War Memorial For Conscientious Objectors?

[FreeThinkerNZ]

Tomorrow is ANZAC day in NZ, which is our version of the US Memorial Day and Veteran's Day all in one.  The acronym stands for Australia and NZ Army Corps, which formed during WWI.

 

As often happens at this time of year, public debate focusses on issues of war and peace, and this year the talk is on war memorials.  We have a new national war memorial site opening up in the capital city. 

 

Some descendants of WWI conscientious objectors want a memorial to their relatives who died in prison or on the front (in no man's land).  I am also a descendant of a conscientious objector, he was a xian, as were most of those who objected. He was a minister in the Brethren sect.  I don't think he went to prison.  He died in old age many years later.

 

What do you guys think of such a memorial?  What would you say if the same was being proposed in your country?

 

I am ashamed of my relative who was called to serve in the war and refused.  When I think of contemporaries who volunteer to serve in places like Afghanistan and protect countless others from totalitarian aggression, I want the national war memorial site to honour all those who risked their lives to defend us.  I don't want conscientious objectors to be honoured alongside those people.

 

 

 

[Vigile]

I am ashamed of my relative who was called to serve in the war and refused.

 

Why?  Sounds like he had more brains and sense of humanity than all the idiots who just picked up at the first call of patriotic duty to run off and kill or be killed.  Moreover, that particular war was essentially just a human meat grinder where everyone who participated lost mightily.  Had more just objected, surely the world would have been better for all. 

 

 

 

When I think of contemporaries who volunteer to serve in places like Afghanistan and protect countless others from totalitarian aggression,

 

That's one way to spin it.  Another way would be 'fight for resources for people far above their pay grade, while killing people who were never a threat. 

[FreeThinkerNZ]

So Islamic fundamentalism and theocracy is not a threat to civilisation?

[Vigile]

People who live in Afghanistan are not -- not even a little bit.  The question is too loaded to answer beyond that without spending a lot more time and work on it. 

[FreeThinkerNZ]

IMO the war in Afghanistan is contributing to protecting the potential for secularism there and in many other countries where it is threatened or has been unable to take root so far.  But I'm not trying to convert anyone to my point of view, I'm happy to be disagreed with, just expressing my opinion and seeing if others agree about conscientious objectors having war memorials.

[Vigile]

Just remember, that after Afghanistan has been fully subjugated (unlikely IMO) that it will remain an Islamic country -- Turkey/Egypt, for instance.  So if it's really a war for secularism, its ends aren't easily in sight using these methods.

 

That's one of the problems with propaganda.  I just offers easy answers to problems that can never hope to be solved using methods it proposes. 

[florduh]

I was a conscientious objector during the Vietnam War. I do not support US foreign policy and believe that most of our wars (there are many) are illegal and immoral. I don't understand why so many young people are willing and even eager to do the dirty work of a corrupt government.

 

Those who do stand against the tide of militarism aren't recognized, but I can't see why non-combatants should be included with the soldiers who have made their own sacrifices. In fact, it sort of offends me.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

I agree with you (Vigile) that the efforts to bring change in Afghanistan have not been very effective.  I would have preferred to see the war in Iraq happen a good 10 years before it did.  I also would have preferred to see India stay intact and that there had never been a Pakistan.  That alone would have done more for secularism in the region than anything done in Afghanistan could have.

 

I guess my main point is that I want NZ's national war memorial to honour those who actually risked their lives in wars (some of which were necessary for survival, such as WWII) and not to include those who declined to do so.  I feel they had no stake in the outcome. They didn't help us defeat Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito.  If it weren't for those who did, NZ would have suffered greatly from the UK and most of Asia being overrun.  Japanese submarines were just offshore in NZ, and Australia was bombed.  These people are the ones who deserve my gratitude.

 

And it concerns me that fundamentalist xianity led people to refuse to serve.  If I get involved in this politically, I may get harassed for being an athiest.  Hell, maybe I should do it anyway - I would fight for my country if required, so what's a bit of harassment?

[FreeThinkerNZ]

I was a conscientious objector during the Vietnam War. I do not support US foreign policy and believe that most of our wars (there are many) are illegal and immoral. I don't understand why so many young people are willing and even eager to do the dirty work of a corrupt government.

 

Those who do stand against the tide of militarism aren't recognized, but I can't see why non-combatants should be included with the soldiers who have made their own sacrifices. In fact, it sort of offends me.

I can think of many US wars and actions that were illegal and immoral, particularly those in Latin America, for example.  I'm making an exception for actions that oppose the expansion of the "Parties of God" under command from their holy book.  I wish those actions were more effective and involved less collateral damage, of course.  But I agree with the aims of the actions. 

[Vigile]

I'm inclined to think that General Smedley Butler offers the most rational and realistic perspective on war. Even WWII was not as cut and dry as the winner's history books have widely recorded it. It was as much a fight for a hold on colonial rule as it was a fight against fascism. In fact, fascism was the outcome of the first war, which was pretty much just Germany trying to get its own slice of the colonial pie. Had countries like the UK and France not been imperialistic in the first place, had their men chosen to conscientiously object to the subjugation of their fellow humans, none of this would have occurred. So even the so-called good guys didn't have clean hands in the matter.

 

[owen652]

So Islamic fundamentalism and theocracy is not a threat to civilisation?

It wasn't, until Bush illegally invaded Iraq. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Politics aside, I understand your point, FreeThinker.  Considering what your boys endured at Gallipoli, I can see why you'd object to such a monument.  Sometimes you just need to consider what a soldier goes through while putting the question of why they go through it on the back-burner.  I might think that America had no business in Vietnam, but my father served and I honor him for it.

[Ellinas]

My problem with a "war memorial" for conscientious objectors is one of terminology.  Why on earth would such an objector want to be immortalized on a memorial of war?

 

There are those who simply are not soldiers - people who, for whatever reason (be it religious or just their innate character) could not face the idea of doing deadly violence to another human.

 

What they suffered for their stance shows two things:

1. They were not cowards.
2. The lack of understanding of those who would seek to force them to combat was nothing short of inhumanity.

 

Bottom line, we can argue all day about what wars are just or are not so.  The argument is probably pointless.  To a jihadist, jihad is a just cause, as was the cause of Germany in both world wars to her soldiers, as was the war to oppose these factions to those who are in opposition.  But I will not condemn people for standing up for their ideals of peace.  Otherwise, I would be saying that my enemies also are entitled to force the unwilling to their cause.

 

I would support a memorial - but a "peace memorial" to those who upheld the ideal of non violence.

 

And none of the above should be taken as saying anything about whether I believe any given past or current military action was or was not properly taken.

[Fernweh]

From the perspective of the soldier, who is trying to kill them? The enemy or the commanding officer who sends them into battle? Not wanting to be killed in combat is the product of a sane and rational mind. 

[Vigile]

From the perspective of the soldier, who is trying to kill them? The enemy or the commanding officer who sends them into battle? Not wanting to be killed in combat is the product of a sane and rational mind.

Sometimes it's both.

 

In the first war, Americans were getting gunned down like fish in a barrel, so the soldiers retreated.  The commanding general, Pershing IIRC, ordered their officers to shoot something like 40k soldiers for desertion to teach the remaining soldiers a lesson.  Fortunately, the officers refused. 

[Vigile]

Coincidentally, this was on my playlist.  Right on topic -- it's even about NZ objectors.

 

http://www.primewire.ag/watch-2745802-Field-Punishment-No1

 

In 1916, the New Zealand Government secretly shipped 14 of the country's most outspoken conscientious objectors to the Western Front in an attempt to convert, silence, or quite possibly kill them. This is their story.

 

Edit: I'm only 25 minutes in so far, but if you can watch this and still think these men don't deserve recognition and honor for their bravery and sacrifice, then... Well. 

[FreeThinkerNZ]

Good discussion, interesting points all round.

 

I'm inclined to think that General Smedley Butler offers the most rational and realistic perspective on war. Even WWII was not as cut and dry as the winner's history books have widely recorded it. It was as much a fight for a hold on colonial rule as it was a fight against fascism. In fact, fascism was the outcome of the first war, which was pretty much just Germany trying to get its own slice of the colonial pie. Had countries like the UK and France not been imperialistic in the first place, had their men chosen to conscientiously object to the subjugation of their fellow humans, none of this would have occurred. So even the so-called good guys didn't have clean hands in the matter.
 

The UK wasn't trying to subjugate anyone, they were, among other things, helping defend Belgium weren't they?  If people had objected en masse, what would have happened to Belgians?

 

 

So Islamic fundamentalism and theocracy is not a threat to civilisation?

It wasn't, until Bush illegally invaded Iraq. 

 

I think the Koran was ordering adherents to aggressively expand long before 2003.

