The True Nature of the World is Savagery
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in The True Nature of the World is Savagery:
@Doctor-Phibes said in The True Nature of the World is Savagery:
@89th said in The True Nature of the World is Savagery:
I think we generally stopped after Vietnam.
How many people died in the Iraq war? Afghanistan?
I'm left with the implication that what this writer seems to ignore is any war that didn't take place in what he considers a 'civilized' country.
I'm not saying this is his point, but if WW3 started tomorrow and the USA had to fight China, Russia, Iran, and others... do you think Gen Z college kids are ready to pick up a gun and shoot the enemy?
I would honestly rather die than watch my son go and fight in some stupid foreign adventure. For too long have old men sent young men to die because of their own mistakes.
When people say 'We need to be willing to....', they generally don't mean themselves. They mean our children. Fuck that.
I think he has a bit of a point, though. Evil isn't going to civilize itself. It's going to wreck everything it touches. Until we evolve more, war is going to be necessary sometimes.
I'm not happy about that, and a shitload of conflicts have been brutal and unnecessary, but it wouldn't be all peace, love and harmony if we just dropped everything and did nothing.
Tolkien was a vet. It's not arbitrary that Hobbiton was allowed to exist because the entire populace was unknowingly protected by blades wielded by the sons of dead kings.
Yes, sometimes war is necessary. However the claim that we haven't had one in 70 years is just plain silly.
@Doctor-Phibes said in The True Nature of the World is Savagery:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The True Nature of the World is Savagery:
@Doctor-Phibes said in The True Nature of the World is Savagery:
@89th said in The True Nature of the World is Savagery:
I think we generally stopped after Vietnam.
How many people died in the Iraq war? Afghanistan?
I'm left with the implication that what this writer seems to ignore is any war that didn't take place in what he considers a 'civilized' country.
I'm not saying this is his point, but if WW3 started tomorrow and the USA had to fight China, Russia, Iran, and others... do you think Gen Z college kids are ready to pick up a gun and shoot the enemy?
I would honestly rather die than watch my son go and fight in some stupid foreign adventure. For too long have old men sent young men to die because of their own mistakes.
When people say 'We need to be willing to....', they generally don't mean themselves. They mean our children. Fuck that.
I think he has a bit of a point, though. Evil isn't going to civilize itself. It's going to wreck everything it touches. Until we evolve more, war is going to be necessary sometimes.
I'm not happy about that, and a shitload of conflicts have been brutal and unnecessary, but it wouldn't be all peace, love and harmony if we just dropped everything and did nothing.
Tolkien was a vet. It's not arbitrary that Hobbiton was allowed to exist because the entire populace was unknowingly protected by blades wielded by the sons of dead kings.
Yes, sometimes war is necessary. However the claim that we haven't had one in 70 years is just plain silly.
I'd call it more than silly, but it's also a good litmus test for determining if someone's too ignorant to listen to their opinion on global conflict. (Their chances of being a chickenhawk are higher, too, as you suggested.)
I said he had a "bit of a point" but that's about it.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in The True Nature of the World is Savagery:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The True Nature of the World is Savagery:
@Doctor-Phibes said in The True Nature of the World is Savagery:
@89th said in The True Nature of the World is Savagery:
I think we generally stopped after Vietnam.
How many people died in the Iraq war? Afghanistan?
I'm left with the implication that what this writer seems to ignore is any war that didn't take place in what he considers a 'civilized' country.
I'm not saying this is his point, but if WW3 started tomorrow and the USA had to fight China, Russia, Iran, and others... do you think Gen Z college kids are ready to pick up a gun and shoot the enemy?
I would honestly rather die than watch my son go and fight in some stupid foreign adventure. For too long have old men sent young men to die because of their own mistakes.
When people say 'We need to be willing to....', they generally don't mean themselves. They mean our children. Fuck that.
I think he has a bit of a point, though. Evil isn't going to civilize itself. It's going to wreck everything it touches. Until we evolve more, war is going to be necessary sometimes.
I'm not happy about that, and a shitload of conflicts have been brutal and unnecessary, but it wouldn't be all peace, love and harmony if we just dropped everything and did nothing.
Tolkien was a vet. It's not arbitrary that Hobbiton was allowed to exist because the entire populace was unknowingly protected by blades wielded by the sons of dead kings.
Yes, sometimes war is necessary. However the claim that we haven't had one in 70 years is just plain silly.
I'd call it more than silly, but it's also a good litmus test for determining if someone's too ignorant to listen to their opinion on global conflict. (Their chances of being a chickenhawk are higher, too, as you suggested.)
I said he had a "bit of a point" but that's about it.
