<p>So is Freedom forcing an institution to have military on their campus…I think the ROTC is great, no problem with it…but if a particular private school doesn’t want them, isn’t that a freedom</p>
<p>Amendment III
Quartering of soldiersNo Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.</p>
<p>The founding fathers kind of addressed this issue, guess they were just being silly</p>
<p>Well, Fountain Siren, I’ve seen the video of Eisenhower’s speech, and I’ve studied that era. If anything, I’d say that the term “military industrial complex” doesn’t carry anything LIKE the weight Eisenhower wanted it to have. I don’t think it was advice. I think the man meant it as an absolute and heartfelt warning of great urgency. It wasn’t off the cuff and it wasn’t a single phrase, but part of a considered and urgent appeal to end what Eisenhower considered to be a great threat to the Republic.</p>
<p>And this from a career Army man and five-star general.</p>
<p>I’d agree Garland. And Tarhunt called it as I see it.</p>
<p>Good article in the Times today about bullies, ladies. 
Or we could take in a movie together–“Mean Girls,” “Gossip Girls,” “The Clique.”
Some things never change.</p>
<p>DPX,</p>
<p>Just wondering if you could respond to my post. Do you think that it’s inherently wrong for someone to see the benefits in the military and make a decision with that in mind? Does a soldier have to be a patriot to be good at what he does?</p>
<p>Allmusic, thank you!!! Now it all makes sense…</p>
<p>I should have recognized the style. How silly of me not to have caught it sooner.</p>
<p>“Please recall that Thucydides lived in an era when Greek phalanxes were amateur armies raised from among the general citizenry and equipped to the best of each citizen’s means. Thucydides was thinking of the example of people like Socrates and Aristophanes (among many others) who did their time in both intellectual and military pursuits.”</p>
<p>Tarhunt: Clearly you’ve forgotten the Spartans. But beyond that not inconsequental omission, the spirit of citizen soldier lives on in the U.S. Armed Regular and Reserve Forces. The similarities far outweigh the differences.</p>
<p>“For Thucydides, any citizen who didn’t fight in his city-state’s phalanx or limited cavalry was a coward unless he was visibly disabled. This makes sense, since it was a citizen’s duty to fight, and the negative outcome of losing was often rape, pillage, conflagration, mass murder, and other horrific consequences.”</p>
<p>I don’t disagree but I’m not sure what the connection to the discussion is.</p>
<p>"The implication that someone who doesn’t join the small US armed services these days is a “coward” is about the same as calling just about every male thoughout the history of organized states a “coward.” </p>
<p>I don’t recall anyone, and especially Thucydides, making that implicaiton. I’ll assume your getting that from somewhere else outside this thread.</p>
<p>“Armies are expensive and, historically, have been small relative to the entire population. Only in the post-Napoleonic era have we become used to massive armies of half-trained conscripts. The US has shifted this paradigm back to a small-but-lethal army, but this option is available only to very wealthy nations because of the advanced equipment and training costs it takes to make this model work.”</p>
<p>Thucydides observation about the need for an educated warrier is as true today as it was in 420 B.C. In fact, the “small but lethal” army is the embodyment of the principal of a highly educated and trained military force.</p>
<p>“The idea that the modern officer who is not a scholar is a “fool” is also misleading. Modern officers are professionals. I’d be willing to be that most of them have above average intelligence, and are not “fools.””</p>
<p>Finally, I’m not sure we disagree. I consider the modern U.S. Officer a scholar. With rare exception they are all college educated, far better informed, and far more intellegent than the population as a whole. The service academies such as the USMA at West Point and the USNA at Annapolis produce some of the most brilliant leaders of this nation; they are true warrior scholars.</p>
<p>Actually, Allmusic, for a minute there around post #5 I found myself hoping that Driver had found her way back under a new (and not inappropriate) nom de 'net. But alas, a few more posts made the identity of DPX unmistakable. Leaving the question, why?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>WPSON:</p>
<p>I’ve quoted your original quote to refer back to as I address your later comments.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I haven’t and didn’t forget the Spartans. They are irrelevant to the issue unless you have some new evidence that Thucydides was actually a Spartan and writing about Spartans. The Spartans were also amateur soldiers in the sense that they were not paid but, of course, they trained incessantly for war, so they were the best infantry of their day.</p>
<p>As for the "spirit of the citizen soldier lives on in the [US armed force and etc.], do you have any evidence of this? How would one measure “spirit” and specifically “citizen soldier spirit”? Do you have survey results? The US armed forces are professional armed forces. I cannot tell any difference from the “spirit” of the wholly professional 19th century British army.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Huh? Thucydides used the word “coward.” The implication is that scholars that don’t go to war are cowards. It’s not too tough to imagine that he meant that any able-bodied citizen who didn’t go to war was a coward. And in his day, that would have been true.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I seriously doubt that Thucydides thought that men caught up in battle in the front ranks of a phalanx needed to rely on scholarship to perform well. He was almost certainly talking about generalship, such as it was at that time.</p>
