Drop The Bomb Incinerate Them All

V

Vlad Tepes III

Chieftain
Joined
Dec 29, 2001
Messages
28
Location
"Kaziglu Bey"
Why can't the world learn the lessons of CIV2? Happyness is found behind the lance, we should put these unnatural goals of peace aside and get together for some un-adulterated combat... I mean what would a roman soldier say about our battlefield morality.. "No killing civilians! Stop bombing afghanistan!" No way! He'd be the one raping the women and claiming the spoils! We are restricting war, making rules. Its time to shut those liberals up, and those whiney crybaby minorities. We should get back to our roots, lets not restrict ourselves when it comes to killing each other, by god its what we do best!:) After all, General Patton said "All of man's other endeavors pale in comparison to war"

Can I get an Amen!? Can I get a hallelujah?!
 
hehehe..ah yes...in the civ world all is black or white.In the real world there are many shades of grey....
 
The lesson of civ, is that all of the things that "make us great" like science, art, mathmatics, philosophy are but a pleasant distraction from the true nature of man. That is, war. You cannot succede in civ2 without an army to defend yourself from others. And that's even if you take the road of peace to win (which I do not recommend).
As the great one, Col. Kurtz said: "We must kill them, we must incinerate them. Pig after pig. Cow after cow. Villiage after villiage. Army after army. And they call me an assassin. What do you call it when the assassins accuse the assassin?"
 
Wow, I have to admit I agree that human history is rife with was and struggle...but i find your bloodthirstyness both disturbing and not a little discourging in terms of hope that the human race could ever live peacefully.

I dont know if your comment was meant in some form of sarcastic humor about Civ II but I must say....if that is the only thing Civ II teaches...maybe you should play another game.
 
I do agree. He is right about war. War is the only way to protect. If you want ask.. if they refuse then take. Esatblishes domince not democracy.
 
No matter how bloodthirsty or disturbing these comments may be, I think it reflects a fundamental truth. We exist to make war.

As far as Civ II, It's a great game but it IS just a game. I think the point I made about war is illustrated pretty well in the game.


:sniper: :tank:
 
:flamedevil
You might be right(vlad tepes) and you might be wrong:cry:

but if the dead from war:cry: could speak I wonder what they would say

[dance] :beer: [dance]
 
Oh, what if what if what if!!
the point is the dead CANT talk, their dead. that's what war is all about, the power to nullify a people. It's not bloodlust just power.
 
And who would "them all" be, pray?
Are you advocating the destruction of everyone you don't approve of? You sure wouldn't like it if another nation decided that a single inhabitant of yours was a good reason to level the whole country with an excess of militaristic force. I have to wonder if you are in the armed forces, putting the boot in in the thick of the fighting, or are you tucked up in bed, waiting for Mummy to bring you a sandwich? Your point is legitimate, if badly made, which gives me licence to ridicule it. Have you ever had a family member killed in a violent way? Could you stand it if you saw your comrade's legs blown to smithereens by a land mine just feet from where you were just standing? You may think that war is cool from your couch, but you will most likely never know what it is really like and never be called upon to lose your life for your country. I doubt that you'd be allowed in the army anyway with ideas like that. Thank God for games like Civ that allow you to play out your megalomanic ambitions without endangering any lives.
Can I get you a straightjacket? Amen!
 
Two things.

Firstly, from my observations, those who have been in combat, or at war in some capacity, tend not to view it in a hugely positive light, but rather as a dirty but necessary job that needs to be done.

Secondly, and here I agree to a certain extent with the original post, that when you wage war, you wage it utterly and completely, and aim to maim, brutalize, slughter and annihilate the opposition with the most violence that can be brought to bear. That is the purpose of war, to destroy, to draw blood and kill. To weigh it down with foolish liberal ideas about the rights of the enemy, or the price of victory is to wage war incorrectly. The time for these questions is not wartime, but in the reflection of the peace that follows.

