Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

jdavidb (1361)

jdavidb
  (email not shown publicly)
http://voiceofjohn.blogspot.com/

J. David Blackstone has a Bachelor of Science in Computer Science and Engineering and nine years of experience at a wireless telecommunications company, where he learned Perl and never looked back. J. David has an advantage in that he works really hard, he has a passion for writing good software, and he knows many of the world's best Perl programmers.

Journal of jdavidb (1361)

Monday March 31, 2003
11:39 AM

Refusing to fight

[ #11339 ]

The way this is presented, those objecting had a clear standard that I think is (on some level) reasonable: they refuse to fight in a war involving the death of civilians. Now, I think that's a bit naive, because all war involves the death of civilians, but it seems a clear place to draw the line.

It's particularly important to me that the rights of people to refuse to participate in a war for their own reasons, whether religious or not, whether outside observers consider them to be rational or not, be protected.

This was hardly a mass protest; can't see why it was a newsworthy item. But I'm personally glad to see it.

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • The father of my wife was colonel in the French Air Army. He was believing that the goal of a modern army of a democratic country is to ultimately protect civilians and peace. He participated in a lot of wars and of military actions. -- He left the army after the [first] Gulf War, disgusted by what he considered to be a betrayal of the army's mission.
    • Same thing for my grand-father, also colonel in the French army. Anyone believing that protection of the civilians is at the top of the priority list in the current war is deluding himself. It's in the list somewhere, but far from the top.

      Oh, and "chirurgical" really means "if it really does work and hit its target, then it'll completely devastate an area 300 metres around it, and break things and injure people up to a kilometre away". That's why you don't bomb urban areas when you want to protect

      --

      -- Robin Berjon [berjon.com]

      • Anyone believing that protection of the civilians is at the top of the priority list in the current war is deluding himself. It's in the list somewhere, but far from the top.

        Of course. It can't be the top goal. The top goal is to achieve the political objectives of the war. That always must be the top goal. If you can't commit to that, you shouldn't be in the war business.