush repent for his ignorance of science and listen to more technocrats -- *cough* stem cell research and organ growth *cough* -- so that at least some of the young men and women injured and paralyzed serving the USA will make a better recovery. The time for quackery and superstitions like the false floor of extremist religious fundamentalism is long gone, and while ghost stories may make for enjoyable yarns, we are dealing with very real war dead on our hands. Looks to me like we will only get deeper into the quicksand.

Some of the time, I find it extremely difficult to rationalize how I think. But I know I feel, and can state it earnestly and in the open. Speaking of openness, I am open to listening to other opinions in the hopes I will find new pieces of the puzzle I previously had not considered, so please do share. Do not try to convince me; but state why you have convinced yourself of your decision, or ongoing decision if it's still in the proverbial pipeline.

As a sage surfer dude once said: Nothing can change the past, but when the pain of the past becomes the suffering of the present, all of humankind is screwed!

I am, always was, and always will be morally opposed to drafting people into the army. Many humans ]i]love[/i] to kill things if you make it clear they won't get punished for it. If you can't find enough recruits than the ones who volunteer, then you have no right to draft people UNLESS the country, the physical country, the land we live upon, is being attacked. Even then you only have the right to draft people who live in the area that is being attacked. (i.e. don't just sit there, grab a gun the Ruskies are outside!)

Don't think that beng a conscientous objector will help you at all though. Remember the "provide documentation" clause? In Vietnam, almost all conscientous objectors were drafted against their will by the simple act of denying the validity of their documentation. The SSS does not define a valid document, and leaves the criteria for "approval" completely open and easily corrupted. Your link is broken though, mentalman, so I can't verify. Make no mistake, if the draft happens you will be forced to go to war if they catch you. And Canada isn't going to help this time. Stop the draft at all costs. In fact... consider that a car bomb to the white house will only kill you quicker than being sent into war.

Do I count as a conscientous objector now?

Actually I got a gimp ankle with two pins in it, so I'm supposed to be ineligable for military status... but I don't even trust them not to send cripples and children out into their little oil war.

I DO NOT NECESSARILY SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING AS A WRITER OF FICTION:

You know, that got me thinking: if we're going to send people into war to kill, why not send people who have lots of experience doing just that? Like trained hitmen and serial killers who are spending time behind bars and frustrated they don't have somewhere to unleash their anger. Ask them who would enjoy getting out of jail to kill some more -- and then send them over in a plane. Reward them based on number of kills, and if they take out enough enemy lives with proof (bringing back bones and body parts for necessary DNA verification and such if the targets are high-profile a la Bin Laden), then pardon them free and let them live it out on an island somewhere... or send them back to kill some more if their thirst is sociopathically unquenchable. Yes, it's macabre! But think about it this way: we've got some of the most valuable anti-human resources in the WORLD here in prison who already know how to kill VERY well, and here we are training up soldiers to do what they have not done before, and that is take lives.

The aforementioned was intended as descriptive sci-fi fantasy in a Battle Royale way, not as reality, but you can see it gets you thinking too

For your consideration.. A webpage from the internet's foremost authority on situations like this.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/draft.asp

Congressman Rangel (D, NY) suggested that the draft be reinstated so that young people would pay more attention to politics. No one has seriously suggested that the draft be reinstated, and no legislation on this is pending. Snopes covered this: http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/draft.asp

One thing that is pending is a National Service bill. This is not a draft. The national service bill would require any person age 18-26 to spend 2 years in "national service" which could mean 2 years teaching, or working in a national park, or for some people, the military.

An army infrantryman in 2004 carries as much fire power as a whole rifle squad did in WWII. The military does not need the huge numbers of men that it used to, and they don't want to spend the money training unmotivated draftees who are going to leave after their requiered time is up. The military only wants to invest training and equipment dollars in professional soldiers.

"The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: to build and maintain those robots. Thank you." -The Simpsons

Now that you mention robots I think that they should have made some kind of flying robot to get rid of Saddam Hussein instead of making a primitive invasion...
Stage 1 - mothership robots delivers mini-robots camouflaged as bugs to Saddam's place...
Stage 2 - remote controled mini-robots find Saddam and knock him off along with other top officers with mini-weapon or some kind of poison that works for certain time so that they can't command.
Stage 3 - Iraq's chain of command is disoriented
Stage 4 - US floods Iraq with papers saying to surrender and embrace freedom propaganda, aimed especially at Saddam's soldiers.
Stage 5 - US invades with help of aerial assault robots - 150% less casualties

It sounds unbelievable but I've seen on some TV documentary that they have those bug-like robots and "motherships" shouldn't be a problem.