@Aqua-Letifer said in The True Nature of the World is Savagery:
I'd call it more than silly
There's really no better insult than 'silly'. It's like calling somebody a numpty rather than a fascist. Or parents telling their kids to 'stop showing off' in front of their friends. It's deflating.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in The True Nature of the World is Savagery:
I'd call it more than silly
There's really no better insult than 'silly'. It's like calling somebody a numpty rather than a fascist. Or parents telling their kids to 'stop showing off' in front of their friends. It's deflating.
@Doctor-Phibes said in The True Nature of the World is Savagery:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The True Nature of the World is Savagery:
I'd call it more than silly
There's really no better insult than 'silly'. It's like calling somebody a numpty rather than a fascist. Or parents telling their kids to 'stop showing off' in front of their friends. It's deflating.
It’s my understanding that “incel” is the reigning world champion insult.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in The True Nature of the World is Savagery:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The True Nature of the World is Savagery:
I'd call it more than silly
There's really no better insult than 'silly'. It's like calling somebody a numpty rather than a fascist. Or parents telling their kids to 'stop showing off' in front of their friends. It's deflating.
It’s my understanding that “incel” is the reigning world champion insult.
@Horace said in The True Nature of the World is Savagery:
It’s my understanding that “incel” is the reigning world champion insult
That's just this year's Karen. It's grown in usage to be applied to groups it was never intended to cover. The same thing has happened to 'woke', which is used in some jurisdictions to include anybody who isn't actively committed to destroying the climate by boiling people in oil.
-
Sometimes, those who are doomed to remain ignorant, often repeat it.
Consider what was said:
What happened over the last 70 years or so was an interregnum of peace in the West, created by violence against barbarians and facilitated by people willfully looking away from the butchery still continuing at the fringes of the map. The West managed to build a civilization that was – for the first time in history since perhaps the Pax Romana – generally internally peaceful. And the West convinced itself that this was normal.
That's the premise. The premise is correct. Since WW2, there has been no major conflict in the West. There have been some internal conflicts, but no multinational war or a major war between great powers.
The question then becomes, can we continue this new description of normality?
If not, is the Hamas attack on Israel typical of the barbarity of man? If it is, we must effectively learn to deal with it.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
Sometimes, those who are doomed to remain ignorant, often repeat it.
Consider what was said:
What happened over the last 70 years or so was an interregnum of peace in the West, created by violence against barbarians and facilitated by people willfully looking away from the butchery still continuing at the fringes of the map. The West managed to build a civilization that was – for the first time in history since perhaps the Pax Romana – generally internally peaceful. And the West convinced itself that this was normal.
That's the premise. The premise is correct. Since WW2, there has been no major conflict in the West. There have been some internal conflicts, but no multinational war or a major war between great powers.
The question then becomes, can we continue this new description of normality?
If not, is the Hamas attack on Israel typical of the barbarity of man? If it is, we must effectively learn to deal with it.
That's the premise. The premise is correct. Since WW2, there has been no major conflict in the West. There have been some internal conflicts, but no multinational war or a major war between great powers.
Yes. It is called nuclear deterrence.
Elbows up!
-
That's the premise. The premise is correct. Since WW2, there has been no major conflict in the West. There have been some internal conflicts, but no multinational war or a major war between great powers.
Yes. It is called nuclear deterrence.
@Renauda said in The True Nature of the World is Savagery:
That's the premise. The premise is correct. Since WW2, there has been no major conflict in the West. There have been some internal conflicts, but no multinational war or a major war between great powers.
Yes. It is called nuclear deterrence.
We're stress testing your theory right now in real time.
-
Sometimes, those who are doomed to remain ignorant, often repeat it.
Consider what was said:
What happened over the last 70 years or so was an interregnum of peace in the West, created by violence against barbarians and facilitated by people willfully looking away from the butchery still continuing at the fringes of the map. The West managed to build a civilization that was – for the first time in history since perhaps the Pax Romana – generally internally peaceful. And the West convinced itself that this was normal.
That's the premise. The premise is correct. Since WW2, there has been no major conflict in the West. There have been some internal conflicts, but no multinational war or a major war between great powers.
The question then becomes, can we continue this new description of normality?
If not, is the Hamas attack on Israel typical of the barbarity of man? If it is, we must effectively learn to deal with it.
@Jolly said in The True Nature of the World is Savagery:
Sometimes, those who are doomed to remain ignorant, often repeat it.
And it strikes me that some people have a hard-on for repeating it and writing articles in the same way.
As awful as the current conflict is, it's certainly no worse than the 10 years of bloodshed that occurred in Yugoslavia, where over 100,000 people died.
Yugoslavia was actually in Europe at the time.
I can keep writing about awful things that have happened since WW2 all day. The article wasn't very well thought out.
-
That's the premise. The premise is correct. Since WW2, there has been no major conflict in the West. There have been some internal conflicts, but no multinational war or a major war between great powers.
Yes. It is called nuclear deterrence.
@Renauda said in The True Nature of the World is Savagery:
That's the premise. The premise is correct. Since WW2, there has been no major conflict in the West. There have been some internal conflicts, but no multinational war or a major war between great powers.
Yes. It is called nuclear deterrence.
Bingo. Say, how did the world change during and after WWII? The stakes went up dramatically.
-
That's the premise. The premise is correct. Since WW2, there has been no major conflict in the West. There have been some internal conflicts, but no multinational war or a major war between great powers.
Yes. It is called nuclear deterrence.
@Renauda said in The True Nature of the World is Savagery:
That's the premise. The premise is correct. Since WW2, there has been no major conflict in the West. There have been some internal conflicts, but no multinational war or a major war between great powers.
Yes. It is called nuclear deterrence.
Works for me.
-
There’s also another aspect. Specifically, the growth of liberal democracy in Europe. Democracies tend not to go to war against one another. They settle their differences through negotiated diplomacy, third party arbitration or the courts. Prior to WWII, liberal democracies in Europe were in the minority. When war did break out there was always a dictatorship in one form or another involved as an active belligerent and then, usually as the initiator of the conflict. This behaviour pattern between states has continued into the present.
-
@89th said in The True Nature of the World is Savagery:
I think we generally stopped after Vietnam.
How many people died in the Iraq war? Afghanistan?
I'm left with the implication that what this writer seems to ignore is any war that didn't take place in what he considers a 'civilized' country.
I'm not saying this is his point, but if WW3 started tomorrow and the USA had to fight China, Russia, Iran, and others... do you think Gen Z college kids are ready to pick up a gun and shoot the enemy?
I would honestly rather die than watch my son go and fight in some stupid foreign adventure. For too long have old men sent young men to die because of their own mistakes.
When people say 'We need to be willing to....', they generally don't mean themselves. They mean our children. Fuck that.
@Doctor-Phibes said in The True Nature of the World is Savagery:
@89th said in The True Nature of the World is Savagery:
I think we generally stopped after Vietnam.
How many people died in the Iraq war? Afghanistan?
Like 300,000 US soldiers died in Vietnam and like 4,000 in Iraq. I believe 600,000 enemy fighters were killed in Vietnam, although I'm sure civilian deaths are hard to calculate but I'd imagine are in the hundreds of thousands in both Vietnam and Iraq.
Anyway, I appreciate your replies here and generally agree, especially the idea of my son fighting in one of these modern wars where it's really the US playing policeman in a foreign country.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in The True Nature of the World is Savagery:
@89th said in The True Nature of the World is Savagery:
I think we generally stopped after Vietnam.
How many people died in the Iraq war? Afghanistan?
Like 300,000 US soldiers died in Vietnam and like 4,000 in Iraq. I believe 600,000 enemy fighters were killed in Vietnam, although I'm sure civilian deaths are hard to calculate but I'd imagine are in the hundreds of thousands in both Vietnam and Iraq.
Anyway, I appreciate your replies here and generally agree, especially the idea of my son fighting in one of these modern wars where it's really the US playing policeman in a foreign country.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
-
@George-K said in The True Nature of the World is Savagery:
@89th said in The True Nature of the World is Savagery:
300,000 US soldiers died in Vietnam
What?
Try 59,000.
Still a lot of humanity.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in The True Nature of the World is Savagery:
@89th said in The True Nature of the World is Savagery:
I think we generally stopped after Vietnam.
How many people died in the Iraq war? Afghanistan?
Like 300,000 US soldiers died in Vietnam and like 4,000 in Iraq. I believe 600,000 enemy fighters were killed in Vietnam, although I'm sure civilian deaths are hard to calculate but I'd imagine are in the hundreds of thousands in both Vietnam and Iraq.
Anyway, I appreciate your replies here and generally agree, especially the idea of my son fighting in one of these modern wars where it's really the US playing policeman in a foreign country.
-
The point of the article wasn't that we should learn how to die again, it was that we should learn how to kill and destroy, so surely the important statistic for this guy is how many foreigners died, rather than Americans?
Personally, I think the writer's a bit (I'm being kind) of a dickhead, but that's just me. I don't see how lots of Germans dying in Germany is really that different from lots of Iraqis dying in Iraq.
-
53,000,000 deaths, WW2.
Been nothing remotely like it since. Especially in the West, as the author has noted.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
