[QUOTE=Peter Morris]
Look at the quotes I gave in my first post, and follow the link. You will see a specific example of someone who HAS done precisely that. And several other people advocating that another person SHOULD do that.
I would love to discuss those specific individuals, but Tom will close the thread if I do. That is not kissing ass, or hiding behind his skirt. I do not like this ruling or agree with it, but I must abide by it if I want this thread to remain open.
For that reason, I cannot be any more specific than I have been. You can find the cite yourself if you look for it.
[/QUOTE]
Damn, I went and did as you insisted only to find that tomndebb has already straightened you out as far as the leaps and assumptions you’ve made. So you still have yet to supply a person who acts as you describe. But, please, you still may do so. Just be careful as to not ascribe belief to people that they have not demonstrated to be their own. I’ll wait.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Nope. You have leaped to a conclusion without sufficient evidence.
The only thing that Sunrazor and Brown Eyed Girl have said is that each of their sons “disagrees with” the Iraq policy. You have decided that that means he considers the Iraq policy unjust.
[/QUOTE]
That’s a good point, tom, and you are correct. Quite honestly, I don’t really even know the extent to which my son disagrees with the war only that he “doesn’t think we should be there” (I may be paraphrasing; the discussion was weeks ago). I took that to mean he doesn’t agree with the policy, but I didn’t ask for a full, detailed explanation of his political views, and, as you noted, that could mean a range of things. Does he think the war is unjust? I don’t even know the answer to that question. I’d sure be surprised if Peter Morris was more familiar with my son’s sense of morality than I am.
Tangentially, I also mentioned that my son has indicated his belief that capital punishment is morally wrong. Peter Morris might be able to make a conclusive jump to the moral standing that killing is wrong, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that *all *killing is deemed wrong. To be sure, I happen to agree with my son’s position on both the Iraq war (that is to say, I disagree with the policy wrt the invasion and our initial presence there under what I believe to have been false pretense) and capital punishment. However, I do realize that there are times when killing another human being is morally justified. I don’t like it, and I wish it didn’t have to happen, but I’m pretty sure it’s an unfortunate reality that isn’t going to go away. Knowing my son’s perceptiveness, I wouldn’t be surprised if he avoids dealing in moral absolutes, as well.
The OP seems to be attempting to broaden the definition of mercenary to encompass regular military service personnel however…and offering up as evidence a post by someone on a message board (a post which was fairly ambiguous btw…at least by my own reading). Really that’s what this all comes down to…the OP’s reaction to a couple of 'dopers views, some of which are probably distortion or incorrect…and even if not, they are the personal views of a couple of people who may very well simply be full of shit and/or unrepresentative of any group or organization.
-XT
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I noticed that- that’s why I tried to offer him some suggestions on how he might try to re-phrase the question if he was looking for a better time at getting answers, as the way it currently is, it’s causing lots of flare ups and reactionary posts. :shrug: Just trying to help him out, in case he WAS curious about the issue in a general sense rather than the tricky situation he’s inserted himself into by his methods.
The difference between a “hero” and what you consider me is nothing but timing. My grandfathers fought in what was unquestionably a just war. I fought in what was debatably a just war. What’s the difference?
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
The difference between a “hero” and what you consider me is nothing but timing. My grandfathers fought in what was unquestionably a just war. I fought in what was debatably a just war. What’s the difference?
[/QUOTE]
It’s a little deeper than that. This is not the difference between coming across a fire and rescuing 5 people inside vs. taking a different route and never seeing the fire at all. This is the difference between coming across a fire and rescuing 5 people inside vs. deliberately setting a fire and killing 5 people inside.
[QUOTE=Mosier]
It’s a little deeper than that. This is not the difference between coming across a fire and rescuing 5 people inside vs. taking a different route and never seeing the fire at all. This is the difference between coming across a fire and rescuing 5 people inside vs. deliberately setting a fire and killing 5 people inside.
[/QUOTE]
There is not a single member of the US military, past or present, that has “set the fire”. Not even Curtis “Bomb 'Em all” LeMay could start a war, though God knows he tried mightily to do so.
It’s not deeper than that. The difference between your opinion of me and those who have come before me is simply based on your opinion of whether the war in question was just or not.
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
There is not a single member of the US military, past or present, that has “set the fire”. Not even Curtis “Bomb 'Em all” LeMay could start a war, though God knows he tried mightily to do so.
It’s not deeper than that. The difference between your opinion of me and those who have come before me is simply based on your opinion of whether the war in question was just or not.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t have a bad opinion of you, for what it’s worth.
I do think that the question of whether a war is just or not has much bigger significance than you’re suggesting, though.
