jcd11235 0
Quote
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Thats why the death count is still rising???
no, that's your failure to read the previous few posts.
And sorry, your idealism is flat out wrong - there are often winners in war. Review US expansionism during the 19th Century when it took the southwest from Mexico and Florida from Spain.
base_nz 0
QuoteQuote
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Thats why the death count is still rising???
no, that's your failure to read the previous few posts.
And sorry, your idealism is flat out wrong - there are often winners in war. Review US expansionism during the 19th Century when it took the southwest from Mexico and Florida from Spain.
Idealistic????.....YOU my friend are Idealistic if you think its that black and white.
And what are you talking about TAKE florida from spain..... I hope you dont think just cos im from a tiny little island im an idiot..... They sold it to you ....
A Spanish government with no support from spain little to no reinforcement...... freebooters the french and even some pirates had already had a go at them over the last few decades... and then a lot of the people you killed going in where Indians who you had chased off there land or runaway slaves that you bought from Africa....so you won but still lost men and managed to scatter the remaining free indian tribes... Congratulations.....
But even if now America is victorious flags are waved ( Again) in the streets....Stability is returned......America WINS!!
Ask all those soldiers who cant get a nights sleep without waking up in a cold sweat...Haunted by the bodies they have seen....friends they have lost....how they feel about the "WIN"
Ive met quite a few of these people ( my uncle being one )and can imagine the look on his face as you tell them but we "WON" wasnt it all worth it....
The only people who i see win in wars are the people that dont give a fuck about anything but MONEY and POWER!
.....And you thought Kiwis couldn't fly!!!!
base_nz 0
Quote>I disagree that the coalition won the war against Iraq. We never
>attained the desired political end state.
That's not the purpose of war. The purpose of war is to destroy your enemy. We won the war in Hiroshima by obliterating it, even if that is not a desirable state to leave it in.
That was after you Burned over %80 of cities in Japan with fire bombings!...Then the two nukes.....
AMERICA.......FUCK YEA!!!.... Saving the world by destroying it one bit at a time
.....And you thought Kiwis couldn't fly!!!!
Amazon 7
QuoteThat was after you Burned over %80 of cities in Japan with fire bombings!...Then the two nukes.....
AMERICA.......FUCK YEA!!!.... Saving the world by destroying it one bit at a time
Hows your Japanese?
billvon 2,434
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>No, the purpose of war is to obtain a desired political end state.
That's called "politics." War is sometimes used as a tool in the political game, a tool that (in my opinion) is overused.
>The best warriors sometimes accomplish this without using violence.
Then it is not war and they are not warriors (unless they get that name some other way.)
>The goal is not to capture your opponents pieces; the goal is to force
>your opponent's king into an inescapable position of imminent capture.
It is actually to capture or kill the king. When an opponent concedes defeat he tips his king over, indicating his death. When the game was first played, the loss of the local king meant that his kingdom became the property of the invader. Nowadays, of course, the origin of chess has been lost in the mists of time, and we see it as just a board game.
All too often, people compare war to board games. It's a really poor example, akin to comparing rape to hugging a friend of yours.
That's called "politics." War is sometimes used as a tool in the political game, a tool that (in my opinion) is overused.
>The best warriors sometimes accomplish this without using violence.
Then it is not war and they are not warriors (unless they get that name some other way.)
>The goal is not to capture your opponents pieces; the goal is to force
>your opponent's king into an inescapable position of imminent capture.
It is actually to capture or kill the king. When an opponent concedes defeat he tips his king over, indicating his death. When the game was first played, the loss of the local king meant that his kingdom became the property of the invader. Nowadays, of course, the origin of chess has been lost in the mists of time, and we see it as just a board game.
All too often, people compare war to board games. It's a really poor example, akin to comparing rape to hugging a friend of yours.
jcd11235 0
QuoteThat's called "politics." War is sometimes used as a tool in the political game, a tool that (in my opinion) is overused.[/replied]
There is not a clear distinction between war and politics. I'm coming up blank in my attempt to recall a war that was not a result of politics. Perhaps you can provide an example?
