I still don't agree with the "if you leave, don't come back" perspective. Leaving is not always about being a "fair-weather friend." In the past, some people have left our country during times of war because their own and their families' lives were actively threatened for their pacifist standpoints and political affiliations. And even on the less severe side, many have left in the past during times of war because their country gave them no choice but to pick up a gun or go to jail. That seems pretty anti-freedom to me. If you fundamentally do NOT agree with war, should you be forced to participate? Should you be foreced to either kill or aid in the killing of other people when it goes against everything you hold true? That's a serious situation, and a disagreement between self and (allegedly free) state for which I do not think any person should be 1.) sent to jail for or 2.) spat upon for, if they left and then returned. For me, that's like the vets coming back from Vietnam and being spat upon for being "babykillers," etc. Many thought they should not have returned, but should have stayed away in shame or been blown to bits themselves for having participated in warfare. In the same way that I do not believe they should have been condemned (either then or now), for participating in warfare, I also do not believe that anyone should be condemned for choosing to NOT participate in warfare -- and that includes these same people leaving the US to avoid it, *especially* when and if they are given essentially no choice.
Thanks for bringing this up, Blu. It's important, and the events of Tuesday only opened the need for discussion -- it's going to be continued, necessarily, and should NOT be shut down, for the need for open discussion will become only more imperative as time goes on with this matter.
As I said -- I love your honesty and willingness to talk. And in reutrn, I give you mine :)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
momijizukamori
Thinking (Part 2)
Date: 2001-09-16 04:31 pm (UTC)I still don't agree with the "if you leave, don't come back" perspective. Leaving is not always about being a "fair-weather friend." In the past, some people have left our country during times of war because their own and their families' lives were actively threatened for their pacifist standpoints and political affiliations. And even on the less severe side, many have left in the past during times of war because their country gave them no choice but to pick up a gun or go to jail. That seems pretty anti-freedom to me. If you fundamentally do NOT agree with war, should you be forced to participate? Should you be foreced to either kill or aid in the killing of other people when it goes against everything you hold true? That's a serious situation, and a disagreement between self and (allegedly free) state for which I do not think any person should be 1.) sent to jail for or 2.) spat upon for, if they left and then returned. For me, that's like the vets coming back from Vietnam and being spat upon for being "babykillers," etc. Many thought they should not have returned, but should have stayed away in shame or been blown to bits themselves for having participated in warfare. In the same way that I do not believe they should have been condemned (either then or now), for participating in warfare, I also do not believe that anyone should be condemned for choosing to NOT participate in warfare -- and that includes these same people leaving the US to avoid it, *especially* when and if they are given essentially no choice.
Thanks for bringing this up, Blu. It's important, and the events of Tuesday only opened the need for discussion -- it's going to be continued, necessarily, and should NOT be shut down, for the need for open discussion will become only more imperative as time goes on with this matter.
As I said -- I love your honesty and willingness to talk. And in reutrn, I give you mine :)
Thank you chica. Love to you.