 

My problem with a "war memorial" for conscientious objectors is one of terminology.  Why on earth would such an objector want to be immortalized on a memorial of war?

 

There are those who simply are not soldiers - people who, for whatever reason (be it religious or just their innate character) could not face the idea of doing deadly violence to another human.

 

What they suffered for their stance shows two things:

1. They were not cowards.
2. The lack of understanding of those who would seek to force them to combat was nothing short of inhumanity.

 

Bottom line, we can argue all day about what wars are just or are not so.  The argument is probably pointless.  To a jihadist, jihad is a just cause, as was the cause of Germany in both world wars to her soldiers, as was the war to oppose these factions to those who are in opposition.  But I will not condemn people for standing up for their ideals of peace.  Otherwise, I would be saying that my enemies also are entitled to force the unwilling to their cause.

 

I would support a memorial - but a "peace memorial" to those who upheld the ideal of non violence.

 

And none of the above should be taken as saying anything about whether I believe any given past or current military action was or was not properly taken.

I don't particularly relish to thought of doing violence to another human either, but if my country needed defending, as (for example) the UK did in WWII, how could I in good conscience refuse to help?

 

I agree with your points 1 and 2.  They should have been treated humanely.

 

From the perspective of the soldier, who is trying to kill them? The enemy or the commanding officer who sends them into battle? Not wanting to be killed in combat is the product of a sane and rational mind. 

Soldiers don't want to be killed in combat either, but they still help defend their country when required.

 

Coincidentally, this was on my playlist.  Right on topic -- it's even about NZ objectors.

 

http://www.primewire.ag/watch-2745802-Field-Punishment-No1

 

In 1916, the New Zealand Government secretly shipped 14 of the country's most outspoken conscientious objectors to the Western Front in an attempt to convert, silence, or quite possibly kill them. This is their story.

 

Edit: I'm only 25 minutes in so far, but if you can watch this and still think these men don't deserve recognition and honor for their bravery and sacrifice, then... Well. 

I'm sure it's an interesting movie.  Instead of watching all of it I found this information about NZ's pacifist objectors, which included the ones depicted in the movie.

 

These men were entitled to their civil rights and were essentially tortured to within an inch of their lives for their political views.  It was horribly wrong and unjust.  But that doesn't mean, IMO, they were brave and made sacrifices for NZ in the way that serving soldiers did.  Those who want to remember them are welcome to pay to erect monuments some place other than the government's national war memorial park.

[Vigile]

The UK wasn't trying to subjugate anyone, they were, among other things, helping defend Belgium weren't they?  If people had objected en masse, what would have happened to Belgians?

 

Yes, they were defending their ally, but not trying to subjugate anyone?  I'm sure you know the old yarn, 'the sun never sets on the British Empire.'  The UK had pretty much subjugated the bulk of the world.  That it couldn't lose face by allowing Germany to overrun Belgium after warning them off largely contributed to the first war -- what would have happened to their colonies if they allowed Germany to call their bluff?

 

Bottom line though, the UK was far worse than Germany both in brutality and in sheer numbers of those it killed -- this, despite the two wars. 

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

The UK wasn't trying to subjugate anyone, they were, among other things, helping defend Belgium weren't they?  If people had objected en masse, what would have happened to Belgians?

 

Yes, they were defending their ally, but not trying to subjugate anyone?  I'm sure you know the old yarn, 'the sun never sets on the British Empire.'  The UK had pretty much subjugated the bulk of the world.  That it couldn't lose face by allowing Germany to overrun Belgium after warning them off largely contributed to the first war -- what would have happened to their colonies if they allowed Germany to call their bluff?

 

Bottom line though, the UK was far worse than Germany both in brutality and in sheer numbers of those it killed -- this, despite the two wars. 

 

NZ it still very much affected by colonisation by the British, so I know all about empire. 

 

I don't know the difference in the WWI body count between UK/Germany and whether you're including those killed in the holocaust or not, but the Soviet Union had the highest body count of all combatants, a point that's often not factored in. 

 

For me the bottom line is that the UK was under direct and real threat and if it hadn't been for the US, and empire countries like NZ, Australia and Canada, it would have been overrun.  The UK had a right to defend itself, NZ relied on UK support for our security/survival so eligible NZers were required to serve.  These days we rely on the US and we usually send volunteers (an albeit tiny number) to serve when needed.  I am proud of our troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

 

Conscription is unlikely to be an issue for us again so it's a historical question.  I just want those who did serve to be honoured without the public funding and siting of a memorial about those who didn't serve, citing "peace", which is what the soldiers were fighting for in the first place.  To me, wanting peace does not equate to allowing Hitler to invade your country.

