Just popping in to say that while you can question many things about Thucy, his honesty is not one of them. His words always match his actions.

The military has historically been both a last-resort option for otherwise unemployed and unskilled youth, and a significant cause of upward mobility among those eager and able to prove themselves. While I would never want serve myself, I respect the decision. Though I don't have that much respect for most of my peers entering the military. ROTC is somewhat different

Thought another Thucydides quote would fit here (though it doesn't sound like Thucy):
“The nation that will insist on drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking done by cowards.”

Despite what Thucy, and others in my personal life, seem to think, I HAVE put a great deal of thought into joining the military. This is an informed decision and one I willingly make. The financial incentive, while helpful, is not the reason I made it.

If you disagree with my decision, that is fine. Just remember you are able to tell me that because my brothers and sisters and I are defending that right with our lives.

I appreciate what soldiers do and I appreciate the sacrifices they make, but the rhetoric that soldiers today put their lives on the line in defense of our right to free speech (or similar constitutional rights) is quite ridiculous. Those rights are pretty much entirely ingrained in our culture and fairly universal in the country. Free speech isn't going anywhere, soldiers or no soldiers.

What you are truly defending is our country's offensive positioning around the entire world and the protection of our position as world police. The world's largest armed forces and the world's largest military spender is never going to be defending its own homeland unless it's doing a terrible, terrible job.

no more war, but no more raping 9 year old girls in the middle east too.

@bo, I believe the implication is that soldiers put their lives on the line to protect all our rights. And let me ask you something, do you think if our military went away that we would be safe, that other countries around the world would leave us alone? If not then you do believe that the soldiers are defending our rights.

At least with NROTC, KC will come through as an officer with some say in his own fate. Best of luck in your naval career.

@abge,

"Just popping in to say that while you can question many things about Thucy, his honesty is not one of them. His words always match his actions."

I don't think that's so clear. In philosophic threads he rhapsodizes about how all men are one and any distinction is an illusion. In many other threads, he spends the bulk of his time villifying one or another group of people (or individuals). If that's consistent, I'm not sure how.

@abge,

But if the point is that he implements his political beliefs (which I suppose is the context), then I guess I largely agree. For example, I believe he gave up driving because of his beliefs about fossil fuels. I merely question the "always."

Everyone quoting verses of song or poetry and no-one has offered this one yet? Come on guys...

Where can you find pleasure?
Search the world for treasure?
Learn science technology!
Where can you begin, to make your dreams all come true,
On the land or on the sea?
Where can you learn to fly,
Play in sports and skin dive,
Study ocean-og-ra-phy?
Sign up for the big band,
Or sit in the grandstand,
When your team and others meeeeet?

In the navy!
Yes, you can sail the seven seas!
In the navy!
Yes, you can put your mind at ease!
In the navy!
Come on now, people, make a stand,
In the navy, in the navy!

Can't you see we need a hand?
In the navy!
Come on, protect the mother land!
In the navy!
Come on and join your fellow man!
In the navy!
Come on people, and make a stand!
In the navy, in the navy, in the navy (in the navy)!!

(I mean, kudos to abgemacht for linking to it, but I felt we needed to enjoy the lyrics here on the forum)

@KC

Thanks, I think. I agree with everything Thucy's said, and Bo's take on what the military actually does, but you seem to have good intentions, and what else can I judge you on? It's not the fault of anyone in the military that our nation has consistently crap foreign policy.

@Thucy

Ah, Civil Disobedience, by Thoreau. Everyone should read that. It's fairly short and available online for free. No, seriously, if you are reading this and haven't read that, go read it now.

@jmo

Of course if the military went away completely we'd probably be screwed, but if we cut the military and our interventionist activity by a lot, I doubt we'd be any worse off here at home (actually, we would be better off, as that massive amount of money on military spending--$2K per capita, more than double what most countries spend--could be used for tax cuts or more useful programs to help Americans).

