This former U.S.M.C. Scout knows all too well the value of life and protecting those same civilian assets for God, Country and Family. Regardless of how far or numerous that extended Family happens to be mate.
If there is a God, Iām not sure heād care too much about those assets. Iām also not sure we in the west have really been protecting ourselves as much as the interests of those in power.
Not being sure of what another may or may not be caring of does not negate the fact of that same caring for all of the above, regardless of those who couldnāt care less be that as it may. 'Tis merely a matter of choiceā¦
To accept or reject.
Nothing more.
Nothing less.
And all have the freedom of choice to decide unto their own.
Regarding assets being protected by those in power versus assets that make all of the difference: I can see your strategic point here and offer naught in rebuttal save this; this doesnāt negate the fact that our sons and daughters in the Armed Forces still serve a greater cause that costs far more than it should for the freedom to have this very conversation my friend.
Negative.
I believe in this particular case that anticipated action is more worry than actuality. Looking at the context of the conversation gives no hint to an āargumentā requiring an action of dispersal. And some conversations and those in the Community who participate in such can be had on an intellectual level without it devolving into an argument. Not to mention, 2 immediate comments make mention of a higher entity with each Memberās perspective on that subject that speak of personal opinion versus an āargumentā portrayed as on going.