And I heartily endorse the truth on the matter of the real world. There are some matters that ARE black and white, but not all. I prefer to see the world in all its bleak colours and all its brilliant greyness, but it does not prevent me from viewing appropriate matters in black and white.

War is not cool. It is not nice. It is not like the pictures.
It is real. It is death, and blood spurting, and stench and foulness.
But it is necessary, and in some cases unavoidable.
When these times come, we must play to win.
 
"Drop the bomb incinerate them all" is a reference to Apocalypse now, kind of an obscure "insanity of war" type thing. You say that leveling a country because of one man is not a legitimate reason for war. Then what, pray, is a legitimate reason? Money? Territory? Religion? Politics? There is no legitimate reason, war is not legitimate. Mark my words: At its essence war is a entity with no bounds, it transcends any moral or ethicals laws. We do it, because we can do it, and we will continue to do it as long as we can.

I am NOT advocating any nuclear action against afghanistan, and the little analogy with that war has kind of run out of steam (its really just a simple matter of self defense anyway). I certainly don't want to sound like Slim Pickins riding the bomb screaming "yeeeha!"

It seems like this thread has turned into a philisophical discussion (as I hoped). Its kind of an interesting intellectual type of discussion but you are right on one count, the soldier that bleeds on the battlefield DOES NOT share in the intellectual fun. Its easy for philosophy majors to talk about this, miles away from the frontlines.
 
Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
Secondly, and here I agree to a certain extent with the original post, that when you wage war, you wage it utterly and completely, and aim to maim, brutalize, slughter and annihilate the opposition with the most violence that can be brought to bear. That is the purpose of war, to destroy, to draw blood and kill. To weigh it down with foolish liberal ideas about the rights of the enemy, or the price of victory is to wage war incorrectly. The time for these questions is not wartime, but in the reflection of the peace that follows.
Click to expand...

You have put it in terms very well. The general point I want to make is that restrictions on warfare are an attack on it's very soul. Admiral John Fisher of the Royal Navy said "The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is imbecility." That is the heart of my point. This game makes a perfect illustration. All of the wonders and discoverys mean nothing if you cannot defend yourself. Conquest is the highest achievement.

Its not fun for the soldier. But we all have instincts to kill, thats the root of the problem. We will always live to kill eachother. Morals and laws cannot restrict that.
 
Firstly, i also believe that when u go to war, u fully commit yourself and wage war completely (to a certain extent, i cannot condone maiming and raping of civilians....even if u say that is a consequense of waging complete and utter war, i just cant say that it has to be that way), i mean, there is no such thing as a limited or defensive war....if u go into a war defensively u have already lost!

but second, i dont believe that we cant change, or 'evovle' if u must our thinking... or outlook or whatever...to peace...or something along the lines of that ;)

I agree with your statement that war has and is part of our being but i dont believe that we cant ever in time, change.

Because of u relating back to civ all the time....think about the change in the civ series....up to civ3 u can pursue much more friendlier options of playing the game than the original (to a certain extent of course ;) )
 
." Its time to shut those liberals up, and those whiney crybaby minorities. "

Are you advocating dropping the bomb on these minorities? Which minortites are you refering to? Mormons? Hari Khrishnas? Proffesional Bowlers? Members of this forum?


Throughout history (on earth) there have been many instances of peaceful cultures. True, they alway get wiped out by more aggresive cultures, but they have existed ,showing that not all humans are blood thirsty war mongers.

History also shows that aggresive, militant type societies that like to attack their neighbors tend to get the crap kicked out of them in the end.

So even though war is often the culmination of years of frustration, oppresion, intolerance or economic depravation or neccesity, it is not always the only solution.
 
Hey, I happen to be a mormon and we are NOT crybabies.
Anyway. Yes there have been flickering moments where peaceloving civilizations have thrived but expansion and war are almost the same thing, so the larger you expand the more wars one civilization would be involved in. Like you said, there have been peacelovers but they were eventually destroyed or subjugated by larger empires. That is the point.

