Good job on the poem. :)

Death and Hell do follow the Red War Horsemen closely.

Skybird,
From your comments I'd take you as someone who would shoot prisoners
out of hand as part of war and not think twice about it. This is a new side you have coming out. Interesting.

Germans never learn it seems. Poland all over again.

3rd line. I believe the word you meant is "swooped". "Stooped" is a form of squatting.

Guys,
what I mean and what it comes down to is simply this: if someone want to wage war, he better do it full-heartly, without restriction. Else you get a thing getting stuck like Vietnam, or the Balkans, or now Iraq. Obscure assumptions about "warrior's honour" and "dignity" only lead a partisan opponent hindering a regular army to win a war - and that way winning the war for himself. I understand the rites and rituals of the military as an attempt only to enable then single man to deal with the prospect of his own death or the fact that others had been brought to death by his very own hands. It is understandable that death and dying needs such an ritualized approach, else the unthinkable cannot be dealt with by one's own mind. Death (one's own or the death of the other) must be rationalized, else you cannot bear it. This is the reason why an opponent without fear of his own death often is such a fearsome enemy, like the old Samurai, or ruthless, like many religiously motivated insurgents in Iraq.

Concerning the one-on-one duel: I only refer to that scene in the wonderful Western movie "Open Range" by Kevin Kostner, when the shooting begins and Costner says he will deal with the enemy gunslinger. "Are you that famous sniper they knew over there?" (Proud:) "Yes!" "And have you shoot this and that fella over there?" "Oho, yes, I have!" Bang! and right between the eyes. That guy had too much pride. (No word by word excerpt, but you get the idea)

another story from my set of tales, about legendary sword fighter Musashi. It's not important if it is true or not. He was guest at the castle of a feudal lord and they started to argue and finally raised in anger and said they want to have a duel the next morning. "Okay", said the lord of the place, "at the shore of the lake outside my castle, tomorrow
morning!" and Musashi left. Next morning the lord called his knights and servants and everyone was dressed according to the rites for duels, and there was a fabulous procession of officials with flags and drums, and it was a wonderful scene, the lord dressed in finest silk and golden armour, and they went to the lake. Musashi was not there. They waited. No Musashi. One hour, two hours, the lord became increasingle angry again, and started to loose patience. No Musashi. Then, after miday, the lord cooking silent and with a red face, a point on the lake, that grew bigger and bigger - a boat, Musashi in it. The lord eased his servants again to swallow their anger nevertheless and behave properly. The boat reached the sand, Musashi jumped out with a warcry, cut the man into two pieces with a single strike, jumps back into the boat and was up anbd away before anyone could react.

That's how it is done. Do it, or don't, that simple, there is no trying. If that is not for your taste, don't call for a duel too easily then.

That we first sent bombers, then nurses to treat the ones that we have bombed just illustrates the perversion that war is - always. In WWI, 90% of the casualties were soldiers, onlöy 10% civilians. Since the 70s, this ratio reads different: 10% of the casualties are soldiers/figthers nowadays, 90% of them are civilians.

You are assuming right, you would not like the way I would wage war, if I were in the position and would be willing to wage war. I do not like it myself. that'S why I am so extremely hesitent to support decisions for wars for foul reasons.

"War don't ennoble men. It turns 'em into dogs. Poisons the soul." (A Thin Red Line)

I believe in all what I said here. Because it has saved my life at least two times, maybe more.

Yes, it is the bad, ugly German bad boys again. :dead:

Fighting a war without compromise is different from liking to fight, or easily triggerign war for unjustified reasons.

Poland. You must be kidding, if you compoared me to the Nazi attack on Poland. Better look at the foul reasons of your own country for starting your latest military enterprise - one of many. And compared to the scale of the mess you created you cannot come up with anything truly satisfying that could justify your calling for war. So who is the monster here - me, or you? Maybe I would fight a war more uncompromising than you do - but I wouldn'T start it for such idiotic reasons. And that is the deciding difference.

I was belatedly coming to acknowledge the anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack. I was under the impression that this was the correct thread, but it seems that I have stumbled upon yet another condemnation of 21st Century US foreign policy.

Perhaps someone would be so kind as to point out the location of the topic I seek.

That is why cutting down people is not so popular anymore: the right modern weaponry allows one to perform preemptive strikes while avoiding most problems with meddling bystanders. (though, technically, if they're interfering they're not real bystanders anymore)

Ignoring technical details, the principle is sound:
- If possible, avoid a fight.
- If there is no reasonable way to avoid it, use the strategy that is most likely to work and the lowest risk for yourself, even if some people might consider your strategy somewhat politically incorrect.

I'm sorry, Takeda, assuming you are meaning my last reply to August, I was just in direct self-defense against a stupid but nevertheless typical Nazi-comparison directed against myself, or modern Germany in general.

I know that you were acting in defense, Sky. It takes more than one to argue, and the discussion is interesting. I just think that you guys might want to start a different thread for it. Maybe I'll even play, too.

You accuse me of mixing up different time scales, but I apologize if I did, because I have to search a very wide range to find an appropriate scenario for your strategies, I believe the only time period where it would be possible to apply it would be Sengoku Jidai, any nation connected to the rest of the world would not be able to maintain your policy without getting the attention of other nations and eventually turning them all against you, unless you plan a great alliance, and for that, you need Diplomacy.

