Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Letum
Since the dawn of man people have shown compassion to their enemys, even in
warfare. There has never been a culture so devoid of empathy that any one given
member of it could batter to death more than a few hundred unarmed children and
women in cold blood, let alone a few hundred thowsand, for no more reason than they
where called "enemy".
|
Referring to some of the old classice, I would say you are totally wrong there. More than one city had been wiped out completely, with cat and dog, man and woman and kids. It has been threatened even more often. I start with Troy and Karthago, over Peking, to Baghdad, to mentiion jst what springs right to my mind.
Quote:
My pervious question is genuine as I have read nothing but defense of moral depravity,
in regards to how people should act when at war, in your posts.
What am I to take as an answer?
|
that has been answered mutlitple times by now, if you still do not see the aswer, another ten postings still will not make you see it. usually I would live at peace in leaving a differing opinion behind, but your opinion is widespread and almost a guarantee that many more wars of choise will be started by out wetsern nations, and will bring misery upon inocent - all in the name of seriously flawed moral conception to hide the grim truth about what war is. that way, your opinion is doing very massive damage, and is highly dangerous.
Make war as miserable and cruel a spossible. Everything that makes war more "humane" - makes it more likely. If you want no future wars, shoot the nurses and bakers first and then poison the water.
Brutal? Yes. That's why I don't call it a picnic on the meadow, and am so strict in my criterions on when to define a war as a war of need indeed that cannot and/or should not be avoided. wit my attoitude, there will be less wars. With your attitude, there will be more wars. That simple it is.