Hacker News Reader

If that is horribly naive, so was Einstein:

He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.

> 1. There is evil in the world. 2. That evil sometimes hurts innocent people. 3. We need some way of protecting innocent people from evil.

That is true, but doesn't justify anything and everything. For example, the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador making stuff up about Iraqui soldiers tearing babies out of incubators. "War is a racket" may not be the full story, but has it ever been refuted in a meaningful way? If so, I'd like to see that.

As for Anne Frank, she and others were hunted and murdered by organized, trained killers. To say "but that's different, because those are evil, and we are talking about organized, trained killers who fight evil" doesn't really help, because from the perspective of fanatical followers of Hitler, they were doing the exact same thing, protecting the world from evil and degeneration. So to bring up Anne Frank to justify glorifying the military seems weird at best.

She was hunted and murdered by organized, trained killers THAT WERE SUPPORTED and FUNDED BY THE CIVILIANS.

FTFY.

Sorry Bub. Your hands aren't clean there.

And don't forget that Einstein wrote the letter to the FDR that kicked off the race to build the atomic weapon. Even HE was asking for the USG to do something that would squelch the evil of Nazi aggression.

If you believe that soldiers, airmen, sailors, and Marines are mindless drones, boy have you got it wrong.

> Sorry Bub. Your hands aren't clean there.

I totally agree with that. If you look at it as a pyramid, and the moment of a soldier shooting someone as the very tip, a LOT goes into that. There is a bit in Robert Antelme's "The Human Race" where he actually says the supposedly innocent and righteous civil society, with its supposed values, that underpinned and enabled the SS at times stirred up more resentment than the SS itself; at least the SS wore skulls, and acknowledged the existence of the people they were murdering. I am paraphrasing, but my point is, even someone who lived through that horror agrees with you.

> And don't forget that Einstein wrote the letter to the FDR that kicked off the race to build the atomic weapon. Even HE was asking for the USG to do something that would squelch the evil of Nazi aggression.

"I made one great mistake in my life—when I signed that letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made; but there was some justification—the danger that the Germans would make them!"

&

"Had I known that the Germans would not succeed in producing an atomic bomb, I would not have lifted a finger."

> If you believe that soldiers, airmen, sailors, and Marines are mindless drones, boy have you got it wrong.

This however strikes me as a non-sequitur. How does the fact that civilian society can act as mindless drones, too, make soldiers less drone-ish?

Einstein clearly wasn't certain that the Germans wouldn't have produced a bomb. That's why he acted. It was the threat that convinced him he needed to get involved.

Just as certainly, we don't know the future. We need to be prepared for as many situations as necessary. That means that soldiers must be trained, armies must be maintained, and the citizenry should be aware.

Why do people pull out quotes by globally recognized people in ordee to prove their points? So what if Albert Einstein said that? Are you implying that everything Albert Einstein says is true?

Where am I using Einstein's "authority" to support any of my arguments, except that I don't think it's a naive viewpoint? I agree with him on this, and having read some of his letters and whatnot I don't think he was naive, and I know he thought about people a lot and cared deeply about peace. I don't even care for his work in physics, because that goes right over my head, but find he said and wrote many wise things that still hold true. I even suspect this may be part of the reason he is "globally recognized": He wasn't just a scientist, he was a philosopher, too, had a big heart and a way with words. That is reason enough to quote anyone, and that Einstein gets quoted all the time for all sorts of reasons is not my problem.

I like the quote, and I agree with it. If you think you found a flaw in it, point out that flaw. I'm assuming that can be done, but you're not doing it; and otherwise, why would I care about the factuality of everything else he ever said, or even anything else? That's just a red herring.

You said: "If that viewpoint is naive, so was Einstein", and then proceeded to reproduce the same quote. You seem to have used his name to give extra weight to the quotation. I am not arguing for or against your stance here (actually, if anything, I think I agree with it), I'm just pointing out that the first sentence was superfluous. If one of Einstein's viewpoints was in fact naive, that wouldn't make Einstein himself naive, and stating something like that just sounds you were trying to appeal to his authority. That's all.

Replace "so was Einstein" with "then Einstein was also being naive when he said this", would that help? My sympathy for Einstein is personal, and I might have brought up, say, Bill Hicks in the same way; not meaning it as "this is correct because X said so, and many other people think he is generally correct", but "if this is wrong, then at least I am in company I like while being wrong about this".

Is there a Navy Seals action underway to rescue the girls kidnapped by Boko Haram? That's news to me, all I know is there were a few rumors.

