Well the Army isn't trying to teach people that the techniques they are learning to maim or kill their enemies are "love". From what I've heard and read, martial arts training in the military is more about developing aggression and confidence.
How does submission grappling, boxing, etc. (which the Marines do) develop leadership, duty, selfless service, etc?
I don't believe I ever mentioned the word LOVE in my post. The thread has to do with mysticism. I am still a little confused, to be quite honest about what various people are defining as mysticism. I assume it is anything that is not related to combat effective technique. If you read my post as an entire, you will see my point is that there is much more to BUDO than technique, in fact, I believe technique to be the least important part of BUDO. again, never mentioned LOVE. Although LOVE, as defined as compassion is not necessarily a bad thing.
I also do more than "hear, or read" what the Army is doing with combatives...I teach it. We are not teaching this stuff to maim or to kill. It really has little to do with that. It has more to do with attitude, spirit, and confidence that you did mention.
developing Army Values: It would be a long disertation to define how it does this. Basically developing and encouraging the warrior spirit is the bottomline. Team work, commaraderie are a wonderful thing that causes many things to happen. Again, nothing to do with techniques.
Phillip I agree with you on your point that states "that is why YOU train". You are correct, I wrote a bad assumption there. It is why I train. I guess my argument is that those who train for just technique are missing out on alot. If you compete in the octagon, or NHB fighting, then I could certainly see training for simply technique. There is a big difference in "game" training and "combat" training.
Many romaticize about what they do is training for combat. Few really understand what it takes to make a competent warrior. It is more than empty hand, escrima sticks, knife fighitng, and marksmanship. You first must have a warrior that is mentally and physically prepared to fight. This is something I do know quite a bit about.
Ya got me on the KI part! No there is no way you can ever get anyone to agree on a definition on KI. My point was that you have a guy who comes on an aikido website, and starts a topic that basically proposes that stripping out all the "fluff" in aikido would make it more effective. You go to his website, and he is doing those things that he himself thinks is irrelevant. My point is that while he may not think he identifies with these things, he pictures say otherwise. Small point, yes, but it is the small things that make up aikido that he is arguing should be removed.
Phillip, I also agree with you that you must train hard. However there is a big difference between hard with the right focus, and hard with the wrong focus. I have trained very hard and serious in aikido. However, I don't propose that aikido is the art that would make you necessarily combat effective. Then again, I don't believe that anyone I have ever studied with has ever said that it would.
If you want to be combat effective (whatever that means, i really don't know!) then go train in something else other than aikido. As I have said in my other post in this thread, if you strip out that what makes aikido, aikido, you have something else entirely different other than aikido. Really what is the point???
I think Red Beatle looks like he has a pretty good school set up for what he wants to do. I have no reason to doubt that he is good or effective based on his writings. However, don't come to an aikido website and propose you know aikido and what would make it better if you don't know aikido and it's goals. Take away what you want from the art, and go away and do it on your own, but don't call it aikido cause it ain't.