Quote from: PseudoephedrineAnd now Sgt. Jeff37923, of the Fighting 101st Keyboarders, is gonna straighten me out!

No, I'll pass. Trying to correct an anarchy advocating avowed pacifist that his perception of the military and military action is wrong can only be an exercise in comedy.

Have fun at the coffeeshop!

Quote from: J ArcaneThis is a matter of deliberate intent, not practical limitation.

Says the man with no military background.

Quote from: J ArcaneThis is a matter of deliberate intent, not practical limitation.

I should've warned you, that those with military experience know exactly what I'm talking about.  A recruiter could go on forever about all of the good and bad things that COULD happen to you in the military.  How does a recruiter even begin to explain not just a job but a complete lifestyle change?  You're a soldier 24/7, not just during working hours.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineWe're talking to liberals here.

Point taken. Good luck!

Quote from: jeff37923Says the man with no military background.

Says a man whose been given the standard snowjob from countless recruiters since before he was even 18.  

I'm not a fucking idiot, and I know when things are being sugarcoated for the soft sell.

Quote from: jeff37923No, I'll pass. Trying to correct an anarchy advocating avowed pacifist that his perception of the military and military action is wrong can only be an exercise in comedy.

Have fun at the coffeeshop!

By your own admission, everything you know about anarchism, you learnt on wikipedia.

If you can't understand why someone who is a pacifist would be interested in knowing how militaries operate and why, you're just not thinking about it very hard.

A bit late, but...

Quote from: SpikeFormer Soviet sattelite nations are a interesting case study in this regards. While mostly ethnically homogenous, and having strong cultural identifiers deliberately and ruthlessly stamped out in favor of 'Soviet monoculture', in current times we are seeing an increase in ethnic strife and tension as they have more freedom to express their native culture, along with nationalistic friction between states in Central Asia.

This is entirely incorrect. Former Soviet satellites, as well as SU republics, were and are very far from ethnically homogenous. People speak of the Soviet model's role in suppressing national identities, but that's not all. There was - and there is - a strong, sinister undercurrent of continuing blatantly nationalist policies against ethnical minorities; except under socialism, the very idea that minorities might exist was swept under the rug. Of course, the west conveniently ignored this fact, because it was neither important nor expedient to recognise the problem. And you can still see it post-transformation - all for the status quo! Don't talk of it! Don't complain! It's bad for stability!

Ethnic strife? And pray tell, why is there ethnic strife? Because people who didn't officially exist wanted to confirm their existence, and this revelation was thought to be inconsistent with the myths of dominant ethnic groups and the "international community"? Because "nation-states" (all of them) and "federal republics" (all of them) were built on blatant lies and institutionalised - worse, legal - discrimination against the weak?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineBy your own admission, everything you know about anarchism, you learnt on wikipedia.

If you can't understand why someone who is a pacifist would be interested in knowing how militaries operate and why, you're just not thinking about it very hard.

No, I had an idea that anarchy was fucked from the word go long before I read the new spin on it through wikipedia and Noam Chomski. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. My mistake.

Also, no, I can understand that a neo-hippie pacifist would be interested in finding out about the military so that they could sound like they had a  researched rebuttal to impress the rest of the pseudointellectuals at the coffeeshop.

Try again, pup. Next time, instead of desperately trying to espouse the latest "in" viewpoint, come up with one on your own that reflects your own experiences in life. Who knows, it just might give you some credibility.

"Neo-hippie"? Now you're just flailing wildly, hoping anything will stick.

Quote from: MelanA bit late, but...


This is entirely incorrect. Former Soviet satellites, as well as SU republics, were and are very far from ethnically homogenous. People speak of the Soviet model's role in suppressing national identities, but that's not all. There was - and there is - a strong, sinister undercurrent of continuing blatantly nationalist policies against ethnical minorities; except under socialism, the very idea that minorities might exist was swept under the rug. Of course, the west conveniently ignored this fact, because it was neither important nor expedient to recognise the problem. And you can still see it post-transformation - all for the status quo! Don't talk of it! Don't complain! It's bad for stability!

Ethnic strife? And pray tell, why is there ethnic strife? Because people who didn't officially exist wanted to confirm their existence, and this revelation was thought to be inconsistent with the myths of dominant ethnic groups and the "international community"? Because "nation-states" (all of them) and "federal republics" (all of them) were built on blatant lies and institutionalised - worse, legal - discrimination against the weak?

You are correct in that they are not ethnically homogenous. I don't know what I was trying to say there, but I obviously missed the boat on it.

That said, in Central Asia, as compared to Eastern Europe, there is a greater degree of homogenity, and I was thinking of those regions when I posted.   The effect of Soviet programs in the region is somewhat interesting. Many are 'muslim' nations, for example, but the locals have no problem with drinking alcohol. The cultural markers for 'Islamic' behavior have been supressed and diluted by generations of repression, along with a forced immigration of non-muslims into the area and immigration of muslims out of the area to enculturate the locals with a broader 'soviet' culture.  I can only assume the same was attempted, if on a lesser scale, in Eastern Europe.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine"Neo-hippie"? Now you're just flailing wildly, hoping anything will stick.

Noope, you're a neo-hippie. Face it, the only differences between you and your patchouli wearing brethren is the use of the internet (well, that and you are bald where they were hairy, but I thought that was a low blow). All of the platitudes are the same and haven't changed since the sixties.

Quote from: jeff37923Noope, you're a neo-hippie. Face it, the only differences between you and your patchouli wearing brethren is the use of the internet (well, that and you are bald where they were hairy, but I thought that was a low blow). All of the platitudes are the same and haven't changed since the sixties.

Sorry mate, but you can't get it more wrong than you have here. You're way off in left field, while the rest of us are off drinking lemonade in the dugout.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineSorry mate, but you can't get it more wrong than you have here. You're way off in left field, while the rest of us are off drinking lemonade in the dugout.

Methinks thou doth protest too much, neo-hippie.

Quote from: jeff37923Methinks thou doth protest too much, neo-hippie.

I can't read that without hearing Cartman.

Quote from: WerekoalaI can't read that without hearing Cartman.

Respect my au-thor-i-tie!

(See, that is what happens when you post drunk.)