I do agree that war is a political tool that is overused.Quote>The best warriors sometimes accomplish this without using violence.
Then it is not war and they are not warriors (unless they get that name some other way.)
I disagree. I posted a fairly recent real world example from the GWOT in the "If Iraq were the only issue" thread.
Have you ever read Sun Tzu?Quote>The goal is not to capture your opponents pieces; the goal is to force
>your opponent's king into an inescapable position of imminent capture.
It is actually to capture or kill the king.
Incorrect. A king is never captured in chess. Checkmate is a state of imminent, inescapable capture.QuoteWhen an opponent concedes defeat he tips his king over, indicating his death.
Actually, it is an indication of his surrender, not his death.QuoteAll too often, people compare war to board games. It's a really poor example, akin to comparing rape to hugging a friend of yours.
Since the game of chess was developed as an analogy of war, I think it's a fair example.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
billvon 2,434
>I'm coming up blank in my attempt to recall a war that was not a result of politics.
World War II.
>Have you ever read Sun Tzu?
Yes, I have.
World War II.
>Have you ever read Sun Tzu?
Yes, I have.
jcd11235 0
Quote>I'm coming up blank in my attempt to recall a war that was not a result of politics.
World War II.
I'm not sure how WWII can be considered not politically motivated. Have you read Mein Kampf?
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
billvon 2,434
>I'm not sure how WWII can be considered not politically motivated.
We entered it because we were attacked.
We entered it because we were attacked.
mnealtx 0
Quote***When an opponent concedes defeat he tips his king over, indicating his death.
Actually, it is an indication of his surrender, not his death.
Only if "shah mat" (the origin of "checkmate") no longer means "the king is dead".
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
rehmwa 2
Quote>I'm not sure how WWII can be considered not politically motivated.
We entered it because we were attacked.
that's political - just not in the cynical definition
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
billvon 2,434
>that's political - just not in the cynical definition
Yes. if you have a definition that includes anything a government does.
(Of course, one would have to question your political decision to get a driver's license then!)
Yes. if you have a definition that includes anything a government does.
(Of course, one would have to question your political decision to get a driver's license then!)
rehmwa 2
Quote>(Of course, one would have to question your political decision to get a driver's license then!)
and on this board, it certainly will be questioned - and also griping about why we have to "pay" for them
driving is a 'right', licenses should be "free"
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
Amazon 7
Quote>I'm not sure how WWII can be considered not politically motivated.
We entered it because we were attacked.
And Roosevelt KNEW we had to enter the war.... and basically proded the Japanese into attacking the US.
The Japanese relied heavily on the US for oil and raw materials before the war... and was one of their main goals of their expansionist policies that led them into China.
jcd11235 0
Quote>I'm not sure how WWII can be considered not politically motivated.
We entered it because we were attacked.
WWII started long before we entered it. It began due to Germany's political motivations. Among other things, they weren't thrilled with the political end state of WWI.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
jcd11235 0
QuoteQuote***When an opponent concedes defeat he tips his king over, indicating his death.
Actually, it is an indication of his surrender, not his death.
Only if "shah mat" (the origin of "checkmate") no longer means "the king is dead".
At checkmate, the kings capture (death) is imminent and inescapable, although the game ends before such capture actually occurs. Tipping the king is significantly different from checkmate. It is symbolic of surrender.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
billvon 2,434
>WWII started long before we entered it.
Correct. We got involved because we were attacked. And as our constitution explicitly calls out the means to "provide for a common defense" there was no question as to the validity of that response.
Correct. We got involved because we were attacked. And as our constitution explicitly calls out the means to "provide for a common defense" there was no question as to the validity of that response.
jcd11235 0
Quote… there was no question as to the validity of that response.
Who implied there was no validity to that response?
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
(I'm not sure if you're actually being serious or not, so just in case you are …)
No, the purpose of war is to obtain a desired political end state. The best warriors sometimes accomplish this without using violence. As Clauswitz said, "War is an extension of politics."
Chess would be a fair analogy. The goal is not to capture your opponents pieces; the goal is to force your opponent's king into an inescapable position of imminent capture.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites