Please listen to this before you score another kill...

[unreasonable]

yeah of course all wars that writte history are won by the goodies

 

so lets all thank violence for making the world a better place

 

There is actually a strong argument that that is exactly what has happened. Based on statistics of death due to violence, the world has been getting safer and safer - even including the casualties of the world wars. This is the result of states monopolizing violence and providing strong incentives for people to behave in a civilized manner. As states war and coalesce, they stamp out more and more everyday violence, which usually more than makes up for deaths in wars between states.

 

Ian Morris "War - What is it good for" is worth a read on this topic.

[MiloMorai]

More violent deaths in the USA every year than died in A-stan.

[Solty]

Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo (more people died from firebombs there than from the nuclear bombs)

 

and many many others. Hannover, Koeln, Berlin etc. The Americans did their best with daylight bombing to attack in a planned way (within the limits of 40's tech and with exceptions such as Dresden and Tokyo) but the British just tried for indiscriminate mass destruction and slaughter with night raids because they couldn't mount daylight campaigns.

Yes? What about Wielun 1st of Spetember 1939, a completely non military target bombed by the Luftwaffe. Warsaw (1939 and 1944) which was the most destroyed city in Europe, and many other Polish cities. Towns and cities in Holand like Eindhoven, Belgium, France, Norway, London and many other cities of UK, Stalingrad, Leningrad, Sevastopol and many other cities of Soviet Union. Germany was bombing cities as first and you are telling me that Allies were responisble for civilian casualties? Hahaah

 

Japan was bombing Chinese civilian population too, so they were not angels you are trying to portray. Face it, thats the war Axis wanted, thats the war that was brought to them. End of (hi)story

Edited August 21, 2015 by =LD=Solty

[Bearcat]

Just to be clear, I'm the sort of the pacifist who thinks that war should be avoided, but is sometimes necessary, not the sort who thinks that all violence (even self-defence) is bad.

 

You are a realist.

 

Not really a pacifist at all then, just a member of the mainstream.

 

I mentioned feminism because, like it or not, the kind of organized violence typical of war is predominantly a male trait. We all know that there are exceptions, female warriors and combat pilots etc, but females are usually better at priming their males to go off to fight than doing it themselves. Feminists typically decry this male violence as another form of male oppression, and of course they are right. The history of the world is largely a story of men fighting over women.

 

Western educational systems are now predominantly staffed by women, who constantly tell boys that violence (or even competition) is bad, which is quite different from the message that male teachers used to impart, namely that unauthorized, indisciplined violence is bad. 

 

It will be interesting to see what line feminists take when the islamists win and come to bag them.

 

 

I disagree with that..

 

Women generally do not prime their men to go to war.. on the contrary.. women traditionallyt have wanted their men to avoid war partly because they knew the consequences if their men went off to war and got themselves killed.

 

The history of the world is largely a story of men fighting over resources and power. Not women. Troy possible being one exception if Homer is to be believed.. If you get the power and the resources the women are a given.

[[CPT]milopugdog]

This thread has officially derailed, and is now moving swiftly down the river. 

Good job everyone, we might make it home in time for tea and medals 

[Cybermat47]

Not really a pacifist at all then, just a member of the mainstream.

 

You are a realist.

Yeah, now that I think about it, those are both much better ways of putting it

[Feathered_IV]

More violent deaths in the USA every year than died in A-stan.

Funny you should mention that. A friend of mine is working in the US at the moment and told me about a month ago that the casualty rate for gunshots alone in the Chicago area is at more than 1100 since January.

[unreasonable]

 If you get the power and the resources the women are a given.

 

Quite: the alpha males get the totty - but what else are power and resources for, except to acquire women and help your male offspring from them acquire more in their turn? From a biologist's point of view, this is what it comes down to. A female offspring does not really need resources, since she is a resource herself.

 

And again, from a biologist's POV, do not forget that women have sons too - in fact, the more power and resources a woman (or her male partner) has, the more likely she is to bear sons and benefit reproductively from their aggressive alpha-male behaviour. It is no accident that girls love bad boys.

[MiloMorai]

Funny you should mention that. A friend of mine is working in the US at the moment and told me about a month ago that the casualty rate for gunshots alone in the Chicago area is at more than 1100 since January.

 

And Chicago is a 'gun free zone'.

[Blakhart]

This is the funniest things connected with internet.

 

Those guys were real.

They wasnt looking for the opinions how to act and what to do on forums...

They just had own path.

Own opinion.

 

Go ahead and watch more movies, read more books to be only a miserable copy.

[Johnny_Red]

This is a very interesting thread.

There were undoubtedly good and bad folk on both sides of every war. To paint either side, whether the good or bad, with the same brush is ridiculous. Atrocities are committed by every side.

There is a mindset during war, from the elected leaders all the way down to the civilians. Propaganda is a weapon of war, one of the most destructive. The second world war would never have been possible without the German population believing the hype.

I remember when I was a kid, during the early eighties, when the task force was heading for the Falkland islands. The news was full of flag waving patriotism. Kids my age at the time wanted to join the military. Civilians are a target. Why else would we drop propaganda leaflets in every war?

The full metal jacket scene is not about a crazy door gunner. It's about a terrible unconventional war. I urge folk to read http://www.amazon.com/Nam-Vietnam-Words-Women-Fought/dp/0425101444/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1440250756&sr=8-1&keywords=Nam

Some parts are horrific. It takes a certain amount of courage to admit ones demons.

