From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Military (Was: Rush Military Record)
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 23:40:11 GMT

In article <C19JpB.9M5@news.cso.uiuc.edu> wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins) writes:
>roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>
> >In article <1993Jan20.161333.2300@athena.mit.edu>
> gonzalez@athena.mit.edu (John R Gonzalez) writes:
>  [...]
>  >>I guess if he [clinton] enters a war where they need to draft I
>  >>can opt not to be drafted.  If it were Bush or Perot sending
>  >>me I would go, if the little panderer Bill Clinton tries I 
>  >>guess I'll have to get an ROTC deferment until I draw a high 
>  >>draft number.
>
> >Our involvement in Viet Nam was NOT a success.
> >I would prefer to have a leader that knew it was a mistake 
> >at the time and would therefore avoid such fiascos in the 
> >future to one who still pretends that our Viet Nam involvement 
> >was a good thing.
> >Deciding whether to fight in a war on the basis of whether 
> >you like the supreme commander of the forces sounds 
> >a lot more cheesy to me than a decision based on whether 
> >you think the war is justified or not.
>
>But fundamentally you believe that it is the right of each citizen to
>personally decide which wars he is willing to fight when called upon?

I didn't say that, so don't assume it.
However, with regards to your statement, I don't think rights 
or civil duties really enter into it at the practical level.

Fundamentally, I believe that leaders can not successfully engage 
in wars without some sort of public consensus supporting the action.  
I think the public was strongly divided on Viet Nam and that 
was one of the reasons our involvement there was not successful.  

I would think that the last person a soldier wants fighting beside him 
is someone who thinks the current war is a stupid idea.

When the Civil War started, almost everyone wanted to fight.
When Pearl Harbor was bombed, almost everyone wanted to fight.
When the Viet Nam war escalated, not so many people wanted to fight. 

Some wars clearly have the approval of the population and some 
wars don't.  I would hope that in a democracy, the leaders are 
guided somewhat by the sentiment of the people.

Wars are bad enough when they serve a useful purpose (defeating 
"evil", etc.).  To fight a war with a reluctant population 
that doesn't believe in the purpose of the war, seems, to me, a 
foolhardy exercise.

So I don't really see that "rights" or "duties" are really the 
heart of the matter.  Popular support is.

Sometimes people choose a war when the leader doesn't want one -- 
the American War of Independence is an example.  If the colonists 
had believed that it was their solemn duty to fight for 
whatever wars the British ruler called for, America would never 
have come into existance.


-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13932 talk.abortion:58118