The problem is not that navy seals could not be deployed to do good, the problem is that they are just as likely to be deployed to do harm.

Anne Frank has nothing to do with any of this, the dutch army was of no significance whatsoever (but the dutch resistance was).

As for me 'learning a little more', I think you have your mind made up about me. Your simple world with 'evil' and 'good' is not the world I live in. If only it were that simple.

I think you're missing the point entirely.

The point of the example is to show that without good people who are willing to fight against those who would do innocents harm, those good people get hurt.

I think that if you kidnap little girls, you're evil. I think that if you set off a bomb in a hotel lobby, you're evil. I think if you crash a plane into a building and kill thousands, you're evil.

In my world, if you indiscriminately kill an innocent person to further your political goals then you are evil.

In my world, if you invade a country on a pretext and kill tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, you're out of control. Especially if in the run-up to such an invasion you squelch every possible voice of opposition or reason.

That's where the problem lies, by your own definition your country is evil (not by mine, I don't believe in the whole good/evil thing, it's just a simplification to make it easier to delude voters into thinking things are easy to understand when in fact they are not).

You keep on subscribing to this image of the military as valiant crusaders against the dark, yet the most significant deployment of the biggest military in the world this century was an unmitigated disaster, that had nothing to do with defense of innocents, and that left the people of the target country far worse off than they were originally.

The problem is this: by continually glorifying the military the way you do, making them out to be crusader heroes, you fool young, impressionable people. So instead of decrying things like the invasion of Iraq, they sign up in droves, because they've been tricked by the rhetoric into thinking it's somehow about defending their country.

The point is, if the US military was really about fighting your definition of evil, it would be far more involved in Africa. Its mission is "keep the US safe and further its interests", which is fine, but it's not the "fight evil" mission that you say it is. If the US military really was about fighting evil (which is an oversimplistic term), it would have staged a coup when GW Bush declared war on Iraq, a war in which hundreds of thousands of people have died, in a country that was no threat to the US.

> They are just as likely to be deployed to do harm.

Please name some SEAL missions you consider harmful.

I spent an afternoon at the Anne Frank house several years ago. I'm guessing you feel that she deserved NO protection whatsoever?

Please stop attacking other commenters personally. It's against the rules and weakens your argument.

"Guessing" something horrible about somebody is personally aggressive. There is a lot of other personally charged language in your posts as well. Please refrain from that. You have a good point—insinuation spoils it.

I have a stronger opinion for those who live in safe countries and have no concern for the people who keep them safe and comfortable. The fact that everyone on this thread can voice their opinion freely, criticize openly, and play armchair quarterback on something they may know nothing about should speak volumes. Today and tomorrow is the time for grace for those who have laid down their life in service to our country. US Navy Seals are an elite group who undertake incredibly dangerous missions. They deserve nothing but respect on this Memorial Day. Freedom is never free.

You have a few nice bumper stickers in there.

"I'm reminded of the current hullabaloo about Boko Haram and the kidnapping of several hundred girls from a school."

Yes. In Nigeria which is what... like the 5'th largest oil exporter in the world? So who funds these problems that then have to be solved by military invasion? I'm always suspicious.

What ... on earth is your point? That everyone who drives a car is responsible for those poor children? I pray for their safe return.

I think the point was the when a country gets invaded, its economy and politics tend to get restructured in favour of the invader. I wouldn't go so far to say this proves it was engineered, but I think that was the implication.

Exactly. I don't mean to "prove" nor even "imply". The word used was "suspicious". When these type of problems pop up in resource rich or strategically important locations and it gets a lot of air time on the news and we have to do something because "think of the children!" I am.... suspicious.

We sent the Marines into Haiti to rescue the civilian population after the natural disasters there.

For the life of me, I can't imagine what economic interest we had there.

I know because a good friend ended up killing himself after witnessing the human tragedy there. He was a Marine pilot.

well, let me cynically suggest at least one "economic advantage"...

The government of a country within boat reach of Florida falls apart and people start starving and the exodus towards the shores of America by Haitians reaches epidemic proportions...

But this is just wild speculation. Look... I'm not saying all military adventures by the US are economically driven. But lots of them probably are. I'm naturally suspicious of them at this point and I think with good reason. Besides, I don't care for the massive expense and think it inefficient and generally unnecessary at current levels.

Really?

You're going to stand by that statement? You think America sent the Marines and all of the aid workers there to make sure that we wouldn't get more Haitians in the USA?

Wow. That's probably the MOST racist thing I've seen posted on HN to date.