Originally posted by Seekerof
And you are?
You, like myself, like ECK, etc., are nothing but another member, person, individual with a/an subjective opinion.
Is that in response to the sentence where I said "Here is absolute truth and I defy anyone to contradict it."?
Of course my just another person with his own subjective opinion, just like you. I have an opinion on the war and the morality of issues relating to
it, and I expressed that opinion without reprimanding anybody else for their opinions and without calling on anybody to endorse my opinion as
truth.
For someone so fond of reminding people that we are all mere mortals of imperfect knowledge, you certainly do make a habit of applying your subjective
morals to other people, not to mention of trying to imply that you have some sort of special knowledge or authority.
They are deserters, deserters to their families, deserters to their brothers in arms, deserters to their country, and deserters to
themselves. This coming from a former 8-year vet himself.
(emphasis mine) Who are you to tell people what they are to themselves? Oh, you're "a former 8-year vet", that's right. Perhaps you would like to
claim than in eight brief years you recieved perfect moral understanding which allows you to make such decrees?
Matters not to me or anyone else, but you and ECK, if you want to back each other by doing virtual pat-me-on-the-back shows.
I'm glad it doesn't matter (if it really doesn't matter) that ECK and I are having a "pat-me-on-the-back show" (also known as being in agreement-
actually partial agreement in this case). For a minute I was concerned that you might not like it when I got in the way of what looked from my seat
like an attempt to somehow invalidate ECK's opinion just because you claim that he's alone in it.
Please enlighten me to a time when a war or wars, in general, were not politically motivated or were not "inappropriate" or didn't "raise
concerns," k?
Nice job changing the subject, it was VERY subtle (or maybe you were so busy writing me off without consideration that you just got me mixed up with
other "liberals"). I didn't question the war itself. I questioned the way it is being conducted and what that means about the
people (not
governments) behind it.
In my
opinion (as indicated by the phrase "raises questions" as opposed to "proves _____") the conduct of the war and the decisions taken
by leaders seem inconsistent with the stated motives and objectives, leading me to
suspect (note the personal and subjective phrasing) that the
war is not merely politically motivated as you say, but is
privately motivated. Companies like Halliburton and Bechtel have made money on this
war. In my
opinion they are the big winners, more so than the American or Iraqi people.
I find it suspicious that important people in
the White House just happen to have ties to those companies.
Always a matter of "reducing" casualties, huh? The Vagabond, they are deserters, period! You may look at as they "reduce" casualties and others
may look at it as they are increasing the the chances of casualties by not being there. Ever considered that view or notion?
Well gee, if I had thought of it that way maybe I would have said something like
however the fact remains that they are not stopping the war or helping their comrades- they are only saving themselves.
Or perhaps I would say
If somebody faced consequences for taking some action aimed at stopping the war or reducing the deathtoll, that would be heroic. One who simply
gets himself out, even for moral reasons, would not be in my opinion.
Would you mind just reading before you offer your rebuttal? You don't have to of course- it's just by personal subjective opinion that you would
have a very very hard time giving a relevant response if you didn't know what I had said and in what context I had said it. (and I know you read the
part where I said "Personally I would stop short of condoning them under the circumstances", because that was immediately before the sentence you
quoted. Perhaps you just found it convenient to forget that I had said that and treat me as if I were an exact clone of ECK (I admit, it would be a
great time saver, but it would have little pitfalls to it, like this.)
Coming at you as a vet and soldier myself, have you served in the military? Been in a combat situation, etc.?
USMC, 0311. I joined specifically to be with my many friends in Iraq. I'd probably be there now if I hadn't recieved a back injury at the SOI West.
As it is I get news suppliments from four guys I went through SOI with, one of whom came back with a hole in his face that almost killed him. I'm
sorry you look down on me for being sympathetic to what my friends have been through, and what by all rights I should have been through. I'm sorry
you disagree when I say that I don't condone desertion under these circumstances but that I would condone whatever measures a serviceman might that
that would actually do some good.
Please, "for the life of me," indicate a war that could not be fought or prepared or done better.
Drat, I always forget that two wrongs really do make a right. I guess there goes my whole arguement right? Now I'll just have to lower myself to your
level by claiming that just as this war is justified past mistakes, that the mistake of desertion is jusified because this war is also a mistake.
(Note that I make this claim only in jest- that's not what I've been saying up to this point.)
Can you run the war any better than it is being done? Can you absolutely and honestly say 'yes'? Think about it, cause hindsight is always
20/20, especially when your on the sidelines viewing it. 
The answer is an emphatic YES, and let me tell you why. If I made the initial mistake of going in with too few troops, I would have 20/20 hindsight
from both Vietnam and the initial setbacks with this war, so that I could then react accordingly. We have not reacted to the trouble this war effort
has encountered. The need for what we did in Falujah was apparent long before we acted and in more than just that one city. What's the hold up?
As I said earlier, MORE troops could actually cut down casualities better than fewer, so I would actually be more in support of a soldier who DEMANDED
to go to Iraq when not being deployed. In my opinion a straight up draft would be better than what we have going on now (we already have a draft, but
we are only drafting people who've already given good service and earned the right to go home). It would be preferable to spend more money and more
manhours on this war, and even spend the careers of a few politicians (who would certainly not be reelected after pushing a draft through) than to
spend additional lives in Iraq. I believe that politicians are letting honorable men be slaughtered in greater numbers than necessary (and letting
them be kept from home longer than necessary, taking an additional toll on families) not to mention putting an unacceptable strain on the future
viability of our reserve forces, all because they can't politically afford to
really fight this war.
Just as the call went unheeded in Vietnam- GET IN, OR GET OUT! That's how I honestly believe I could fight this war better, because I would sacrifice
my job, my popularity, etc in a heartbeat, and have my name spit on forever more, if I could save a couple hundred of my fellow Marines and ensure a
viable reserve force to protect America's future.
It's ridiculous and
its intellectual cowardice.