A good Notre Dame

Semck, it's consistent because people who work to put one person above another should be opposed and yes even vilified. But my opponents are no less entitled to fair and equal treatment in society. I'm just denouncing the wrongheaded idea that some human beings are more worthy of concern than others. This is flat wrong, and it would be more inconsistent of me to allow wickedness to go unchallenged given my egalitarian belief that it would for me to stand up to it. So to hell with your racism, your smug exclusionary religion, your classism, your slavish devotion to the powerful and the status quo - why would I tiptoe around and stay quiet when you spew such things laced with your careful word choice all in the service of dressing up barbarism as civilization, dressing up suicidial insanity as reasoned consideration? No, I will not refrain from denouncing you when you speak such things. My character and my beliefs and lifestyle have all been consistently challenged and lampooned on this forum; I will not refrain from responding in kind. There have been attempts to characterize me as elitist or paternalistic because I challenge all who disagree with me, as if anyone who professes a belief in universality (including you and your coreligionists) is any different. I have no great affection for you, but not out of a lack of love which permeates the fabric of existence - this greatness can never be diminished - no, my lack of enthusiasm for your person comes from that same universal love - just as it is conpassjon which causes a bystander to confront a bully, or a witness to testify against a predator - not out of hate for the attacker, but out of love for the vulnerable. If you are ever in true need, and I am there with you, I pray I would not fail my own beliefs by not assisting you. But as it stands you're a privileged dick who spreads a message of disunity and superiority, and so I will challenge you - NOT because I am better than you, but because YOU are not better than me or anyone else.

And Cyrus, I don't doubt you have considered your decision. Yet it is never too late to re-consider. There are greater causes you might serve than the over-armed wing of the ruling class.

Well, Thucy, that eloquent response would be very effective if it did not ignore both the extent of the hate you have expressed, and the extent of the unity you have asserted.

You don't just villify my beliefs, or those of others. You have longed for the death and punishment of many, not merely the failure of their beliefs.

And you do not merely assert that people are equal in the sense of equally valuable. You assert that all are really the same person, that any distinction in personal identity is illusory and incoherent.

For one with such beliefs, it is not, in fact, coherent to believe that "others" have such vile beliefs or behaviors that it is justified to cheer at their downfall, because it is not coherent to believe in others at all. You criticize only yourself, because you are the only person whose coherent existence you allow. You long for your own death.

Nor are these your only inconsistencies. In one of you not-infrequent paens to yourself, you extolled how your skepticism made you unusually open to the fact that you could be wrong about anything. And yet you're often the first to mock and deride others for disagreeing with you, and not because you offer anything like an argument; but only because they disagree with whatever authorities you have chosen to elevate. Nothing could be less consistent with your expressed skepticism and the "humility" (your word) with which you hold your beliefs.

@jmo ... the world doesn't work in extremes. You seem to have interpreted the line "no soldiers" to mean "no military." I didn't say that. The level of technology with which we operate allows us to fight proxy wars through cyberspace, unmanned aircraft, and a ridiculous nuclear arsenal, which, with or without soldiers, would on its own keep us safe. Soldiers are relatively useless commodities as far as defense of our country goes and it is a horrendous violation of our rights to life that our military still recruits them.

That does not mean I don't respect soldiers and what they do, it simply means that our generals and leaders are corrupted individuals who believe that having a face to call a hero helps keep their various causes, justly or unjustly, alive despite the fact that with a military budget greater than the next nine countries combined, we could easily put scifi on the ground in place of our own.

@bo I think it's easier to point out that even under an assumption of the military protects US citizens, it's protecting their bodies. The fact that they also have free speech is entirely separate. Soliders die for our right to free speech no more than they die for our right to hula hoop. Yes, you can't hula hoop if some foreign nation comes in and kills us all, but it doesn't mean that's why the soldiers are dying. Nor has the military gone to war for any attacks on free speech in general. Is the Navy gonna back me up if Congress abbreviates Free Speech? Or the otherway around, will they be called in to back up the government?

When was the last time the Navy fought a battle for the purpose of defending the Bill of Rights? Someone help me out here.

Technology advantage is only effective for a short time before a counter measure comes along. Proxy wars aren't effective in most cases.

Look at Gulf War I with Iraq launching Scud missiles. Back during the Iran-Iraq War, Bush gave a personal lecture to Saddam Hussein on US satellite surveillance that was used to hide the Scud launchers. Results could be seen on CNN giving where the missiles landed and damage for updating the next round of attacks. Through out the war we wasted time and manpower trying to find a launcher and repeatedly failed.

The Patriot anti-missile defense system was less effective than initially claimed and it was believed to have caused friendly fire damage. That was the reason why Israel created its own systems that the US is making and using.

The Wall Street Journal has already run a story on anti-drone systems:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/next-step-for-drones-defending-against-them-1437645600

Nuclear weapons only deter when the target cares about being hit. If you are fighting some group that is able to shelter against an attack or doesn't have a target, then the threat isn't there.

