(Untitled)

Dec 07, 2008 13:22

Last year we visited our friend in Connecticut. . .there not far from her house was a old ww2 Duster tank. I actually have some pictures of it that I took. But here is another picture, this is what it looked like:

Read more... )

military

Leave a comment

Comments 47

virtual_anima December 8 2008, 19:12:10 UTC
Nuclear bombs turned people into a lot less than chunks, and Japan surrendered pretty quick. It wasn't because they were worried about whether we were compassionate or not. It was because they were damn well scared we were going to remove their civilization from the earth.

Reply

mcpreacher December 8 2008, 19:52:54 UTC
your argument seems rooted in the premise that nuclear bombs are anything but a completely unacceptable atrocity for which many should hang.

Reply

virtual_anima December 8 2008, 20:28:23 UTC
No, simply that people surrender for other reasons. No value judgments beyond that.

Reply

mcpreacher December 8 2008, 20:29:06 UTC
my fault, then.

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

_merkaba_ December 8 2008, 23:51:06 UTC
Yeah, I agree. If we're going to talk about humanity here, why the fuck are we discussing which ways it's okay or not okay to kill each other?

Reply


caliantrias December 8 2008, 19:31:15 UTC
I have always mistrusted 'rules of war.' The reason is that I have always felt that rules of war give chickenhawks and imperial powers the leverage they need to make wars "popular" and allow them to perpetuate wars longer than necessary ( ... )

Reply

virtual_anima December 8 2008, 20:35:06 UTC
The reason is that I have always felt that rules of war give chickenhawks and imperial powers the leverage they need to make wars "popular" and allow them to perpetuate wars longer than necessary.

I feel the same way about this and about 'nonlethal' weapons.

The thing is, I understand the need for them, but I see the downside that they become commonplace to use for enforcement.

I think rules of war are the same way. I understand why we have them, but they have a big downside.

Does the benefit outweigh the cost? I don't know. In the case of war, maybe not. People still die. Groups still choose not to follow, etc. Maybe war should be downright horrible.

Reply

_merkaba_ December 8 2008, 23:53:37 UTC
This, this a thousand times.

Reply


policraticus December 8 2008, 20:29:47 UTC
The stupid... it burns my eyes!!!

Reply

mcpreacher December 8 2008, 21:32:31 UTC
your eyes would be unharmed if we regulated the type of rhetorical weaponry employed in these here parts

Reply


squidb0i December 8 2008, 20:49:06 UTC
Screw that hippie noise.
They go boom, we win again.
Dead is dead, who cares how many pieces are left afterward.

Reply

mcpreacher December 8 2008, 21:29:48 UTC
i do

Reply

squidb0i December 8 2008, 22:21:54 UTC
Because?

Reply

mcpreacher December 8 2008, 22:23:42 UTC
i'm not sure i understand the question

Reply


Leave a comment

Up