BoS is a game, it's ment to be entertainment, heh that's a different debate, it's not real war thank goodness.

[Ace_Pilto]

I'm not sure what a bad interview has to do with me playing a game but thanks...

[Johnny_Red]

...

 

It will be interesting to see what line feminists take when the islamists win and come to bag them.

Because we're at war with Islam? Talk about believing the hype. Fox news much?

[Fortis_Leader]

well i just was throwing off known numbers as i said maybe its just a coincidence

 

 

 

I don't often post here, but your, ehm, dubious claims did make me decide to give my two cents on the (wildly varying) topic:

 

Grossman's On Killing (I presume you've read the work that you're somewhat less than perfectly crediting) and the works on which he builds his claims are far from perfect or correct, and have been quite criticized. E.g. Grossman lacks any personal experience of combat, he makes up ridiculous buzz words like "killology" and his book is based on the studies of S.L.A. Marshall. Marshall's "studies" are problematic (his own grandson discovered that he had brazenly lied about his participation in WW1). For example, IIRC (it's been a while since I read much about it) the claim that only so and so many soldiers actually tried to hit their enemy is derived solely on interviews with soldiers who were undergoing psychological treatment on account of their experiences. I'm stating the obvious here, but it's obviously disingenuous to say the least to assume that the psychological issues of the very small minority should apply to the majority of combat troops. Much if not most of his works on this should simply be categorized as "academical fraud". The only reason either Grossman or Marshall have amassed such fame is down to pop-culture.

 

Please read some more about this subject and reconsider your views on it, at least if you're going to act as if though you're on the moral high ground and insult people who've actually been to war.

Edited August 22, 2015 by Palaszewski

[Cybermat47]

Because we're at war with Islam? Talk about believing the hype. Fox news much?

I don't think that's quite what he means.

 

From Wikipedia: Islamism (Urdu: اسلام پرستی‎; Arabic: إسلاموية‎), also known as Political Islam, is a set of ideologies holding that "Islam should guide social and political as well as personal life."

[bzc3lk]

 

 

Simple really, air combat started when pilots decided to start trying to kill each other, prior to that enemy encounters between aircraft were rather gentlemanly affairs where the crews would give a friendly wave, my point is.......war is all about killing, romanticize it all you want, eventually as a combatant you are faced with the prospect of kill or be killed, the choice is pretty obvious, fighter pilots were not the sorts of characters who simply wanted to play with an expensive flying club at tax payers expense and  avoid conflict.

 

 

 Not in all cases, sometimes humanity prevails.

 

 

Edited August 22, 2015 by bzc3lk

[71st_AH_Hooves]

Interesting topic, I wonder how many of these forum goers have ever taken a life, in war or otherwise,  to talk so knowledgeably on the subject.

[-NW-ChiefRedCloud]

Just a side note here ..... No one in their right mind wants to go to war and hang their self out to be shot at. Men and women in all military in most all countries train to serve their country in their military. We train for war. We train to kill. We are not machines and all kinds of thoughts go through our heads as we face each and every challenge with regards to our proffession as a didicated Military member. We don't always agree with what our leader, the political parties, get us into but we serve with the last ounce of our blood. We have no real desire to kill or be killed but we are proffessionals and we do our best to defend our countries. We of the military are not pure and even have our misfits who do things that bring bad light onour proffession. But they do not represent us as a whole but are mereily reflections of some of the worse sides of humanity itself.

 

A Military member is a part of an exclusive family and families take care of one another. The smaller these groups of military the tighter it is. Just as most of you would do anything for family, so would we. Even die IF neccissary. In my imediate family My father, myself,  my brother, my cousin, and five of my uncles servered in the military during wartimes. And now my son with two tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. And his wife with one tour in Afghanistan.

 

Most certainly we would rather have peace any day of the week. Sometimes this isn't possible. This country, America, was founded from the blood of those that chose to fight but had no desire to. Well enough of my prattle .... I apologize for running off at the mouth.

 

Chief

[unreasonable]

Because we're at war with Islam? Talk about believing the hype. Fox news much?

 

I would not watch Fox news even if I were an American. I prefer to read the Economist.  Leaving aside issues of whether we are at war with Islam, (and who is "we") the demographics are the issue: with out of control immigration and higher muslim birth rates many european countries may have muslim majorities within the lifetimes of many people reading this forum. The question is what they choose to do with their emerging political power.

 

What I do see is that Islamist thought is incompatible with our liberal secular society, in particular with feminist ideals. Progressives generally frown on criticism of Islam in any form as they believe that this is somehow racist - although muslims can be of any race - so progressives will face a dilemma if a muslim majority in power still believes that sharia law should become the law of the land, as current surveys show they do now.

 

As an atheist myself I naturally have an interest in the outcome, since sharia law makes expression of my belief a crime punishable by death.

[Bearcat]

OK this thread has gone far enough off the rails to warrant a lock.

 

The bottom line as far as the OP goes is that there is nothing we can ever do in any kind of simulation that could even come close to the real life and death decisions made by military personell and government officials in times of war when real lives and in many cases their own lives were on the line. I don't think anyone takes killing lightly because they enjoy shooting down a virtual opponent in a virtual dogfight .. with a refly button.

 

I have never taken a life in combat or otherwise.. and I have never been in combat.. but I know enough to know that second guessing decisions of men in combat.. be they sailors, soldiers or airmen...  especially with 65+ years of hindsight.. is a fools errand at best.