And then eventually move on to longer things.

Soldiers are people, after all, and people on the whole are morally neutral. I'm not cynical enough to see humans as inherently bad, but I'm also not naïve enough to think they're inherently good.

My problem with soldiers is that I've heard about very few, if any, good ones, and an alarming number of honest-to-god horror stories about evil ones, the ones who enjoy killing, or doing worse things to civilians or even their brothers- and sisters-in-arms.

Rationally, I know that the psychos must be very few and far between, but, well, I'm not a rational person. Those horror stories have tarnished my vision of military forces as a whole, because I know that every armed force in the world has its supply of sociopathic soldiers.

The discussion seems pretty level-headed to me.
Tea and crumpets for everyone! Huzzah!

What you are talking about is being a Conscientious Objector. In the US it is pretty narrow. You must be opposed to all war in any form and the objection must be sincere. From what I understand during the Vietnam War (last time the US used conscription) it basically acted as a mini-court case. Its burden was much higher than just reasonably prove. From what I understand it required something maybe not quite as high as what a Civil Lawsuit would require, but close.

But also in the US, unless World War III starts and Nuclear Weapons are not used, the US Government will not bring back the draft. We have an incredibly large volunteer armed forces.

But I still hate that it is necessary. I hate that people are forced to fight for their lives because other people are bloodthirsty psychos. I hate that some people are so defeatist about it, and insist that they will never be able to reach a peaceful resolution. I hate that human beings can be so black-and-white, and feel that anyone who disagrees with them is evil.

There's a reason I don't watch the news; I'm sick and tired of hearing about how terrible the world is.

Yes - but it shouldn't have to be.

I'm going to hold up the ever-unpopular European Union here for a minute. Yes, it rose out of the back of a war - but it's not stayed intact because of military force. Germany isn't sitting there going 'now we've got our feet under us again, it's only a matter of time before France lets its guard down and we can start World War Three'; Britain isn't going 'man, if only the others would scrap their navies we could totally blow up their ports'. By and large, the established EU has achieved peace by... um... cooperating, instead of competing. Yes, there's competition on a parliamentary level, but once it all shakes out, we have a functioning (if rather weak) EU government.

"But Russia invaded Ukraine!" "But IS want to kill us!" Yes, I know, and that's why I'm speaking only of internal lack of conflict - but on the other hand, the EU is only 'internal' because it's working. Britain at peace with both Germany and France? Inconceivable!

Yes, it's hard for nations to get along without being worried that their neighbours are going to attack them if they show weakness - but it is possible. And if it's possible between Britain, France, and Germany, with all that historical bickering, then there's only a handful of places I'd say it's not possible.

(Which include, for the record: Israel and Palestine, China and Taiwan, North and South Korea, and India and Pakistan. Lot of anger in those four. Also, Russia needs a change of outlook before it seems likely to cooperate very much.)

~

But what about internal threats like IS, or like the IRA a few years back? Yeah, that's a fair point, and I can't really come up with a solution that isn't the military. But a situation which is internal to both the union as a whole, and one of its member states, can make use of a relatively small force taken from everywhere, rather than a huge one taken from an individual state. I think?

hS

"What do you want to be liked for? You're the ones with all the guns."

I do believe that suicide is a horrible horrible thing to do to yourself. But in my mind, compared to being forced to end someone else's life and having to live with it for the rest of my own, it's the lesser of two evils.

And being forced into the military is literally the one and only condition I have for that. I have issues with self-loathing and depression, but I'm too much of a stubborn fool to even consider it for any other reason.

Vetinari's quote isn't diametrically opposed to the Latin phrase I quote earlier - it doesn't say anything about desiring peace. It is obvious that if you want war, you should prepare for it; what the phrase I quoted means is that even if you want peace, you must prepare for war - because your enemies won't just go "ah, he wants peace, we won't kill him now, let's all be friends". They'd go, "ah, he's not defending himself? Itbakh al-Yahud!" and kill you.

Sorry to butt in, and I don't intend to step on any toes, but... If everyone around you wants to and is actively trying to wipe you off the map, I would say that having at least some form of defense is a necessity. War should not be a thing. It is horrendous and ugly. But... It is a thing. Even if you don't desire war, those who do may not give you a choice.