> That's an awfully longwinded way Of you dodging such a obvious truth, I agree. > If your argument relies on the edge case of a country doing the conscriptin

> That's an awfully longwinded way Of you dodging such a obvious truth, I agree. > If your argument relies on the edge case of a country doing the conscripting being a liberal democracy thousands of miles from the actual fighting Yeah, only the wars my liberal democracy has participated in, all of which have been thousands of miles from home. What an edge case! > countries where the civilians are based not to have any natural refugee escape routes By your reckoning there were escape routes from Vietnam so nobody was actually killed! > I'm pretty sure that even then the average American soldier's experience of combat was more unpleasant than the average Vietnamese civilian's wartime experience Even if you were right the point is the soldier's agency in choosing a better future. Peasants have very little, the soldiers have much more at every stage especially the beginning. An american soldier could choose to go home at any time "simply" by refusing to fight and being sentenced to, at most, twenty years in prison. Their family wouldn't be face retribution or anything. Ask someone about to be burnt to death with their family which they'd prefer. > I'm pretty sure I've listened to and read more Vietnamese accounts of the war than you. You can't read the memoirs of the dead. > because I'm still none the wiser That would require not trying to dodge the point. > as to whether your argument that soldiers have greater agency Draftees, particularly before they become soldiers. And it's a fact, not an argument, in all modern cases in my country. > actually intended to be taken seriously Oh gosh, of course not. It troubles you so of course it was meant for you to dismissively chuckle at in passing. No more.