[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
11th Anniversary
--------------6FC4DBE4DA36AA3C0667A4B2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-kr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
What a Shame for 11th Anniversary (18.09.99)?
The question: " what should be the role of military in an open society"
has but one
clear answer and that is : " none what so ever ". The idea of a
military force
contradicts the basics of any open society, and the idea of an open
society threatens
the basis of a military establishment . A good army is based on
discipline, devoutness
and uniformity whereas an open society should always promote:
discussion, defiance
and variety. In fact the term " Good Army " is also sarcastic for a
word " Good ".
Some claim that an army is needed for protection, they see the military
as a genial health
program preventing any illnesses of the nation. That argument can be
easily refuted.
When a country has an army, it means the country is always prepared for
a war and for
that the technology is always acquired. It is a sign of a sick society
which has an important
educational mission towards its generals. All army services outside the
battlefield should be
replaced by civil ones: military boarding schools, military hospitals,
military radio stations
and so on, have no place in an open society. The military often have no
respects for human
rights, use their arm power to take over the whole power of the country
from the people:
this happens often in the world we live on - has no chance in an open
society.
Military ought not to be allowed to take part in the political life of
the country, it should be
a neutral. In no case should the military indulge in any sort of
discrimination, such as ethnic,
religious, etc. If there is a political conflict (like in Burma) in an
open society, it should be
solved politically, it should not be the duty of the military, but the
duty of the parliament.
The main reason a country has an army is not to fall at the hands of its
neighbours.
But irrationality costs too many young lives to be supported.
Until the world community disarms, no society will truly be open.
History,
past and present (see Kosovo, East Timor) has shown us so.
--------------6FC4DBE4DA36AA3C0667A4B2
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-2022-kr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML>
<B><FONT SIZE=+1>What a Shame for 11th Anniversary (18.09.99)?</FONT></B>
<BR>
<P>The question: " what should be the role of military in an open society"
has but one
<BR>clear answer and that is : " none what so ever ". The idea of a
military force
<BR>contradicts the basics of any open society, and the idea of an open
society threatens
<BR>the basis of a military establishment . A good army is based on discipline,
devoutness
<BR>and uniformity whereas an open society should always promote: discussion,
defiance
<BR>and variety. In fact the term " Good Army " is also sarcastic
for a word " Good ".
<P>Some claim that an army is needed for protection, they see the military
as a genial health
<BR>program preventing any illnesses of the nation. That argument can be
easily refuted.
<P>When a country has an army, it means the country is always prepared
for a war and for
<BR>that the technology is always acquired. It is a sign of a sick society
which has an important
<BR>educational mission towards its generals. All army services outside
the battlefield should be
<BR>replaced by civil ones: military boarding schools, military hospitals,
military radio stations
<BR>and so on, have no place in an open society. The military often have
no respects for human
<BR>rights, use their arm power to take over the whole power of the country
from the people:
<BR>this happens often in the world we live on - has no chance in an open
society.
<P>Military ought not to be allowed to take part in the political life
of the country, it should be
<BR>a neutral. In no case should the military indulge in any sort of discrimination,
such as ethnic,
<BR>religious, etc. If there is a political conflict (like in Burma) in
an open society, it should be
<BR>solved politically, it should not be the duty of the military,
but the duty of the parliament.
<P>The main reason a country has an army is not to fall at the hands of
its neighbours.
<BR>But irrationality costs too many young lives to be supported.
<BR>Until the world community disarms, no society will truly be open. History,
<BR>past and present (see Kosovo, East Timor) has shown us so.</HTML>
--------------6FC4DBE4DA36AA3C0667A4B2--