----- Original Message -----
From: Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 12:29 AM
Subject: RE: They gave their lives....
> > > I think it is up to *me* to decide when and where I risk my life, and
> > anyone
> > > who acts otherwise needs some ungentle re-education.
> > >
> >
> > So, if you were born 60 years earlier, and decided that it was best that
> > other people fought the Battle of Britain for you, are you suggesting
that
> > you would claim that was your right..and one that you would enforce at
> > gunpoint if need be?
> >
> > Dan M.
>
> I believe the point is that there needs to be a way out of fighting.
>
> In the US, I believe it was possible to apply for "Conscientious Objector"
> status (is that right?) during Vietnam. You didn't have to fight if you
> could show that fighting was against your principles, although you did
have
> to spend an equivalrnt time (2 years? 3?) involved directly and full time
> with community service type work at home.
>
I have no problem with conscientious objector status. I strongly favor it.
But, that status cannot be obtained because one honestly believes that the
community has no right whatsoever to ask one to risk one's life for it. It
is obtained because one has a demonstrated moral objection to killing.
> (And Dan, the Battle of Britain was an air war, most of our armed forces
> weren't directly involved in the BOB, just the RAF and their Hurricanes...
> but I know what you meant. :o) )
Right, fortunately that's all it was. But, I was picturing what a
reasonable person would have thought at the time. I would guess that the
government was preparing for the possibility/likelihood of an invasion.
People were being drafted at the time in order to increase the chances of
resisting an invasion. Now I may be wrong, but I believe that few people
thought that there was no chance of an invasion of Britain before Hitler
turned towards the east with his war.
Dan M.