[Vigile]

Yes, I'm including the Russians who were killed.

 

My point is that While Germany threatened the allies, the allies weren't any better necessarily.  There were no 'good' sides to fight for if you imagine humanity was fighting 'the good' fight against good and evil.

 

The fact is, the British, for two hundred years leading up to those events raped and plundered the planet, committed genocide and forced countries into labor.  Today, we are still seeing the effects of the destruction they wrought as Africa is still completely destabilized and still has trouble rebuilding an infrastructure that is self-sustaining -- which they had before it was colonized, before arbitrary borders were forced on it and before it was forced to grow tea and spices and other similar products for the colonialists at the expense of the ability to feed itself. 

 

It was on this backdrop that Germany decided they wanted a piece of the action.  So, when Germany threatened, they weren't just challenging an innocent bystander, they were challenging a very formidable aggressor who was determined to hold onto the fruits of its imperialism at all costs. 

 

IOW, it was like a street fight between rival gangs fighting over gangland territory.  The winner was going to control the resources garnered from the conflict.  Those refusing to participate were the rational ones.  Those who ran off and got themselves shot up gave up their lives for the benefit only of those who would never share in the spoils.  In my mind, they were the real heros; the ones who refused to murder their fellow man or to take part in this miserable game. 

[FreeThinkerNZ]

Yes, I'm including the Russians who were killed.

 

My point is that While Germany threatened the allies, the allies weren't any better necessarily.  There were no 'good' sides to fight for if you imagine humanity was fighting 'the good' fight against good and evil.

 

The fact is, the British, for two hundred years leading up to those events raped and plundered the planet, committed genocide and forced countries into labor.  Today, we are still seeing the effects of the destruction they wrought as Africa is still completely destabilized and still has trouble rebuilding an infrastructure that is self-sustaining -- which they had before it was colonized, before arbitrary borders were forced on it and before it was forced to grow tea and spices and other similar products for the colonialists at the expense of the ability to feed itself. 

 

It was on this backdrop that Germany decided they wanted a piece of the action.  So, when Germany threatened, they weren't just challenging an innocent bystander, they were challenging a very formidable aggressor who was determined to hold onto the fruits of its imperialism at all costs. 

 

IOW, it was like a street fight between rival gangs fighting over gangland territory.  The winner was going to control the resources garnered from the conflict.  Those refusing to participate were the rational ones.  Those who ran off and got themselves shot up gave up their lives for the benefit only of those who would never share in the spoils.  In my mind, they were the real heros; the ones who refused to murder their fellow man or to take part in this miserable game. 

I forgot to mention in response to your post with the Smedley speech that I noticed the start of the speech justifies military action if its for the purpose of defence.  Regardless of the underlying causes of the war, the UK and its allies had a right (and a need) to defend themselves.  I love the idea of pacifism, just not the practical reality of it in certain situations.

 

I agree with you about the effects of colonialism, particularly British colonialism.  The British colonised for resources, yes, but they also brought xianity with them.  The colonised countries like NZ that still have a monarchy are stuck in a church/state time warp.  The US is the closest thing the world has to a secular state, and I want that for NZ.  If I had the financial resources, I would do everything I could to move to the US and one day become a citizen.  It's just not feasible for me to do that, so I try to make the best of what I have here.

[Ellinas]

My problem with a "war memorial" for conscientious objectors is one of terminology.  Why on earth would such an objector want to be immortalized on a memorial of war?

 

There are those who simply are not soldiers - people who, for whatever reason (be it religious or just their innate character) could not face the idea of doing deadly violence to another human.

 

What they suffered for their stance shows two things:

1. They were not cowards.
2. The lack of understanding of those who would seek to force them to combat was nothing short of inhumanity.

 

Bottom line, we can argue all day about what wars are just or are not so.  The argument is probably pointless.  To a jihadist, jihad is a just cause, as was the cause of Germany in both world wars to her soldiers, as was the war to oppose these factions to those who are in opposition.  But I will not condemn people for standing up for their ideals of peace.  Otherwise, I would be saying that my enemies also are entitled to force the unwilling to their cause.

 

I would support a memorial - but a "peace memorial" to those who upheld the ideal of non violence.

 

And none of the above should be taken as saying anything about whether I believe any given past or current military action was or was not properly taken.

