BREAKING ALL THE RULES Forum

Full Version: NEED A MILITARY?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.




IF WE PUT AN END TO WARS, DO WE NEED A MILITARY?

There is at least one anti-war organization in this country, but in reality, not everyone has heard about it. At a time like this in the world, however, this organization’s voice deserves a hearing. The organization is the War Resisters League. The tenet of this organization is “that all war is a crime against humanity. We are determined not to support any kind of war, international or civil, and to strive non-violently for the removal of the causes of war, including racism, sexism and all forms of human exploitation.”

Dwight D. Eisenhower might possibly agree. He is the general who said, “I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, and as one who has seen its brutality, its futility and its stupidity”

And retired Marine Corps General Smedley Butler went further. Much further. In writing about WW1, he said, “War is a racket. It always has been. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. How many war millionaires shouldered a rifle, dug a trench, went hungry in a rat-infested dug-out, spent sleepless, frightened nights ducking machine gun bullets, how many were killed or wounded? There are 40,000,000 men under arms in the world today, and our statesmen and diplomats have the temerity to say that war is not in the making. Hell’s bells! Are these 40-million men training to be dancers?”

No, but being facetious, maybe they should be. Because the U.S Constitution has no section for war-making. The fact is, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution is the only place in that document where the word War is even mentioned: (1) to declare WAR, and make rules concerning capture on land or water; and (2) no state without consent of conquest keep troops or ships of WAR in time of peace, enter an agreement with another state or foreign power, or engage in WAR, unless actually invaded.

Our Constitution’s makes it quite clear that the use of war is ONLY in the case that we are invaded, and then only for the protection of our lands and people. It says nothing about leaving our country to fight a war, or joining foreign factions as a contributing army to fight their wars…United Nations, are you listening?

If by some super miracle, wars around the globe should gradually cease, we must ask the question again: If we put an end to all wars, do we need a military? I believe that even the War Resisters League-- though their sworn “no more wars” objective stands firm—all members of that organization would gladly, if reluctantly, take up arms and defend any direct invasion of our homeland, no more, no less, than circumstances in the U.S. Constitution provide for. The one thing they would never do, is participate in an ongoing war in foreign countries, under any circumstances. Exactly, the opposite of America’s present foreign war interference, resulting in, as you know, 12 years of non-stop war, tens of thousands of military and civilian casualties, billions of dollars down the blood-soaked abyss, countless buildings and communities ravaged beyond recognition,
and a guarantee of the same horrendous loss of men and money for years to come.

That being said, we should say again, so we all remember what the WRL unequivocally stands for: “The War Resisters League affirms that all war is a crime against humanity. We are determined not to support any kind of war, international or civil, and to strive non-violently for the removal of the causes of war, including racism, sexism and all forms of human exploitation.”