...........This again?
Ok, look. I am a pacifist. I know what pain feels like, and I don't want to inflict it on anyone else unless absolutely necessary. I don't think I could pull the trigger on anyone. I would rather go to jail than get sent to another country to shoot them up for a cause I probably don't give two shits about.
Now, if the enemy is on OUR soil, and they're going to slaughter every man, woman and child, then yes, I would fight, because at that point It's not like I'd have a choice. But otherwise, hell no, I hope to never point a gun at a human being EVER.
That being said, I would GLADLY help out on the homefront somehow. Or do some kind of support work. But I would NEVER want to carry a gun.
Besides, Canada is a nation of peacekeepers. We don't go picking fights, and most nations like us. And no amount of Stephen Harper's stupidity is going to change that.
EDIT: Oh, BTW. I am also a total wuss who would probably not even be fit to enter the damn army. I would flunk the hell out of basic training. Or I would suffer a breakdown. I would be nothing but a liability anyway, so they might as well not even bother training me anyway.
-
On a related note, there was this radio talk show that I heard when I was 16-17. There was this woman on it who made my blood boil. She was saying that "all our boys are violent anyway due to 'dem video gaems' so we might as well just make them shoot at something worthwhile!" And when asked about pacifists, she said "Well, they should just go watch those matrix movies and learn to dodge bullets, then!". ...To this day, I regret not having called in and given her a piece of my mind. She REALLY pissed me the hell off.
--
On a barely related note....As a kid, I wanted to be a cop, I wanted to be there to help and protect people. .....But you know what stopped me? You know what made me decide not to? I didn't want to be in a situation where I might need to shoot someone.
Vivi22 said:
No, saying people should be allowed to choose is allowing people to exercise the rights they're supposed to have and which the military is supposed to be defending.
More over, what if the people you're conscripting don't agree with the war you want them to fight. Well, now they get to be criminals and flee the country. Or go and potentially die for something they're against to begin with. If a country actually is under attack, and the war itself is justified, you'll probably see a surge in volunteers anyway who are willing to protect their homes and families.
Conscription itself isn't going to be effective. It's hard enough to get the soldiers who volunteered to do their jobs properly in combat and actually kill another human being. Moreover, conscription is immoral simply because you are forcing another human being to do something, something which is potentially very dangerous, without their consent. Essentially taking away their rights to choose what they do with their life. And I can't agree with that when the people in question have committed no crime.
But let's be realistic here. We don't live in an age where any nation who might invade a western country actually could and not be destroyed by the far more advanced Allied forces. No one has the logistical capabilities to pull it off. And anyone who wanted to take down western nations would be stupid to brute force it anyway when terrorism has proven to be so cheap and effective.
I'm with this guy. He makes sense.