Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AlternateGray
I've tried to clarify my point; you tried to reiterate what you thought my point was, and simply, that's not it.
|
You only repost that I have ignored your points - and never once even quoted an exact sentence. Therefore I have no idea what you are talking about. Am I to wildly speculate which sentence you are citing? Others do that- imply. But implication and political correctness is not me. You did not specifically cite the sentence, so I have no idea - absolutely zero - why you posted "you tried to reiterate what you though my point was". You did not repost that exact sentence. Therefore your post cannot be understood - can only be interpreted with personal biases and speculation.
If something I post is not relevant to your reply, then cite it with quotes and also with specific reasons. A post without WHYs says little that is useful.
Quote:
|
... professional volunteer soldiers are much harder to replace than the old untrained peasant draftees), whatever you want to call them: I can only speak for certain for myself, but the army infantryman is not motivated (to join the military or to actively fight) by anything to do with "evil", the eradication of it, fighting it, etc. I don't think he ever has been.
|
And again you are posting something not relevant anything I posted. How does this have one iota reference to a concept called ‘evil’? All my posts are only about myths called 'evil' and realities called 'perspective'.
A major difference exists between a Master Sergeant and a Private. Among the many differences is how one understands basic concepts such as a strategic verses a tactical objective. There are also major differences between a professional volunteer and an untrained peasant draftee. But again, all that is about as relevant as the birthday of Karl Marx. Why do you even mention professional soldier’s verses peasant draftees when no such topics have one iota reference to anything I had posted? Even the birthday of Karl Marx has no relevance to 'evil' and 'perspective'.
Anyone knows the #1 tactical reason a soldier fights: to protect his buddy. But again, that has nothing to do with what was posted. How does protecting a buddy have any relationship to a concept called 'evil'? Where does that apply to reasons tactical verses reasons strategic?
I don't just say you replied irrelevant. Extensive additional facts with reasons and with specific examples are included. For example, are your 'three reasons' in the category of tactical or strategic? Why do I ask? Because this concept was posted previously. And because your reply, if intended to communicate, should have listed those three reasons in such terms relevant to previous posts.
In reply, you did not even quote exact sentences to demonstrate how I "tried to reiterate what [i] thought [your] point was". Am I expected to read implications in everything your post? If not, then detail what I tried to reiterate AND how that was not your point AND why.
Meanwhile what motivates a soldier in battle is secondary to how all humans operate; which again demands comprehension of 'tactical objective' verses a 'strategic objective'. Do you understand the difference? Why do I ask? Because your response implies the concepts were not grasped. Again, note the reference to your statement, how it seems irrelevant to the point, and always - WHY.
Are you saying the world is not full of perspectives? But again, I can only guess that essential and underlying concept is not even mentioned? Again implies that you did not understand what I have posted. Instead irrelevant to 'professional soldiers verses peasant troops' ignores fundamental concept of a world of perspectives verses a world interpreted only in terms of 'good verses evil'.
Do you believe the entire world is defined in terms of "good and evil"? How would I know? You don't even address the concepts defined: "evil" verses a world of perspectives.