It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Warfare 500 B.C and 2000 A.D.

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by defrag99
I'm reading Sun Tzu's, "The Art of War," written in 500 B.C. and considered a milestone in the discipline of War.

Is there no longer any Honor in war?




There hasn't been any of "Honor In War" in a veryyyyyyyyy longgggggggg time..................




posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackwidow666

Originally posted by defrag99
I'm reading Sun Tzu's, "The Art of War," written in 500 B.C. and considered a milestone in the discipline of War.

Is there no longer any Honor in war?




There hasn't been any of "Honor In War" in a veryyyyyyyyy longgggggggg time..................


Read my post about Rommel. He was a very noble and selfless individual although he had fought for a Nazi leader. His conduct followed that of the concepts laid out in chivalry, and his life's story is both interesting and profound. I'd suggest you read it as you seem to think that the last time honor was a factor in war was during the time of Knights and the Samurai. Sadly, you are very mistaken as Rommel lived not too long ago (50-60 years ago).



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blackout
Read my post about Rommel. He was a very noble and selfless individual although he had fought for a Nazi leader. His conduct followed that of the concepts laid out in chivalry, and his life's story is both interesting and profound. I'd suggest you read it as you seem to think that the last time honor was a factor in war was during the time of Knights and the Samurai. Sadly, you are very mistaken as Rommel lived not too long ago (50-60 years ago).

ok i have to agree with you about field marshal "the desert fox" rommel. he was extremly cunning and wise in the battlefield, and also off the battlefield. compared to his fellow german generals, he was really one of last generals with honor in war.
and also a very smart man, predicting the future of warfare:




The future battle on the ground will be preceded by battle in the air. This will determine which of the contestants has to suffer operational and tactical disadvantages and be forced throughout the battle into adoption compromise solutions.
Erwin Rommel




Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning.
Erwin Rommel



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 06:39 AM
link   
honor was lost with the advent of the gun. no longer did a warrior have to stair down his foe in the eye, its hard to understand the nobility of your foe a trigger doing all the talking. most all honorable integrety one would realize would be forgotten under todays modern combat cycles of cyber warfare. or would it?



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by sturod84
honor was lost with the advent of the gun. no longer did a warrior have to stair down his foe in the eye, its hard to understand the nobility of your foe a trigger doing all the talking. most all honorable integrety one would realize would be forgotten under todays modern combat cycles of cyber warfare. or would it?

guess you were watching the movie "last samurai" with tom cruise?
now that charge of samurai's to the machine gun nest is probably the last honorable attack...



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 08:18 AM
link   
I think the US should make a law that if a President wants to start another war, that he must lead the war, on the front lines, and in the line of fire. And also, that no military would be forced to go, unless they felt the President's cause so just that they wanted to go with him. Maybe that law would make a President think twice about starting another one. I mean, if he is to sacrifice american lives, the first one put on line should be his own, if he desires war against a country so badly. There is something to be said for a leader of a country leading his men into battle, and IMO, nothing to be said for a man that would send others to die and do his killing for him at the wielding of his words or pen. Apply that to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and chances are, we would probably not be there.

A defensive war, if we were attacked, is another story.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
I think the US should make a law that if a President wants to start another war, that he must lead the war, on the front lines, and in the line of fire.


While I wish this can be applied to Bush, I must admit that your idea is absurd. Even if the person standing in the front lines were a general, this would not be acceptable. We simply cannot jeopardize the life of our leaders. If your general died, you would probably die consequently. If your political leader died, you wouldn't be able to fight a war due to the political chaos.

As a matter of fact, leaders NEVER rush onto the battlefield anymore. Captain Liddel Hart once noted (in his biography of Scipio) that Scipio, although young, was quick to rush to a danger zone to save his father's life. In the time of swords, this would have been acceptable. In fact, even kings fought on the battlefield. However, in an age where the leader can be sniped, it is only obvious that leaders reside outside of firing range.



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
I think the US should make a law that if a President wants to start another war, that he must lead the war, on the front lines, and in the line of fire. And also, that no military would be forced to go, unless they felt the President's cause so just that they wanted to go with him. Maybe that law would make a President think twice about starting another one. I mean, if he is to sacrifice american lives, the first one put on line should be his own, if he desires war against a country so badly. There is something to be said for a leader of a country leading his men into battle, and IMO, nothing to be said for a man that would send others to die and do his killing for him at the wielding of his words or pen. Apply that to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and chances are, we would probably not be there.

that is not a bad idea!
but is more work of fiction.
we would all love to see that people who start the war then go and fight it out, but usually those "old men" that want war just sit at home and watch it on the tv, or from a headquarters tent somewhere 200 miles behind the frontlines.
there are no more heroes,
no more "leaders" with balls!

good suggestion, but very far from the real situation.
i dont think generals do any combat any more.



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
that is not a bad idea!
but is more work of fiction.
we would all love to see that people who start the war then go and fight it out, but usually those "old men" that want war just sit at home and watch it on the tv, or from a headquarters tent somewhere 200 miles behind the frontlines.
there are no more heroes,
no more "leaders" with balls!

good suggestion, but very far from the real situation.
i dont think generals do any combat any more.



And how do you suppose these generals got into those HQ tents 200 miles behind the frontlines, hmmm?

[edit on 7-1-2005 by Blackout]



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 06:02 PM
link   
My point still stands, sorry. You wanna put me out there to die for your cause, fine. You go first.



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
My point still stands, sorry. You wanna put me out there to die for your cause, fine. You go first.


Either you have no sense of military thinking or you just favor absurd ideas in general. In your case, if I were general, and I rushed out to die then you would consequently die ultimately. Without your commanding officer you are basically doomed. If the general were the equivalant of the infantry, there wouldn't be a point to an organized military (organized being the keyword). We can all go back to primitive society and become wandering nomads...


And don't even tell me you won't die because you have great aim and such. Without a chain-of-command, there will only be chaos and struggle for power. Rogue soldiers will only get so far...



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Obviously you don't realize that I am speaking in the principle sense, and more specifically, I am talking about the Afghan/Iraq wars. As has been said before, for every supposed reason to invade those countries, there was and is a better reason to invade Iran or North Korea. Or even China for that matter. I mean, the reason given for Afghan was that Bin laden and the Taliban did 9/11, right? And yet no formal indictment has even been filed against him. Where is the proof?

For Iraq it was WMD's and no WMD's have even been found. Upon that faulty intelligence, the US should have immediately withdrawn with an appology. But no. KILL KILL KILL. And it still goes on. WHY? Because even if he did have WMD's, he might have used them on us. RIGHT. What a reason.

What are we going to do when Bush decides that we should attack Iran or N.Korea? Watch all our people die because he thinks they are going to attack us? China and Russia have historically been much more of a threat, but noooooooooooo. Let's attack the little guy. And let's build some pipelines to the Caspian Sea while we're at it. NICE.

My point is, that the next time he wants to force US soldiers to die for trite causes, with even more trite reasons, then he should be first. On the front lines. Let him feel what a bullet in the chest feels like. Then maybe he'll get the message.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 07:16 PM
link   
While I can see that you're anti-Bush, the fact of the matter is that you're looking at this from a political perspective. Political and military perspectives will ALWAYS differ as history has clearly shown. Yes, many of us DO want Bush to know what it feels like as a soldier. However, it just isn't going to happen. I bet half of the German High Command wanted Hitler to know how difficult it was to obtain their officer ranking.

Anyhow, the topic is moot and varies according to opinion. I'm not even going to argue with you about it anymore; although, I'd highly recommend that you don't join the military. Your perceptions and reluctance to accept the chain-of-command is clearly dangerous and can jeopardize many lives.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join