History is written by the winners of wars, so ethics do not play a part in war, only in the history books. Only the most naive would believe that wars are fought over ideas of Right and Wrong. They are almost always fought over money/power. WWII ended the U.S. depression. The civil war was NOT fought over slavery, it was fought over the secession of the CSA. The cause of war can ALWAYS be traced to either money or power.

So..(returning to my original post) if wars are not fought over morals or ethics, then why to we place moral or ethical laws to combat? The best victory is a total victory, annihilation of the enemy. President Bush keeps using the terms "evil ones" "war between good and evil" but I really don't think he believes that. Its just an appeal to the idiot masses who need justification. They have to know that WE are the good guys, what we are doing is right. The REAL pupose of this terrorism war is self defense.

Like Simon Darkshade posted earlier, the time to discuss the ethics of war is AFTER it is over. Peace is an excellent time to ponder the moral questions, but make no mistake: Our Society and our civilization was BUILT on conquest of others.
 
While the reason of war does usually deal with power, it is NOT man's natural instinct to kill. Man was peacful originally, as God intended. What man wants is happiness. This, I believe, is the purpose of war. Let me explain. A man may seek out happiness through glory, or wealth. War can sometimes accomplish that. Like it did for Julius Caesar. More recently, Osama bin Laden seeks happines. He believes he can obtain it by making the world like him and his people. Furthermore, violence has built and destroyed empires, but that dosen't mean we should follow. Rome was made great with war, but that violent foundation made it weak at the same time.
 
(P.S. Should this be in CIV2 General Discussion?)


War? You think the world would learn wouldn't you? WWI, then WWII followed closely by another 180 wars!

In over 50 years the world has had 180 wars. How long is it before you are involved? How long will it be until you will step onto a battlefield holding your M15 close to your chest dodging the mines and artilery fire.
Diving for cover as houses explode and shooting down people.
That's what's "cool" is it?

I'll agree that killing people is all apart of being human, but to go out to someone ele's home kick down the door and run in firing your gun mowing down people all for power is never justifiable.

Billions have died so that we can live the way we do today. Billions gave away their lives for freedom all urged on by people like you Vlad. Telling them to go out there and kill, kill, kill!

You may sit in front of your PC all safe but will you still love war when you're hiding inside a shelter all by yourself in this world after you've had everyone butchered for war?

"We must call upon our bright darkness,
Beliefs, they're the bullets of the wicked,
One was written on the sword,
For you must enter a room to destroy it,
International security,
Call of the righteous man,
Needs a reason to kill man,
History teaches us so,
The reason he must attain,
Must be approved by his God,
His child, partisan brother of war,"
Serj Tankian
 
PS I think you mean M-16.

The statement you made really doesn't fit into the logical discussion I have tried to encourage. Maybe you just read the first post and made a response. Scroll down and read all. I think some fundamental truths are being explored.

Otherwise, please don't preach me a sermon. This popular ethical tripe is what I have heard all of my life. Its easy to say, "you don't know what war is like" but you probably know just as little as I do about real war. I can only speculate. It seems pretty mature and responsibe to condemn war but the really wise ones will try to understand it.

BTW billions HAVE NOT DIED for my freedom etc. Thats a nice way to think about it but the truth is that many have died for the agendas of others.
 
The rules are rules, and ones that we cannot change. We can not use weapons of mass destruction unless another uses one on us. Now doesn't that makes sese? But the rules were made so that fighting could be fair. If the rules could be broken then we would all just drop anthrax bombs and atom bombs on each. Yay, what a sporting way to kill one another. Of course, SOME poeple break the rules of war intentionally to kill and hurt as many as possible, but they are called 'terroists'. The terror part comes from what they have to live with every day. US troops aling with UK troops and others huntung thier heads. Okay enough of that. I respect your view, although it leaves holes that must be coverd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

r16
  • Locked
oh , Macmaster's Arc or the Turkish-American War
Replies
4
Views
619
Arakhor
Arakhor
Top Bottom