I've been following this thread for a while. It seems to me that there
is a VERY fine line here, and I'd like to see that line explored more
precisely than it has been.
So, I have a question for those who support conscription. Well, make
that two.
Under what conditions do the ends justify the means?
Under what conditions does one man have the right to make life and death
decisions for another man, against his will?
By the way, did anyone see Swordfish? It was actually better than I
expected. John Travolta's character rasied some interesting questions.
Was he operating in the best interests of the US? Did he think he was,
or did he just say that to justify his actions?
On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 10:48:25PM -0400, John D. Giorgis wrote:
> At 07:30 AM 6/10/01 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote:
> >Personally, I think that conscription for a Viet Nam like war, where the
> >security of the country is not directly threatened, is not justified. I
> don't
> >think that some sort of national service (military or no) is such a bad idea.
>
> Would conscription have been justified to fight Germany in WWII?
>
> Would conscription have been justified in 1940?
>
> JDG
> __________________________________________________________
> John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
> "Compassionate conservatism is the way to reconcile the two most vital
> conservative intellectual traditions: libertarianism & Catholic social
> thought."
> -Michael Gerson, advisor to George W. Bush
--
"Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.com/