The world does not live at war, excluding the African continent most of the time is spent at peace, you cannot ignore the game of diplomacy, isn't war a mean to reach an end? Then war must eventually come to an end, by no means do I intend to underestimate your abilities but you cannot achieve global conquest, you will have to shake hands with other nations again, how do you pretend to do that after you shot their ambassadors in the back? From then it's total war.

I agree that we think in different categories, I left the cave.

This policy is universal and is mine too, you cannot call it for yourself, it's our animal instinct, our will to survive, I would do anything to save my life too, but I would never duel you, because I know I cannot trust you one tiny bit, you underestimate me to believe I would join a duel and wait for you to strike. But I understand this is an analogy to the Musashi story further down, quite interesting to see you comparing yourself to Musashi. However, it is with regret that I inform you, I am not an angry Feudal Lord, you were the one that said "what angers me the most..." in your original topic, you will suffer from anger in duel, not me.

Words of a wild Tiger, driven by animal instincts, easily blinded by emotion, I could tame and turn you into a nice pussy cat and throw you to the biting dogs before you realize, maybe someone already done this to you, who knows.

Now I believe I understand you, if I'm mistaken correct me, what I would like to know is if you understand me, please answer this simple concluding question:

In war, you would respect a truce or a ceasefire if the odds were against you but would betray or refuse if the odds were in your favour. The problem is that once you betray a truce, the enemy will return in the same coin, then the polite formality of truce which can be used for your advantage will be gone and you are left only with the disavantage of NEVER being able to sign a truce again, what do you gain from your policy of total carnage?

Now you are a Skybird are you not? You've read about WWI and WWII, what can you tell me about the first Air Duels of WWI? Is it not extremely noble and educated? And since then, didn't it downgraded and turned into total annihilation mentality? As a Skybird, I refuse to belive you would prefer late 1944 air combat rather than gentlemen's duels, but then I have my doubts, as you show little appreciation for a formal duel.

You swarm with pride from head to toe, you underestimate me, and you belittle your "enemy", thinking of it as a "thing" that must be destroyed by any means necessary at any cost.

Your enemy is yourself, in the sense that he is your brother, your enemy thinks like you, your enemy will fight like you, he is as intelligent as you and will adapt, and change, like the insurgents in Iraq used by you as an example, your strategy would lead to a terrifying war and even if you can cause much suffering to the enemy, you will too suffer, would you take pride in leaving such a legacy in history? Do you Pride only the extermination of your enemy? Nothing else?

I ponder now, where are your values? Do you have a code of moral (or ethics)?

And here is pride again, you compared yourself with Musashi in your hypothetical duel with me, there are many great things to inspire from Musashi, I wouldn't say an old true or not Japanese duel where Musashi, filled with pride, decides to teach a lesson and use the weakness of the Lord (his ease for anger, already tested and tried on the previous night) instead of defeating him with swordsmanship - is something to inspire from, was Musashi's life threatened by the Lord? Did the Lord offended Musashi?

Were you waging war in those occasions? My curiosity may not be polite, but I believe there is a huge difference between self-defense and waging war.

Now I think it would be nice to present a contrasting opinion.

Sun Tzu said the SAFEST way is NOT to fight at all, that means routing the enemy, making them withdraw, cutting their line of retreat, encircling them, forcing a mass surrender, desertion or starvation, only entering a fight when you know (yourself and the enemy) you have the advantage to win every the battle without having to fight them, preserving all your forces intact.

Let's take the example of Iraq, if the Americans refused to accept the Iraqi mass surrenders making them to fight to death, entrenched in their cities, because they need to make sure none of those soldiers will turn into insurgents, forcing the Americans to kill every single one of them, how would that be better? Here's another of Sun Tzu's teachings, when the enemy is surrounded, with no chance to escape or facing sure defeat they fight like desperate men, desperate men do not care for their life, as Skybird mentioned, and will fight to the bitter end, turning any engagement into a bloody brawl, what do you gain by turning your enemy into a desperate opponent?! And isn't it better to capture the insurgent leaders ALIVE to interrogate them and dismantle the entire cell? Dropping a tactical nuke on Fallujah would get rid of all insurgents, but their secrets would go with them.

My point of view is that of Sun Tzu's, I prefer to preserve all life untill there is no other option left, exploiting the concept of reciprocity to my advantage, not against me.

Oh please. Save your rather lame redirection attempts for someone else. You are the one who said you'd strike to kill without warning while negotiations are still being conducted, not me.

If, as you say, I am personally responsible for my countries actions then you Sir, are just as responsible for yours.

So if you really want to compare the foul reasons that our two countries have gone to war then, from one monster to another, let me point out that your country has done the world far greater harm in just the last 100 years than my county has in it's entire existancr and my country has done far greater good in the world in the last 100 years than your country has in its entire existance.

Long and angry reply of mine - and then deleted. Takeda is right. And those of you going after me again - will always do your best not to understand the true meaning of what I say. So it probably is not worth to consume my time.

I did not arrive where I am because what I say is wrong. I got there because I kept it all in mind. And it was for the good of me, and the good of others whom I were able to help by that attitude. Can't see anything negative in that.

I think Japan, like most any country has a lot to be proud about their people and their abilities - but not this, if it's true (linked to on SubSim's main page):