[Baltar]

Originally Posted by Erin Pavlina

And no I wouldn't kill Nazi's during WWII either. And yes, even though I'm jewish.

Well alright, you did say you'd kill to defend your kids right? I'm Jewish too, and some of my family members were killed during WWII. My great grandfather was a soldier and was killed in 1945. My grandparents also lost some other family members, who were murdered by the SS in 1941. Their whole village was destroyed. If your family members were threatened or killed, would you feel different?

Originally Posted by Erin Pavlina

Killing in retaliation for killing does not bring peace.

I'm sure someone famous said this -- violence is never a good solution, but sometimes it's the only solution. During World War II, there was no other way to stop Hitler. There were even officers in his own army who tried to kill him.

Originally Posted by Tasaio

No, I would not kill Nazis. Nor would I serve in a non-combat role.

Re: Nazis

By "Nazis" I assume you're referring to German soldiers serving under Hitler. I should point out that not all soldiers knew about the Holocaust--many probably hated Hitler, and the war. Have you seen Das Boot?

No I haven't seen Das Boot but I'm very aware of the history of WWII. I do know that there were plots against Hitler by Wehrmacht officers (and a failed bomb attempt), and I'm sure many Wehrmacht soldiers and officers were just doing their duty. For instance Erwin Rommel was in my opinion not a Nazi but just a General. He wasn't very fond of Hitler and although he didn't take part in the assassination attempt, he did know about it and his name was in the plotters' documents. He was forced by Hitler to commit suicide to save his family (and thus Hitler killed his best General who could've possibly stopped the allied Normandy invasion).

Anyway, the point is that these people did fight for the Nazi regime. Even if they were just tools of the regime they were still making it possible. It would be very unfortunate to kill people that weren't complicit in the regime's crimes and philosophy, but it was the only way to end the war. Actually I used to think that Wehrmacht wasn't involved in atrocities. I thought only SS was responsible for that. But recently I read that Wehrmacht units were in fact involved. However on the whole they were much more like normal soldiers compared to the SS. The SS headed by Heinrich Himmler organized the entire Holocaust and committed the worst atrocities during WWII.

Originally Posted by Tasaio

Americans committed atrocities in Vietnam, too. John Kerry was one such veteran. Many non-Americans felt then (as they do now) that the US has committed acts on par with the Nazis.

I don't know if anything can compare with what the Nazis did, but I'm certainly not defending Vietnam and as I said already I would not want to serve in that war or the current Iraq war. There's a big difference between WWII and those wars. Vietnam was a proxy war between the US and Soviet Union, much like the Korean War (although that's probably the only one of those wars that was worthwhile even though the casualties were unacceptable) and Afghanistan in 1979-89. Current Iraq war is.. I don't even know what. War for better oil prices?

Originally Posted by Tasaio

Re: non-combat roles

Call it what you will, you're still being conscripted. Contrary to what others believe, the government does not own you, and you are not obligated to put your life on the line.

I find it irritating when people imply you aren't "serving your country" if you avoid conscription. Why is military service worth any more than other contributions to society?

I do think that it's not really necessary in the modern age due to the technology we have. However, something to think about is that one of the biggest reasons for the Roman Empire's collapse is that Roman citizens became complacent and handed off defending the empire to mercenaries (originally, you had to be a citizen to serve in the army which makes a lot of sense). If people stop signing up voluntarily (and they shouldn't unless the pay starts getting non-competitive), we'll end up with the same problem and a draft will be required again.

Originally Posted by Tasaio

Conscription is odd in that it treats everyone as equal--but we all know that's not the case. Some people are more suited than others for military service.

I agree, and that's why a draft is almost 100% unlikely in the modern day and age. The professional army we have today is very different from what it was 50 years ago, as stated in the article linked to by the OP.