From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush Never Had to Fight an Unjust War
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:46:20 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
=shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford ) writes:
=>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
=>>shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford ) writes:
=>>>
=>>>The United States has never participated in an unjust war.
=>>>Neither is the selective service system unjust.  The fundamental
=>>>principle involved is that the citizens of a nation should
=>>>be required to take action to preserve the security of that
=>>>nation.  We got into Viet Nam because the President decided
=>>>it was necessary for national security.  We entered every
=>>>other war for the same reason.  
=
=Oh, one more thing: leaving it solely for the President to decide who
=the enemy is may be a tad dangerous, no?  Concentration of power and
=all that.  War is a serious business, and should be open to public
=debate, not the whim of the Executive branch.
=
=And let me amend my argument slightly: war is amoral, neither
=just nor unjust.  We should consider the morality of the policy
=driving the war.

One: I don't think that the President/Executive Branch will unilaterally
start a war. I don't recall any war in which the first aggressors
fighting were from a democratic country. I doubt that any President will
be so bold or stupid as to say, "Let's invade Canada!"

=>>>There is no dilemma involved -- the only right choice is
=>>>to obey the law.  (Or leave and never come back)  The
=>
=>  Clarification : with respect to military service...
=>
=>>>only people who are qualified to be President are law-
=>>>abiding citizens.
=>>>
=>>>Clinton broke the law, and is unqualified to be President.
=>>
=>>I hope this was a joke.  If not, I want you to think carefully
=>>about what you said.  Authority should not be questioned if
=>>Authority has done something you feel is morally wrong? 
=>
=>I omitted an important parenthetical remark in my above post.
=>The discussion is aimed at military service, not "civil disobedience"
=>We have to assume the responsibility of citizens to protect our
=>country or the existence of our country is jeapordized.
=
=Granted that there should be discipline and a clear chain of command
=for the military to function effectively, but shouldn't soldiers be
=able to express their views?  And soldiers are still accountable for
=their actions.  They cannot commit atrocities and say that they
=were following orders.  Even if they put on a uniform, they are still
=moral actors, and should be able to express their opinion.

I don't know how many foot-soldiers were convicted and punished in the
Nuremburg Trials. Of course, these soldiers were also threated with
death if disobedient.

Not really knowing that much about military things, soldiers do express
their views on anything but when they are ordered to do something, they
must perform that order without question. In a military conflict, I
don't think you have time to be a "moral actor" if your life is in
danger.

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
Biomedical Engineer 1993	Never take me too seriously.
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush