[jacquesm]

Which enemy is that?

Try harming (directly) one that is dear to me and we'll see how I feel about not fighting. Try sending me to some country halfway across the planet to further the agenda of a bunch of politicians that make sure they're safe themselves and as far away from harm as they could possibly be and I refuse to budge. Navy seals have given the ability to make that choice to their superiors.

Let's just leave it at that I've seen authority abused more often than that I've seen it be used for good and that I have a very strong distrust of the motives of those that govern in our name. Too many wars, too much manipulation, too many things in the news where the stories don't check out after the fact.

Would you like some yellowcake with that barrel of petroleum?

[mpyne]

> Let's just leave it at that I've seen authority abused

So have we all at some point, I'd imagine. Is it your opinion that anything that can be abused should be forbidden?

Because no offense, but that's the same logic in the child's fairy tale about the boy who cried wolf. You're very rightly pointing out that if you make false use of your authority too often that you should expect people to not trust you in the future. But there was a second part to that story: Once the people stop trusting that authority entirely, they can be taken advantage of, just as the wolf did to the villagers' sheep.

As it stands your personal decision to be a conscientious objector is made possible only because enough other people did not make that same decision (a point Orwell makes much better than I can).

So while I won't argue with that decision as it's something only you can decide on, based on your own life experiences, I would also caution that your experiences are not everyone else's experiences and so maybe you shouldn't be so quick to judge other people.

[jacquesm]

Those people will stop trusting that particular authority, but that does not mean they have to drop common sense entirely. They definitely should be more skeptical. The boy who cried wolf got eaten, not the others.

As for my decision, it was definitely not made possible because other people did not make that same decision, you could easily argue by that exact same rhetorical trick that if everybody would act like me that war would be impossible.

I recognize that is not a reality, all I do is reserve the right to act when I see fit rather than to put my hands at others disposal, especially when those others so clearly do not deserve my loyalty. My granddad was interned in ww-II (German prisoner of war camp, forced labor for the Opel car company, a supplier of transport for officers). He could (if he were still alive) tell you a thing or two about how much damage one can inflict on an army without being in a uniform. This is not a binary choice and it is not nice to pretend that it is so.

Patronizing aside, I'm not quick to judge, I took a long time to get to this position.

Right after 9/11 the world was as one (with very few exceptions worth noting) on the side of the US. That trust and momentum could have been used for good, instead it was abused and it destroyed the image of the US for a long time and for a large number of people. Epic fail, to use a popular term.

[mpyne]

> As for my decision, it was definitely not made possible because other people did not make that same decision, you could easily argue by that exact same rhetorical trick that if everybody would act like me that war would be impossible.

"If wishes and buts were candy and nuts, every day would be Christmas"

Trust me, I wish everyone could just spontaneously choose to be non-violent and permanently and irrevocably forbid themselves from ever engaging in warfare. That would be a much nicer world.

But your decision to do that does nothing for the rest of us.

In fact, you elucidate precisely the reason why we cannot rely on such a large-scale decision: By your logic, you would not want to join to be used as tool by evil people ordering you to do evil things.

So your worldview pre-supposes that there do exist evil people who would abuse military force for aggressive aims, does it not? But if even the democracies of the West are susceptible to this aggressive urge, why should the other governments of the world be immune to it? And if any substantial part of the population of the rest of the world is not immune to this aggressive urge, we are not ready to disband defensive militaries.

So in fact I'd argue the reverse: Until you feel completely comfortable joining any military in the world knowing that you would not be abused, there will remain the need for people to take up arms.

It certainly doesn't have to be everybody (as they joke about elsewhere, you don't have to outrun the bear, you just have to outrun your neighbor). But someone has to do it, for exactly the reason you suggest.

> He could (if he were still alive) tell you a thing or two about how much damage one can inflict on an army without being in a uniform.

Yes, we've recently seen how well an American out of uniform could hurt the military... you're only preaching to the choir here. But some of us prefer to keep the invaders away outright instead of being forced to rely on insurgency campaigns after the fact.

> That trust and momentum could have been used for good, instead it was abused and it destroyed the image of the US for a long time and for a large number of people. Epic fail, to use a popular term.

No doubt, but what does that have to do with this? I'm well aware that America is apparently the sole font of all that is wrong with the world (I'll give it a week before the USA is blamed for UKIP and the FN victories), but I'm not talking about the American military here.

[Nrsolis]

Spoken like a true narcissist.

The only correct viewpoint is the one you hold. The only just use of violence is one you approve. The only moral code is your moral code.

I suppose that the good news here is you'll never fight for your beliefs, so we don't have to worry about you at all.