arghh, no, look you guys misunderstand me.
First of all, yes, I am advocating complete disarmament, but thats NOT what I was reffering to . I advocate that seperately of what I am saying now, and as a far more distant goal. So, that has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.
Alright, secondly, what I am saying is not that soldiers should be allowed to choose which order to obey, accept those they consider immoral which they are already free to disregard, but which wars to fight.
Orders. Wars. A war is just a large set of individual orders. If a soldier considers a war unjust, then every order given during the course of that war is also unjust. Once a group of people say "OK, we are going to attack Iraq", then that group of people follows the chain of comand in order to accomplish what they set out to do. However, if they never agreed with what it is that they set out to do, than they do not want to accomplish that and therefore do not need to follow orders.
The idea that someone can sign over any decision-making rights over to another entity, particularly when it deals with life and death, which is what soldiers do, is absurd. There are fundamental human rights and responsibilities that can never be signed away or abdicated, and the decision to take a life or participate i destruction is one of them. No job can require of you to kill without your consent, that is simply outside the bounds of what rights can be taken from you. Once you cross that line, its temporary slavery.
You can hold any job in the world: accountant, soldier, swimming instructor, whatever, but at no point, regardless of your job, can you boss require you to enagage in sexual relations with them. Thats simply outside their control. Same thing with taking life or participating in the taking of life. No employer has the power to make you act against your conscience, and because that is in your control, not theirs, it is your responsibility.
_____________
Bob: bull****, the US is damn well not under any threat to its survival and you know it. You consider 9/11 to be "big stuff" becuase you have to reference point. There are 300 million Americans, 300 of which died in that attack. Yes, a tragedy, but the loss of 0.00001 percent of the population is not a threat to survival by any stretch of the imagination.
There is no country on Earth that could succesfully invade America, and no one will try. Someone may kill a few citizens here or there, but thats not a real threat. And in any case, with all the spy goons running around all over the place, how likely do you think another 9/11 is?
The right to sovereignty means that you can put as much police and military around your borders to stop any terrorists or invaders from entering, but you may not go and attack another country in order to kill them. You can guard your house, but not attack someone's elses.
The truth is, there are no more real threats to the US or the West. The strongest rival, China, is not nearly strong enough to rival US hegemony.v There are no more Hitlers or Stalins, America is the only one left. Therefore, dictaorial powers for the sake of survival are not justified, not by a LONG way.