 

I don't particularly relish to thought of doing violence to another human either, but if my country needed defending, as (for example) the UK did in WWII, how could I in good conscience refuse to help?

 

I agree with your points 1 and 2.  They should have been treated humanely.

 

What you decide that you can do, in good conscience, is a matter for you.  I would not necessarily disagree with your decision.

 

What the conscientious objectors decided to do, in good conscience, was a matter for them.  I would respect their decision.

 

I am not the keeper of their conscience, nor them of mine.  A memorial that honours the stand they took for conscience sake is something to which I could not object - any more than  I can object to memorials for the fallen.

 

The fact that I may disagree with someone does not prevent me respecting the stance they decide to take.  Otherwise I have to assert that I have the only right outlook.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

My problem with a "war memorial" for conscientious objectors is one of terminology.  Why on earth would such an objector want to be immortalized on a memorial of war?

 

There are those who simply are not soldiers - people who, for whatever reason (be it religious or just their innate character) could not face the idea of doing deadly violence to another human.

 

What they suffered for their stance shows two things:

1. They were not cowards.
2. The lack of understanding of those who would seek to force them to combat was nothing short of inhumanity.

 

Bottom line, we can argue all day about what wars are just or are not so.  The argument is probably pointless.  To a jihadist, jihad is a just cause, as was the cause of Germany in both world wars to her soldiers, as was the war to oppose these factions to those who are in opposition.  But I will not condemn people for standing up for their ideals of peace.  Otherwise, I would be saying that my enemies also are entitled to force the unwilling to their cause.

 

I would support a memorial - but a "peace memorial" to those who upheld the ideal of non violence.

 

And none of the above should be taken as saying anything about whether I believe any given past or current military action was or was not properly taken.

 

I don't particularly relish to thought of doing violence to another human either, but if my country needed defending, as (for example) the UK did in WWII, how could I in good conscience refuse to help?

 

I agree with your points 1 and 2.  They should have been treated humanely.

 

What you decide that you can do, in good conscience, is a matter for you.  I would not necessarily disagree with your decision.

 

What the conscientious objectors decided to do, in good conscience, was a matter for them.  I would respect their decision.

 

I am not the keeper of their conscience, nor them of mine.  A memorial that honours the stand they took for conscience sake is something to which I could not object - any more than  I can object to memorials for the fallen.

 

The fact that I may disagree with someone does not prevent me respecting the stance they decide to take.  Otherwise I have to assert that I have the only right outlook.

 

I'm not disrespecting their decision, they were free to take the stance they did.  I'm saying that a government funded war memorial park is a place for memorials to fallen soldiers, who made a decision that cost them everything, for my benefit.  It's where I and others thank them for doing that. 

 

I respect people's right to make decisions I disagree with, but would prefer that they are remembered in a separate place, at the expense of those who agree with their decision.  There are countless such political decisions made every day, the world would be full of memorials if they were all honoured for their decisions.  Their decision did not benefit me, and it potentially could have cost me.

[Ellinas]

 

 

My problem with a "war memorial" for conscientious objectors is one of terminology.  Why on earth would such an objector want to be immortalized on a memorial of war?

 

There are those who simply are not soldiers - people who, for whatever reason (be it religious or just their innate character) could not face the idea of doing deadly violence to another human.

 

What they suffered for their stance shows two things:

1. They were not cowards.
2. The lack of understanding of those who would seek to force them to combat was nothing short of inhumanity.

 

Bottom line, we can argue all day about what wars are just or are not so.  The argument is probably pointless.  To a jihadist, jihad is a just cause, as was the cause of Germany in both world wars to her soldiers, as was the war to oppose these factions to those who are in opposition.  But I will not condemn people for standing up for their ideals of peace.  Otherwise, I would be saying that my enemies also are entitled to force the unwilling to their cause.

 

I would support a memorial - but a "peace memorial" to those who upheld the ideal of non violence.

 

And none of the above should be taken as saying anything about whether I believe any given past or current military action was or was not properly taken.

 

I don't particularly relish to thought of doing violence to another human either, but if my country needed defending, as (for example) the UK did in WWII, how could I in good conscience refuse to help?

 

I agree with your points 1 and 2.  They should have been treated humanely.

 

What you decide that you can do, in good conscience, is a matter for you.  I would not necessarily disagree with your decision.

 

What the conscientious objectors decided to do, in good conscience, was a matter for them.  I would respect their decision.

