MEMBER LOGIN   |   Username: Password:
Twitter: (The Twitter thing is temporarily down due to a Twitter-related bug or something!)
Recent Updates: The New Site is now open! (6 years ago) Which of [these facial express... Vulpin Adventure OST| "Blast to the past!", a review of Plazma Burst 2 by Rating Orb Duogduogduog
...

Poll

If there was a war and your government started conscripting recruits, what would you do?

26 votes: I wouldn't need to be conscripted because I would eagerly volunteer to fight.

68 votes: I would do my duty and fight if conscripted.

65 votes: I would reluctantly fight if conscripted.

112 votes: I'd try and evade the conscription.

98 votes: I'd be a conscientious objector.

Total votes: 369

122 Comments

122 Commentson 55 roots

UncleRex`s Avatar
Rating Orb UncleRex 65 Mongolia Phlegmatic 123C 42F
6 years ago | (1)
unless it's direct self defence (i.e. the militia in the country you invade) then it's aggression and i will not be a part of it
Made In Greece`s Avatar
Rating Orb Made In Greece 16 Greece CholericMelancholic 1C 0F
6 years ago | (0)
I could not fight in a war unless I was forced to defend myself or protect people (and not ideas) who I love. In my mind, our human nature is above all (except God) and I could not serve anything inferior than it, especially when it asks me to do something crazy (killing people in the name of an idea or profit was and will always be a madness).
Dreecal`s Avatar
Rating Orb Dreecal 14 Iceland CholericMelancholic 25C 0F
6 years ago | (2)
Errgh... I hate war. People are killed in it, horribly and without a thought. Grunts in war are incredibly stupid. Ask my uncle, he came across a military car with a flat tire. There was a perfectly good tire in the back. And a manual on how to use it. And they called in an engineer. Why are american military cars Hummers anyway? I'm sure there are a lot of other cars that are way less expensive and use less petrol. I mean, JEEZ. Thinking of war makes me glad Iceland has no army. But you people in countries who are FORCED to fight, if you don't have serious depression or something like that, all I can say... Good luck.
MuTTonCHoP`s Avatar
Rating Orb MuTTonCHoP 15 Australia 3C 0F
6 years ago | (2)
I think I am too lazy to even try and evade being conscripted. If it did come to that then I'd be screwed, it would be a hard choice: Getting conscripted off to my death, or exerting myself.
Brilliand`s Avatar
Rating Orb Brilliand 23 United States MelancholicPhlegmatic 27C 6F
6 years ago | (1)
For the supremely lazy, there's a third option: ignore the draft entirely. Only respond in any way if a policeman physically shows up at your door, in which case you can just take the criminal penalties instead of fighting. In the U.S. the maximum penalty is 5 years in prison and/or a $250,000 fine (according to Wikipedia). If you're broke, you'll probably get prison. Getting hauled off to prison is the lazy man's way out, no?
Ysillo`s Avatar
Rating Orb Ysillo 19 United States MelancholicPhlegmatic 609C 2F
6 years ago | (0)
I am unable to say for sure whether I would willingly be drafted or not. It would depend on the excuse for the war, and if it truly seemed necessary or not.

One of my ancestors left Germany during Bizmarck's rule because, he didn't believe in what Germany was fighting for. After coming to America he fought in the Civil War on the Union side.

My grandfather fought in World War II as a bombadier, though that war may have been necessary my grandfather regrets the lives he took, but at the time he believed whole heartedly that he was doing the right thing. Much of my family has also protested the Vietnam war and both of the Gulf Wars.

I personally am not much for Nationalism, I won't go to war out of pride for my country, or necessarily even because my government tells me too. Like many of the people I am descended from I believe war is wrong though, I will fight for a cause if I believe that it is just or necessary.
Blitz`s Avatar
Rating Orb Blitz 14 United Kingdom MelancholicSanguine 31C 0F
6 years ago | (2)
I have never supported war. In my own personal opinion, good things rarely come out of war, and even when they do, the ends *rarely* justify the means. In some cases, violence is necessary. In most cases it isn't. If you can provide me with a specific scenario then I will be able to more accurately describe my response to it, eliminating all ambiguity.