I think that instead of this costly and human-dependent military force, US military should make an army of say 100-200 flying remote control robots that can precisely strike terrorists and such...
I'm not saying this is nice, I hate humans suffering, but it would lower the amount of death and suffering multiple times.

As much as I am against the war I seriously doubt they'll be a draft. Bless all the soldiers that sacrificed and risked their lives, but when you look at our military as a whole, we havent lost that many soldiers. Especially compared to Vietnam and WW2.

Last edited by LadyBug on 26 Jul 2004, 4:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I have kept my mouth shut since 9/11 and still will continue to do so. I will not state my views as I know they are not acceptable to be spoken or written. I do make subtle suggestions when I hear a dialogue in order to get a small piece of feedback as to my thoughts. I wish there was a place for me to discuss my views on this matter. I would like to think that I am ignorant but I do not know.

I would like to make a comment that seems a bit tangent. Often at work I chant, "Rise Robots Rise." I then like to ask someone, "Do you think they will ever replace us with robots." Then I say, "Maybe we are robots?" At work, I am the only person that will say "NO." There are many problems at my work place that could be solved or avoided with a collective workforce saying "NO." My coworkers are afraid to say "NO." Sometimes I am afraid to say "NO" because nobody will back me up. It is difficult to know when to say "NO." Saying "NO" may cause jobloss. Not saying "NO" may make a job horrible. Saying "NO" may destroy the workplace. I don't know. I feel like an observer. I don't like what I see. I wonder if others see it the same way? I want truth.

I would also like to point out that it took about a month before major current events started showing up on wrongplanet.net

Thank you graciously LadyBug, I enjoy your sharing.

Here is another perspective to your questions. If the link for the complete story doesn't work, go to www.couplescompany.com, then click on military couples, and go into the archives. Send me a PM with E-mail if you have difficulty and I will send the complete articles.

LadyBug

The Draft as Deterrent

By David H. Hackworth

Balance of article at: http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/ ... /Draft.htm

"The poor join up because the job prospects on the outside are marginal. By going into the military, they learn a skill, gain the benefits of the GI Bill and get a better shot at the American dream."


"Meanwhile, teens from families with political punch – read cash and/or clout – are safely bunkered down at universities out of harm’s way. And when asked: “Should we ‘do’ Iraq?” their answer is often a roaring “Yes!” But ask those same young aristo-hawks: “Will you go and fight?” and rarely does a Tommy Hilfiger-clad arm shoot up. When it comes to blood sports, they don't need to be taught that the spectators have it cushier than the gladiators."

From: David "Hack" H. Hackworth Biography Page

Balance can be read at: http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/ ... utHack.htm

"Hack is an advocate of military reform and a believer that the big fire power -- "nuke-the-pukes" -- solution won't work anymore, but that doesn't mean war will go away. He sees big and little fights ahead and urges military reform. He believes passionately that "America needs a streamlined, hard hitting force for the 21st century" and beyond. Hack brings to his mission his unique experience acquired in almost 52 years of bouncing around hot and cold battlefields."

Your welcome. Here's more for you to enjoy!

Love, Peace, & Auspie Rock,

LadyBug

A Menopausal Womens' Army

(Author Unknown)

Take all American women who are within five years of
menopause - train us for a few weeks, outfit us with
automatic weapons, grenades, gas masks, moisturizer
with SPF15, Prozac, hormones, chocolate, and canned
tuna drop us (parachuted, preferably) across the
landscape of Afghanistan, and let us do what comes
naturally.

Think about it. Our anger quotient alone, even when
doing standard stuff like grocery shopping and paying
bills, is formidable enough to make even armed men in
turbans tremble.

We've survived the water diet, the protein diet, the
carbohydrate diet, and the grapefruit diet in gyms and
saunas across America and never lost a pound. We can
easily survive months in the hostile terrain of
Afghanistan with no food at all!

We've spent years tracking down our husbands or lovers
in bars, hardware stores, or sporting events...finding
bin Laden in some cave will be no problem.

Uniting all the warring tribes of Afghanistan in a new
government? Oh, please ... we've planned the seating
arrangements for in-laws and extended families at
Thanksgiving dinners for years ... we understand
tribal warfare.

Between us, we've divorced enough husbands to know
every trick there is for how they hide, launder, or
cover up bank accounts and money sources.

We know how to find that money and we know how to
seize it ... with or without the government's help!

Let us go and fight. The Taliban hates women. Imagine
their terror as we crawl like ants with hot-flashes
over their godforsaken terrain.

I'm going to write my Congresswoman. You should, too!