2007-10-29 14:01:48 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Are you familiar with the name Desmond Thomas Doss?
Doss was a conscientious objector during WWII. Not wanting to shirk his duty, he became a corpsman in the 77th Infantry Division, during the battle for Okinawa, Doss (unarmed) exposed himself to enemy fire over 75 times to pull wounded comrades to safety. He spent six years recovering from the wounds he received. He also received the Medal of Honor.
Sometimes even a pacifist can be a hero.
2007-10-29 14:22:27 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
A pacifist would be forced into the situation you describe. It could be the case if a national military draft system were enacted where the non-volunteer would be likely swept up from the population. The scenario you describe ended around 1974 or '75. The last draft was announced when the military and politicians knew the war had to be expanded to win a losing effort in SouthEast Asia much like whats about to happen with the War Party looking to invade Iran next month.
2007-10-29 21:29:56 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Because his pacifism would probably mean he is the medic for the unit. And if he dies the rest of the unit is in peril.
One movie star got an Oscar before World War Two. He was a pacifist who was an unarmed army medic at the Battle of Okinawa and won the Silver Star for bravery under fire. His name is Lew Ayres. The irony is his Oscar was for a war movie: All Quiet On The Western Front.
2007-10-29 21:11:13 · answer #3 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
How I feel about them personally doesn't matter. I would carry them back but tell them you know it wouldn't hurt to shoot a few people next time or lose some weight.
2007-10-30 01:44:27 · answer #4 · answered by archkarat 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd carry anybody injured back and get 'em some help.
2007-10-29 21:09:27 · answer #5 · answered by amazed we've survived this l 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If he was the only one that needed to be carried back, yes. If there were more, they would go first. I would try to come back for him though.
2007-10-29 21:13:33 · answer #6 · answered by citizenvnfla 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No - I'd let him die in the dirt because he obviously is a closet traitor who will give aid and comfort to our enemies in a time of war by not totally agreeing with our policies.
Say that in a robot voice for full effect.
:-s
2007-10-29 21:08:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 5⤋
Nope...With the enemy closing in, I'm sure our retreat is blocked off. I'd give him a weapon and let him decide if he wants to help us live or die!
2007-10-29 21:11:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
No one left behind.
2007-10-29 21:07:18 · answer #9 · answered by spaceball_1 3 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Yes, he is still a comrade in arms, period!
2007-10-29 21:06:24 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