this is not spoken ? without judgments ? why?
Article about: Annoyed from this ads?
Neither Wallenstein nor Gustav Adolf had the atomic bomb, per se, but the sum of the carnage was equal to and superior than in some respects.
Goya's depiction of the French campaign in Spain in the early 19th century is equally filled with images of carnage and human brutality of an exceptional character.
Man's inhumanity to man.........
If you are seriously interested into a worthwhile inquiry into the ethics of war, its political purpose, its violence, etc. with an emphasis on the United States, then this
documentary has much merit.
without getting into to it too much, I have more than an amateur familiarity or interest with these things, but such is not the role of this site, nor my duty here to discuss in any way....
In particular, consider the manner in which Robert McNamara was a subordinate of Curtis Le May in the air campaign against Japan in 1944-1945.
I would say this, also, that the present is seized, whether rightly or wrongly, with a hysterical need to find blame with the cause of war, the person or the thing that starts a war, etc.
The more thoughtful enterprise is to understand the nature of war in all its reality, its character, its dynamics, its centrality to our political world, and its links to organized violence for political ends.
The desire to find guilt with those who begin war and or to exonerate guilt as part of just war etc. is part of this nature of war, but such a thing does not really explain much about war and its brutality, its atrocities and its tendency to burst out of control.
It is identical, the mentality that is. It explains everything.
So to suppress speech here is somehow in bad taste to the suppression of speech by AK-47 in France?.
I watch this poster on another forum and I am quite frankly baffled and I have not figured out his angle yet, I see the issue and his approach is one that leaves even me in a quandry. However, lets not be two-faced in our evaluations. You do not stifle speech in the name of protecting speech, whether it be for taste or for any other reason.
I am moved to make these generalizations having watched the events of the past year after a more or less fifty year interest in the age of total war, especially its impact on my native U.S. and my adopted Germany.
The hundred years of 1914, as well as the seventy five years of 1939, and twenty five years of 1989 and, then, the crisis in Ukraine and the onward progress or not of the Iraq and or Afghan campaigns
are all entangled in this generalization.
finally, the whole way that the propaganda of war has become virtually a plaything for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, is rather jaw dropping.
I mean, once upon a time, you needed a propaganda ministry to concoct war propaganda, with the use of images as a weapon, and strategic communication and such.
In our world, each one of us can be such a propagandist and or pose politically charged questions or statements about war in a manner that beggars the mind.
In this, most just recycle someone else's work, but some are geniuses at the thing.
Our Josh here, who likely is not called Josh behind the screen at all, is just such a person. He is hardly alone, too.
I would suggest that the use of " Generalizations " is what leads to misunderstandings, and in some cases anger and even leads to war. Its o.k to shave a little off the top but if you generalize too much you really open up the opportunity for problems and misunderstandings. I do not think this topic fits here and I am quite suspect of the person who started the thread and have been for some time, so I have no interest in infighting. I am just applying logic and will head out here on my merry way.