Responses: 4
When our nation is under attack and we are all endangered with losing our country, everyone should serve in some capacity. It has to be considered that some would rather die than take a life, but when a family loses a family member in their stead, is that right? Hacksaw Ridge comes to mind. On the other side, not having someone protecting your back would be an unacceptable situation. True conscious object is a fact, but so is cowardice. One should be understood and managed, the other not so much. JMHO
(3)
(0)
Thanks for reminding us TSgt Joe C. that on December 23, 1946 President Harry S. Truman appointed an amnesty board to review cases of conscientious objectors (CO’s) who were imprisoned after refusing to serve during World War II.
(3)
(0)
SGT Brianna MacKinnon
We had at least 2 in the First ID who claimed to be CO's. One of whom was assigned to the Division Band. His primary duty if deployed would have been as a Guard of the Divisional Stockade for POW's. Both claimed they only joined the Army to earn money for College and stated that they had no idea that they could be called upon to go to war. :O. Both had their claims denied. The Band Member ended up BEHIND the Stockade because he refused to deploy.
(1)
(0)
I actually violated the selective service, i thought since I was in the Army, joined when I was 17, I wouldn't have to sign up for selective service. I was wrong, I was at an LAPD interview and they said I was listed as violating the Selective Service requirement Boy was i surprised so I signed up when i was 22 after service 4 years in the Army
(1)
(0)
Read This Next