Unless you are only planning to bomb an area out of existence, then you need people.

"The level of technology with which we operate allows us to fight proxy wars through cyberspace, unmanned aircraft, and a ridiculous nuclear arsenal, which, with or without soldiers, would on its own keep us safe."

Bull. People can still outfly unmanned drones easily. Navy ships still need people to maintain them, technology still needs operators, designers, scientists, people to make decisions on when and where to use the technology. I think you've been watching too much scify. Not to mention the fact that less then 5 years ago a few of our amazing unmanned drones were hacked...with a PlayStation controller.

A nuclear arsenal only keeps us safe from other nuclear attacks. Because if we responded to a soldier based invasion with a nuke, the country sending the troops would respond in kind, and in under a day the world would be burning around us.

Cyberspace is not a war we are winning. Other countries like China and even North Korea are making frightening strides in their ability to launch crippling cyber attacks. They don't because of the fear it would lead to actual declarations of war if they did so in a way that ended in lives lost.

That has to be one of the most simpleminded posts I've seen in years.

@Thucy, you can tell us you oppose the military all you want. But unless you can tell us how else we can defend our homes against foreign threats, against people who believe their religion tells them to exterminate us, then no one cares about your views. Ideals based upon unrealistic requirements are children's dreams. I would love world peace, but I'm not going to base my views around the hopes it magically happens.

Not inflicting violence on others for no good reason is an "unrealistic requirement" to you? If so, you're a bloodthirsty villain.

@semck

When have I wished for the death of another?

About equality, I agree we are all one not just in value but in physical space. You always raise that point as if it is some kind of bugbear that I prefer not to talk about when inconvenient but I do not shy away from that. You seem to think that this means I can never use a word like "others" again, which is nonsense. Just as you believe in the paradox of the Trinity, I believe in the paradox of variety within Unity. Everytbing is different, each point is space and particle is different from all the others, but what is more fundamentally true is that they are all the same. I can identify different entities, you, my parents, a building, some skin cells under a microscope, and I can be correct in my identifications, without refuting the underlying fact that these things transition seamlessly into one another and are part of a larger whole, inseparable from it and therefore from each other. What you cannot comprehend about my belief is that what I have just said is the *justification* for why all people deserve equal value - they equally *are*. And what difference does it make if the evils I confront are considered part of me or part of you? They are there, they are evil, and they must be confronted. That is what we have been tasked with doing while we live.

About skepticism, I recant none of that either. Of course I can be wrong about everything. It is my faith which gives me my confidence in my beliefs, and I do always call them beliefs, because that is what they are. I would expect that others would have a similar faith that they and the world in front of them has the inexplicable and incredible property of Being, and all that this entails, but I cannot force other people into accepting their appearances. I can, however, oppose them in the physical space I inhabit when they perpetuate what I see as evil. Again I do not apologize for this - what else is a man called to do while he is alive but what he thinks is right? There is nothing inconsistent here. My strength over you is my sincerity, something you noticeably lack.

@bo,

Is it a fair statement of your argument that we don't need actual soldiers for anything, because we could -- today -- deploy robot warriors as full replacements? And that the only reason we don't do so is that we want human faces with which to personify our military action?

@Thucy,

"My strength over you is my sincerity, something you noticeably lack."

In what have I been insincere?

"What is a good man but a bad man's teacher?
What is a bad man but a good man's job?
If you don't understand this, you will get lost,
However intelligent you are.
It is the great secret."

-Tao Te Ching

You are insincere in that the Christian values you claim to profess you do not believe in your own heart. You are out to prove yourself right, and nothing more.

"You are insincere in that the Christian values you claim to profess you do not believe in your own heart. You are out to prove yourself right, and nothing more."

Oh, I see. So, you're just making up more groundless accusations about me, then. Well that's a relief.

@KingCyrus. Sorry for the high jack of your thread. These retards know not what they do. Safe journeys, and look forward to our next meeting of the fields of 1901 Europe

Lol, you whittle away your arguments and try to dust them off and polish them so that they are Consistent and you can be considered Right on the forum (pursuing no doubt a psychological need for external validation of your belief system that you internally struggle with believing with your heart, and thus flee to your head and to rhetoric). Meanwhile I have faith that one who is sincere need never worry that he is consistent, since all sincere people have a fundamentally true expression which is in accord with the true and perfectly consistent expression of nature itself - I fight nothing in my nature or in my heart but let it lead me and guide me, and thereby do I find consistency.