It's sad that there have to laws against murder, theft, rape, etc.

It's sad because we would like everyone to do the right thing naturally...

__________________
Life is too short for endless patience.

-rice "hussein" chickie

Be careful...you are bordering on defending the soldier in question.

Thank you for helping to make my argument.

__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."

Which side will you be on?


OBAMA/PEROT

They are not "resorting" to them. The rules were there when the person signed the contract. There is nothing "sad" about it from the military pov. What is "sad" is that the soldier doesn't want to live up to the terms of the contract he signed.

If this was a war you supported, you would not be sympathizing with the soldier, nor commenting on how "sad" it was that the military had to "resort" to it.

Why do you bother? He is "right" about everything, just ask him. The Military could not function as a fighting entity without those Rules...he will never get it, and even if he did, he wouldn't admit it.

Now you want to debate a word? Perhaps I should have chosen another but I think it is valid usage of it.

We shall have to agree to disagree.

You are wrong...I don't believe in forcing someone to do something against their moral values but I do agree with you that a person should not sign a contract that contains a clause as the military one does and expect their moral judgements to be honored.

As long as they don't reinstitute the draft, I don't actually have a problem with the military's "contract"...I just think when we have a bullshit war such as the one in Iraq in hurts our military in more ways than one.

__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."

Which side will you be on?


OBAMA/PEROT

They are not forcing him, he can accept the punishment in lieu of acting against his "morals". He has the choice. That he (or you) doesn't like the choices is irrelevant. Again, if you don't want to be put in that position, then don't sign the contract.

I know you have said that you agree with that, but that you are still arguing shows that you really don't.

As for a "bullshit" war. Perhaps, but even if this was a noble endeavor that could not be questioned, you would still have a certain % of people who wanted to void their contract. The simple fact is that Congress authorized the President to use "any and all means" and he has. The soldier really has no real argument.

Now if he were drafted, then yes. If Congress refused to support the President, then yes. There are legitimate reasons that one can use to argue for voiding the contract, but not in this case.

Perhaps you should look up the definition of force.

To suggest that agreeing on a point of discussion and then continuing addressing other points of the discussion negates that agreement is absurd...I suppose we should simply end this one here except one last point and that is that I am glad to see that you agree with me regarding the draft...that indicates to me that my point is not totally lost on you...have a good day.

__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."

Which side will you be on?


OBAMA/PEROT

Not force, at least not for me. Force is where a third party forces you to do something you otherwise wouldn't do. The element of force in this case can only occur if the person was drafted or if the military did something that violated the terms of the contract. In this case neither has occurred, so the issue of force was removed when he voluntarily signed the contract. Once he did that he agreed with the choice, and there is no force.

Much like with Congress whining about Bush and Iraq, they are the ones who gave up their ability to choose. If you don't like the outcome, don't do it in the first place.

You will first have to decide on a baseline. Until you do, you are discussing two seperate issues. He/she is using Moral Relativity against your argument of an absolute.

Two issues, no. I am not buying his argument. When he joined the army he gave up his right to pick and choose how and where the army would deploy him.

The rules were stated when he joined, he can't rewrite the contract after the fact.