Not to me, it doesn’t. You want to make this about politics, about feelings, emotions. I don’t have that luxury. More to the point, the next war may be just in your opinion, and I will be there. So, what’s the difference? Your opinion, nothing more.
That’s why it doesn’t make sense to disrespect the military. In the same vein, it doesn’t make sense to respect or revere the military. We just are. I deserve the same respect for doing my job that you do for doing yours, no more, no less.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
That’s ridiculous. If it is truly a debate, either side can win or lose. If neither side can convince the other of his position, then it is a stalemate. For YOU to “win”, you have to get someone to change their opinion and adopt yours.
[/QUOTE]
No, because I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind.
[QUOTE=xtisme]
And how would I do so considering that your opinion is made up of strawmen and uninformed conjecture.
[/quote]
I wouldn’t have started the thread if I wasn’t willing to have my mind changed. I have invited you to give me reasons to change my mind. I will look at any reasons you give.
But so far you haven’t given any.
I’m basing my opinion on what people have actually said.
For example, let’s look at Sunrazor’s post "My own son disagrees with the “Iraq policy,” but that didn’t prevent him from enlisting in the Navy and it won’t prevent him from deploying to Bahrain next month in support of the guys in Iraq. He’s proud to serve and intellectual enough to separate his personal feelings from his need for training and a salary and his commitment to serve. "
I can only follow what he said. Since he said that his son is there to get a salary, then I believe that he is there to get a salary. It’s not me that’s saying that, it’s Sunrazor.
I already have. Repeatedly. And it’s clear that you know it.
Sunrazor’s son is going to a war that he disapproves of. Why? To get a salary, according to his father.
The problem here is that HE disapproves of it. I disrespect him for going against his own principles. I disrespect him for selling out.
But you keep on changing that. You keep on saying that I am judging the war as immoral.
You’ve had it explained to you many times already, and I don’t see how you can fail to understand.
[QUOTE=Peter Morris]
No, because I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind.
[/QUOTE]
And what makes you think that anyone is trying to change your mind? They’re most likely content to show the shallowness of your argument, and the degree to which you cheat by attributing feelings to others that they don’t hold. After that, it’s the old “you can lead a horse to water…” You can be as stubborn as you’d like in not drinking from the trough, and I think it quite entertaining that you take pride in that. Based on that I deem you Winner of The Internets!!!
[QUOTE=Brown Eyed Girl]
I’m calling bullshit on this one because it’s obvious which thread you are referring to. Let me clarify something for you that everyone else seemed to understand. There is a lot more that can be achieved through military service than simply pay. …
That being said, and the point of my consideration and the advice of numerous posters, while a young man could possibly earn more delivering pizzas, the military offers him far more opportunity to improve his skills, his character, and his future.
[/quote]
Well, there’s a contradiction there. “pay” does not only consist of money alone. The skills training IS part of the “pay” on offer. So is such abstracts as “improving his character”
So, you are attempting to persuade him to join in order to get this form of pay.
No, of course I’m not. That never has been what I’m discussing.
The point is, and always has been one of sticking to your own principles.
There is a war going on, of which he disapproves in some way or another. You don’t know the full details of his opinion, but in one way or another he does not approve of it.
If he joins the military there is a strong possibility that he will be assigned to Iraq. Not certain, but reasonably likely. That means that he would be doing something that he does not approve of.
But there you are, trying to persuade him to enlist anyway. To betray his own feelings, for pay. The pay being the training on offer.
All right, Peter Morris, if you insist on deliberately twisting other people’s statements even when you quote them*, I don’t have time to fight all the fires you are going to start in this thread.
This thread is closed.
[ /Moderating ]
The post you quoted did not say what you claim:
Two points in your distortion:
Sunrazor did not say that he joined to get a salary; that is you twisting his words where he mentioned that his disagreement with “Iraq policy” was separate from his need for training, a salary, and his sense of duty. By simply ignoring the other components of the statement, you are imposing your own meaning on the words that are not in the original.
You have further imposed your own claim that Sunrazor’s son disapproves of the war and have drawn from that the conclusion that the son considers the war to be unjust. Yet I have already provided four examples of attitudes of people who “diaspprove” of “Iraq policy” (the words actually posted) who do not consider the war as it is currently prosecuted to be unjust. That is nothing more than you imposing your beliefs on the situation.
You claim to be only responding to the words posted (after you clip a single word out of a related series) and then you repeat other words and impose meanings on them that are not posted, so you cannot claim that you are “just reading his words.”
That sort of mangled thought is going to result in escalating hostility in this thread to no purpose.