That is not what I have said.

Sounded like that to me:

(insert shrug smiley)

You mean that the Japanese will promote people to hero gods over it?

Um, actually, I'd like to express my feelings about drones.

Machines break. People don't.

That is all.

P.S. October lives in Missouri, not Tora Bora. Just clearing that up for you :up:

I think history already has proven your views - well, naive. The feudal lords letting their peasant get slaughtered for their own fame and accumulation of land and influence, or willed the massacring of the civilian villagers over wars of desire. Torture. Lacking medical abilities. The effects of medieval weapons on the human body (modern weapons are humane compared to what some of them, or old musketeer bullets, do to flesh and bone). Feudal class letting their tin soldier armies die in Napoleonic squares, sometimes thinking of doing that as the feudal classes' legitimate "hobby".

War never was humane. Never. And it is not today. And where you save the enemy from the grim determination of your will, the buddy beside you, wearing the same colours like you, maybe must pay with his life for your "noblesse" towards the enemy. The enemy is not to be admired - he is to be wiped out. Your admiration you can stick to where the sun does not shine. that is the difference between the reality of war, and romantic daydreaming.

There is nothing noble and honourful and humane in war. And the more this is forgotten, the more war there is and the more suffering there is and the more careless war gets started, waged, tolerated. Especially the past 12 years are a lesson that should remind some of us of that old truth, I think. If it would have been remembered while there still was time, some of the wars we now have would not be there, and the others we could not avoid would have been ended with devastating defeats if not annihilation of the enemy by now. You cannot win war by playing fair and limit yourself.

I condemn all those fools thinking of war holding a humane or noble dimension. War, you do it, or you don't, but if you do it, do it without regret, without scruples and without remorse.

It would be good, however, if you are certain of your motives why you go to war, and that you make sure your standards by which you decide it. can stand the test of what lies ahead.

Fame. Glory. Honour. Noblesse. Truth. Everybody should clean his mouth with soap when thinking about war in terms like this. Kill the enemy and destroy his means, stay alive if you can and care for the guy next to you, beyond this: shut up - that's good enough. Maybe the biggest lie in the history of all mankind: the myth of the "just war". I know only wars of desire, which always are retarded and stupid, and wars of necessity, which cannot - and should not! - be avoided. Flip a coin - it is either the one or the other side. No inbetween, no little bit of both sides.

Wow Skybird, Werner Hartenstein would be incredibly happy with your post.

You have never flown a high-G turn then with you blacking out, I suppose?

Who is that?

Oh, and here's an example of how one Australian soldier's humanity saved a life.

The Gallipoli campaign of 1915 was the first major defeat of Australian forces ever. With Turkish machine gun bullets raining down from the mountains, and Kapitan Otto Hersing routing our ships giving fire support, it was hell for the Allied troops. However, we managed to get positions and camps there. In one battle, a group of Australians were taking cover in a large hole, with a Turkish prisoner they'd taken. One of the diggers (slang for soldier) was giving the prisoner some of his rations. The Turk was greatful for it. Soon, however, the Turks were advancing on the hole. The diggers retreated, leaving the prisoner to be picked up by his army. Just as the first group of Turks got there, there was one digger having trouble getting out. The Turks aimed at him...and one was tackled by the prisoner, who took his gun, and shot the others, giving the digger enough time to get out. The prisoner himself was killed by other Turks, but he only did it out of gratitude for the humanity of one of the diggers.

One of the greatest Germans to ever live.

@ Mookiemookie

Adm Fluckey's "Thunder Below" was actually greenlit as a project by Steven Spielberg a long time ago and a script was written by Shane Salerno. Unfortunately Dreamworks decided to shelve the project as the Crappy "U571" was already at an advanced stage of development at a rival studio.

Google was my friend. I forgot the name, but of course know the Laconia incident. Well. Hartenstein thought he alone would change the rules of the game if only he made his intention known. Result of that was that he almost got all his men killed and the boat almost lost. If I would have been on his boat, I would have requested a transfer to another boat, I do not share the popular sentiments about him. In my eyes, he was a fool with good manners, and a risk for his own men, and a commander who made a terrible misjudgement and then tried to ease the pain on his conscience, an effort for which his men almost payed with their lives.

Your men go first.

I am with the American commander here who gave order to sink the sub, red cross and survivors yes or no. The boat was a weapon that shoot again. For the survivors he now saved, future ships with even more lives lost could have been the price. So: sink that sub. Not kind. But the logic of war.

I counter your example with two names that maybe fit better what you wanted to express: John Rabe, and Oskar Schindler. And hundreds and thousands of citizens showing civil courage but whose names history never has recorded. And different to Hartenstein, neither Schindler nor Rabe killed civilians due to misjudgement. ;)

But these were no soldiers.

He was referring to the movie Pearl Harbor, which was also pretty bad.

Oh no Steve, now that you've mentioned that, I'm going to have to watch Tora! Tora! Tora! again just to regain the will to live! :dead:

Nothing wrong with that! :haha:

:damn: