Re: Insulin resistance and sat fat - Who is a romantic warrior?

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 20:46:58 EDT

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

> In a message dated 9/1/03 6:51:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> slethnobotanist@... writes:

>

> > As for his warrior as free spirits, no gov't employed soldier is ever a

> > free spirit, left wing, right wing, or otherwise. The military is

> > inherently a socialistic institution (i.e. command control institution)

> > and as such cannot nor will not tolerate " free " spirits.

>

> Hmm... I haven't read the book. In the interview he said that modern

> soldiers aren't really warriors,

Agreed, but neither were ancient soldiers

>that you don't have to be at " war " to be a

> " warrior, "

Of course not, there is nothing " romantic " about war, even if its

justified

> and that he was using the word primarily to appeal to the *ancient*

> warrior.

Agreed again. But the Roman legions weren't warriors in the romantic

sense he appeals too.

> Military institutions are brand new in the grand scheme of human

> development, and nothing like remotely like them existed in the vast majority

of human

> history.

>

Our modern military may differ in degree but not in kind, IMO. You have

a group of mostly men dedicated to expanding and controlling literally a

world empire. The number of countries that the US is in to support our

" interests " is mind boggling, and makes a mockery of the word " defense, "

one of the few things the constitution does *clearly* authorize the

gov't to do.

Since the Spanish American War in 1898, we have have been almost continuously

at war on 5 continents and countless nations from Manila Bay to

Afghanistan and now Iraq.

That doesn't sound much different from the ancient Roman Empire,

whatever militaristic means are used.

[Guest guest]

>Our modern military may differ in degree but not in kind, IMO. You have

>a group of mostly men dedicated to expanding and controlling literally a

>world empire.

Discover did a great program on the Spartans, comparing them

with the Marines. The Marine commander was commenting on

the war tactics of the Spartans, mainly in admiration. They talked

about bonding, goals, hardship.

I don't think war is romantic, myself, but some of the guys

who fight them do. Probably not the average draftee, but

there is a mindset that regards battle as " glorious " etc. etc.

and you see it in the classics (and in movies like Braveheart).

Possibly that was more so when you could go hand to hand

against a guy and the best guy won, and it was guy-against-guy

(rather than napalm-against-village). Anyway, for the Greeks

and the Vikings and some Indian tribes, war was as sort

of a sport, and romantic (coming back with trophies

to impress the girls).

I do disagree with the warrior as a " freethinker " though,

as I've said earlier.

-- Heidi