Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Coffee Shop
The date that lives in infamy is here again.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="greybeard" data-source="post: 1077827" data-attributes="member: 18945"><p>Yes, the goal IS to win--and once war comes, do it by any means neccessary--within reason and within context. You just removed the context. Once war is declared, (all sides involved know danger lurks) no holds are barred except chemical and biological weapons nowadays. Even the use of nukes on Japan happened during a known and pre-existing state of war. There was certainly courage in kamakazi attacks, courage at the Alamo, courage at Thermopylae. In combat, uncommon valor is a common virtue--lots of people have died throwing themselves on grenades, staying behind to perform blocking actions etc, but that is in the context of an existing state of war. There was no existing state of war (declared or inferred) on the morning of Dec 7 1941. There was no existing state of war on Sept 11 2001. There is also no existing state of war when a suicide bomber decides to blow himself up in a busy marketplace, killing and maiming dozens or hundreds of women and children. </p><p>The Fort Hood shooter was also an abject coward IMO.</p><p></p><p>Someone mentioned Drones. To be honest, I do not much like their use. Even tho the targets--in an ongoing military endeavor--are supposed to be military targets, it takes the horror out of war for the operator. They are just TOO easy. The drone operator--He/she, is hundreds or thousands of miles from battle, may have never fired a shot or had one fired at him, yet he has the power to take lives at the push of a button. He does his thing, pushes his chair back from the console, gives high fives o the observers around him and heads to the 'O club' or home to his family. IMO, altho it saves lives, we have simply taken a step into the direction of the same kind of killing the Taliban and al queda are doing. I understand it, but I just don't like it--leaves a bad taste in my mouth. If you're going to kill someone in a combat setting, there should be some risk involved--some potential price to pay. </p><p>War is horrible-it's a bloody, hurtful, unconscionably and awful thing--and for those reasons, a thing to be avoided if at all possible. Once we completely remove ourselves from the first person awfulness of it, we have made it too much easier to digest, to accept, to live with, and to engage in. And it is going to get much much worse in the coming years, probably in my lifetime.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="greybeard, post: 1077827, member: 18945"] Yes, the goal IS to win--and once war comes, do it by any means neccessary--within reason and within context. You just removed the context. Once war is declared, (all sides involved know danger lurks) no holds are barred except chemical and biological weapons nowadays. Even the use of nukes on Japan happened during a known and pre-existing state of war. There was certainly courage in kamakazi attacks, courage at the Alamo, courage at Thermopylae. In combat, uncommon valor is a common virtue--lots of people have died throwing themselves on grenades, staying behind to perform blocking actions etc, but that is in the context of an existing state of war. There was no existing state of war (declared or inferred) on the morning of Dec 7 1941. There was no existing state of war on Sept 11 2001. There is also no existing state of war when a suicide bomber decides to blow himself up in a busy marketplace, killing and maiming dozens or hundreds of women and children. The Fort Hood shooter was also an abject coward IMO. Someone mentioned Drones. To be honest, I do not much like their use. Even tho the targets--in an ongoing military endeavor--are supposed to be military targets, it takes the horror out of war for the operator. They are just TOO easy. The drone operator--He/she, is hundreds or thousands of miles from battle, may have never fired a shot or had one fired at him, yet he has the power to take lives at the push of a button. He does his thing, pushes his chair back from the console, gives high fives o the observers around him and heads to the 'O club' or home to his family. IMO, altho it saves lives, we have simply taken a step into the direction of the same kind of killing the Taliban and al queda are doing. I understand it, but I just don't like it--leaves a bad taste in my mouth. If you're going to kill someone in a combat setting, there should be some risk involved--some potential price to pay. War is horrible-it's a bloody, hurtful, unconscionably and awful thing--and for those reasons, a thing to be avoided if at all possible. Once we completely remove ourselves from the first person awfulness of it, we have made it too much easier to digest, to accept, to live with, and to engage in. And it is going to get much much worse in the coming years, probably in my lifetime. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Coffee Shop
The date that lives in infamy is here again.
Top