 

I am not the keeper of their conscience, nor them of mine.  A memorial that honours the stand they took for conscience sake is something to which I could not object - any more than  I can object to memorials for the fallen.

 

The fact that I may disagree with someone does not prevent me respecting the stance they decide to take.  Otherwise I have to assert that I have the only right outlook.

 

I'm not disrespecting their decision, they were free to take the stance they did.  I'm saying that a government funded war memorial park is a place for memorials to fallen soldiers, who made a decision that cost them everything, for my benefit.  It's where I and others thank them for doing that. 

 

I respect people's right to make decisions I disagree with, but would prefer that they are remembered in a separate place, at the expense of those who agree with their decision.  There are countless such political decisions made every day, the world would be full of memorials if they were all honoured for their decisions.  Their decision did not benefit me, and it potentially could have cost me.

 

I think you misunderstand me.  I was not intending to claim that you were disrespecting anything - my point was merely to establish what I hope is a balance in my own attitude to, on the one hand, the view that good conscience demands that one fight and, on the other hand, the view that it demands that one does not do so.  It's meant to be a sequential train of thought through to my final sentence, not an accusation.

 

In fact, your final paragraph suggests we are saying practically the same thing - have a memorial, but not a war memorial.

 

Sorry if my musings have caused any offence.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

 

My problem with a "war memorial" for conscientious objectors is one of terminology.  Why on earth would such an objector want to be immortalized on a memorial of war?

 

There are those who simply are not soldiers - people who, for whatever reason (be it religious or just their innate character) could not face the idea of doing deadly violence to another human.

 

What they suffered for their stance shows two things:

1. They were not cowards.
2. The lack of understanding of those who would seek to force them to combat was nothing short of inhumanity.

 

Bottom line, we can argue all day about what wars are just or are not so.  The argument is probably pointless.  To a jihadist, jihad is a just cause, as was the cause of Germany in both world wars to her soldiers, as was the war to oppose these factions to those who are in opposition.  But I will not condemn people for standing up for their ideals of peace.  Otherwise, I would be saying that my enemies also are entitled to force the unwilling to their cause.

 

I would support a memorial - but a "peace memorial" to those who upheld the ideal of non violence.

 

And none of the above should be taken as saying anything about whether I believe any given past or current military action was or was not properly taken.

 

I don't particularly relish to thought of doing violence to another human either, but if my country needed defending, as (for example) the UK did in WWII, how could I in good conscience refuse to help?

 

I agree with your points 1 and 2.  They should have been treated humanely.

 

What you decide that you can do, in good conscience, is a matter for you.  I would not necessarily disagree with your decision.

 

What the conscientious objectors decided to do, in good conscience, was a matter for them.  I would respect their decision.

 

I am not the keeper of their conscience, nor them of mine.  A memorial that honours the stand they took for conscience sake is something to which I could not object - any more than  I can object to memorials for the fallen.

 

The fact that I may disagree with someone does not prevent me respecting the stance they decide to take.  Otherwise I have to assert that I have the only right outlook.

 

I'm not disrespecting their decision, they were free to take the stance they did.  I'm saying that a government funded war memorial park is a place for memorials to fallen soldiers, who made a decision that cost them everything, for my benefit.  It's where I and others thank them for doing that. 

 

I respect people's right to make decisions I disagree with, but would prefer that they are remembered in a separate place, at the expense of those who agree with their decision.  There are countless such political decisions made every day, the world would be full of memorials if they were all honoured for their decisions.  Their decision did not benefit me, and it potentially could have cost me.

 

I think you misunderstand me.  I was not intending to claim that you were disrespecting anything - my point was merely to establish what I hope is a balance in my own attitude to, on the one hand, the view that good conscience demands that one fight and, on the other hand, the view that it demands that one does not do so.  It's meant to be a sequential train of thought through to my final sentence, not an accusation.

 

In fact, your final paragraph suggests we are saying practically the same thing - have a memorial, but not a war memorial.

 

Sorry if my musings have caused any offence.

 

I appreciate your post.  I must admit I thought you were saying I was asserting that I had "the only right outlook", which I didn't think I was.  Yes, my key point was that the war memorial park is for remembering those who served in the military, not those who objected. 

 

I think the government may be trying to please everyone and this plan is likely to backfire.  They might even be just putting it out there to test public opinion and ultimately hoping justify the decision they've already made.  The current ruling party is centre-right, and not the party where the objectors would have come from.