<p>Greek armies weren’t small by choice. They were small because 10,000 hoplites was about all even the largest cities could muster at one time.</p>
<p>As for modern officers being “scholars,” once again, you use the term very differently from the way Thucydides would have meant it. It doesn’t even translate all that well from Greek, as I’m told. Thucydides didn’t mean someone who studied tactics, engineering, and/or military history. He meant, basically, philosophers. I had many, many, many discussions with officers of all ranks when I was doing my dissertation on the impact of culture, training, and custom on the military performance of an Israeli brigade. They were of above average intelligence, but they were not philosophers in the mold of Socrates, Plato, and others who fought in the phalanx.</p>
<p>The point I’m trying to make is that Thucydides comes from a different time and was writing for that time and place. But almost everyone takes him out of context.</p>
<p>Kluge, Dotty here had me dreaming of Driver myself a few days ago.</p>
<p>I don’t know whether Driver has rejoined us, or why our dear FS, who was never banned, as far as I know, has decided to come back in the new year with a spanking new moniker. The style is unmistakable though.</p>
<p>HH–I am not sure what you’re saying. It’s “mean” to point out that DPX’s style is identical to FS’s?</p>
<p>Why? I like FS. And the similarity is glaring. Where’s the problem?</p>
<p>Add a fourth movie: “Clueless on CC.”</p>
<p>so, hh you are saying its not FS? </p>
<p>After reading several of DP other posts on other threads, it is truely amazing how similar the style, verbage, allusions, attitude is to FS…just an observation</p>
<p>And how is that mean? Do you not think there is any similarity to the styles?</p>
<p>I don’t know if it’s FS or not, but let’s think long and hard about this dilemma.</p>
<p>I’m thinking that if it were me, and I changed my poster name, I would probably do it for reasons of my own (i.e. my own business). Perhaps I was hoping to avoid past baggage, so to speak; perhaps for a myriad of other reasons.</p>
<p>No matter what the reason; at any rate,I would be attempting to engage in discussions under the new name. </p>
<p>What is the purpose of “outing” the person, if indeed they are to be “outed?”</p>
<p>To show we’re smart? To show how much we miss driver and wish the new poster were driver? To have little conversations among ourselves to show how chummy we are? Or just to bully the person we think may be FS because we have a long history of bullying her (my opinion).</p>
<p>Let’s suppose it’s not FS. What then have you accomplished?</p>
<p>Please–I don’t see the love. Pardon me.</p>
<p>But since it likely is FS, the defense is somewhat rhetorical.</p>
<p>"So is Freedom forcing an institution to have military on their campus…I think the ROTC is great, no problem with it…but if a particular private school doesn’t want them, isn’t that a freedom</p>
<p>Amendment III
Quartering of soldiersNo Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.</p>
<p>The founding fathers kind of addressed this issue, guess they were just being silly"</p>
<p>I am a little doubtful that a multi-billion dollar corporation like Harvard University that comes replete with its own standing army (campus police) was what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote house the third amendment.</p>
<p>campus police- not the same as a national army, and if you don’t know the difference, we are in big trouble</p>
<p>as well to HH</p>
<p>If indeed FS wanted to disguise herself, why come back? If she felt the need to be anonymous, is this the best forum, since her style is pretty much HER style</p>
<p>SHE started this thread, whoever she is…as for bullying, give as good as she gets</p>
<p>IF indeed it is FS, then she needs to change her writing, as, to some of us, the comparrison of the two writers, the commonalities is uncanny</p>
<p>This is a volunteer site, and if she was (if it is FS) wanting to start fresh, why start with such a piece</p>
<p>After posts almost identical to this by a WSJ writer, started by FS, I looked over them</p>
<p>It is LIKE they were done by the same person, the turn of phrase, the language, the vocabularly</p>
<p>If you want to be anonymous, one has to try a bit harder</p>
<p>My point was, and you would doubtless have been more appreciative of it if Halliburton was the object and not Harvard, is that corporations while they are legal persons do not enjoy the same freedoms and dispensations under the Bill of Rights that citizens do. The thrid amendment wasn’t writen to protect Harvard from the state.</p>
<p>“More than one young woman present felt that a job with reduced pressure during her childbearing years might better suit her needs than competition at the very highest levels.” another Wisse “gem”</p>
<p>i was making the point that the government can’t force the military onto private property…gosh</p>
<p>and “feminist dogma” antoher Wisse gem</p>
<p>too bad all those women stood up for rights that Wisse enjoys</p>