As it is, I can confidently say that I would either *refuse* to fight or I would volunteer to fight. I fight for what I believe in. I will never fight for something I do not believe in, regardless of consequence.
Michos`s Avatar
Rating Orb Michos 20 Poland PhlegmaticSanguine 8C 62F
6 years ago | (1)
I can't really vote, because that heavily depends on who is a war with. I have poor health, so i could evade conscription if i wanted, but in some cases i would go and fight even if they told me i'm not capable. There are actually several nations who i would fight with pleasure, and some i would immediately surrender to, or even join them, if given a chance.
fs627`s Avatar
Rating Orb fs627 18 United States CholericPhlegmatic 28C 1F
6 years ago | (4)
After reading the comments I'm beginning to think people don't know what being a conscientious objector means. A conscientious objector would be someone who has a legitimate reason why the cant go to war. An example would be a person such as a priest or minister because they are holy figures and by their status not allowed to kill, another example would be say a single father with multiple children under age 10 because there would be no one to look after his children while he was away. A conscientious objector is not a person who thinks war is bad and wouldn't want to go to war. Most people don't want to go to war that's just the way it is, so most of you who said you would be a conscientious objector just because you thought violence is bad probably should have said I'd try and evade conscription.
Dreamgawd`s Avatar
Rating Orb Dreamgawd 17 Aruba SanguineCholeric 259C 76F
6 years ago | (1)
Would being unfit for the military due to physical and mental health issues such as being overweight and depression count? I know that the USA military doesn't allow overweight people and depressed people in their military. I asked some military people back when I went to school in the USA, and they said those were things that disqualified a person from joining the military. So would I count? I chose the evasion choice, by the way.
fs627`s Avatar
Rating Orb fs627 18 United States CholericPhlegmatic 28C 1F
6 years ago | (1)
I don't believe that being physically or medically unable would qualify for conscientious objection. It's more for moral and religious reasons, rather than being unfit for service. It might also depend on the nation, I only know the U.S. laws, and I don't think that there is an international law for conscription either.
1 Reply
Dreecal`s Avatar
Rating Orb Dreecal 14 Iceland CholericMelancholic 25C 0F
6 years ago | (0)
Well, if you're overweight you get a free liposuction. Yay for that. But I bet if one's crippled or has mental health issues one can't go to war. How can you expect a demoralized soldier to kill as effectively as a normal one?
Zaknafein`s Avatar
Rating Orb Zaknafein 16 United States CholericPhlegmatic 111C 41F
6 years ago | (1)
Are you certain about this? According to the Selective Service website--[LINK] that's required to claim the status of a Conscientious Objector is opposition to serving in the armed forces on "moral or religious principles". That doesn't seem to indicate to me that one has to necessarily be a member of the clergy or anything like that to claim the status of a conscientiously objecting. In fact, if one did have to have a reason other than moral opposition to war, wouldn't that contradict the term conscientious objector, as one would no longer be objecting because of their conscience (i.e. their moral guidelines) but instead because of different, more practical reasons? I've always assumed that the term "conscientious objector" applies to someone who opposes a war based on his/her ethical principles, and your saying that that assumption is false makes me question both myself and you... you because you're the one contradicting my long-held, entrenched assumption, and myself because perhaps that assumption is false and needs to be questioned... anyway, I would greatly appreciate it if you could direct me to a helpful link or something to clear this up. Thanks.
Zaknafein`s Avatar
Rating Orb Zaknafein 16 United States CholericPhlegmatic 111C 41F
6 years ago | (1)
Blech. I don't know how to make a link, apparently. The actual website is here: [LINK] and that sentence is meant to have "--all" right after the failed link. Sorry for the typo.
fs627`s Avatar
Rating Orb fs627 18 United States CholericPhlegmatic 28C 1F
6 years ago | (0)
It doesn't explicitly state that you have to be clergy, but if all you need was to be religious than at least 2/3rds of those drafted could claim " I'm Catholic I can't serve" or " I'm Jewish I can't serve" or whichever religion they might be. As for my other example of the father, it would be morally wrong to abandon his children if that helps fit in to your preconceived view of what a conscientious objector is. Unfortunately I can not provide you with a useful link at the moment, my primary source was my history teacher so I apologize if I am incorrect, perhaps I should have found further sources before commenting. I will begin searching the internet, if I find a link that will better prove either of our opinions I will gladly share it with you.
warren`s Avatar
Rating Orb warren 24 Canada MelancholicPhlegmatic 16C 13F
6 years ago | (1)
I chose conscientious objector because I am morally opposed to a draft. Nothing makes me want to kill more, even in a time of war than someone who sets up a draft. I believe that no one should be forced into an industry that involves great personal risk. I also believe that no one should be forced to kill someone who may not be evil.

As to thinking war is evil, that may depend on the way the war started to count as an objection.

I might very well think differently if my country was invaded. I would probably find the nearest gun and go hunting invaders independently.
SajbTheSherlock`s Avatar
Rating Orb SajbTheSherlock 21 Serbia CholericSanguine 28C 0F
6 years ago | (9)
I would be the first one to join the fight
since i was 5 i wanted to be in military and i had full arsenal of weapons, couple of machine guns, around 30 pistols and revolvers, enough bombs to put some big city to rubble, Rambo knife and flying daggers too, those were toys btw
"Saving lives is better that crushing them" like roliim said is true, but in war you can't just go and be some pet detective, you can either fight or stay at home and wait to be killed
i know i wont be waiting at home, ill be at front line fighting with brothers who are willing to help defend their country, desertion is not an option
roliim`s Avatar
Rating Orb roliim 15 Chile PhlegmaticMelancholic 11C 2F
6 years ago | (6)
I didnt gave my consentiment to nobody for killing under my name. i mean, seeing for every point, the war is bad. Kills people, creates massacre, wastes money.
one life is like one Sun. we should protect it. We should try to stop wars... so many people think that being on a war can be a way to show how patriotic/skillfull/brave/tactical you are. Bullsmeg. if you want to be patriotic, help your country. If you wanna show you are skillfull in guns, go to a gun contest, or use teaser guns to stop criminals if you want to show you are brave, be a firefighter, if you want to show how tactical you are, go to the cops, and be a detective or something.
Saving lives is better that crushing them
max1995`s Avatar
Rating Orb max1995 16 Portugal CholericSanguine 39C 0F
6 years ago | (6)
" i mean, seeing for every point, the war is bad." When countries are at war, there are huge enchancements in the technological sector. In the first world war (I think), the germans, by creating nitric acid, they discovered a way to fertilize plants, NH3, and thanks to that we are still alive because without the fertilizer we were planned to be extinct in the mid 20th centrury. War can have his benefits too. In a more radical perspective, they kill people, which means less sharing and more food per capita
Brilliand`s Avatar
Rating Orb Brilliand 23 United States MelancholicPhlegmatic 27C 6F
6 years ago | (1)
Wait, what? The human race going extinct due to a lack of fertilizer? The human race is pretty resilient. Complete elimination of the food supply might kill us off (no guarantee though, what with modern science); a shortage might kill some people, but wouldn't get everyone.

More to the point - yes, war does some good things, as I think roliim admitted. Most of roliim's post was dedicated to finding ways to get the good effects of war without the bad effects.
Page 1 of 6: