It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Since Julius Caesar never cried out diddly * upon the hills of Afghanistan, I assume you're not speaking in a literal sense. Which would indicate you scotched someone's term paper or thesis.
By speaking in the rambling tongue of scholars, you can always claim that you were misinterpreted, or misunderstood, all the time talking babble.
I found that it helped me to lay off the Scotch and Brandy when I was trying to convey in plain language my words and intents. Otherwise, I sounded just like this.
Your Caesar was vain, overconfident, and in the end, suicidal. You say he fought for the laurels of victory? No he didn't.
Caesar fought for personal glory. He was a selfish bastard, brilliant field tactician to be sure, but it was always about him, and his tactics failed him on the Senate floor. Not a lot of that noble Roman stuff with Caesar.
You see, you asked the wrong question, and your purpose is glaringly transparent.
You ask by contrast - what did I fight for? Why hell, old son, I fought for the grandest, most noble cause in the world - the guy next to me!
Oh. For you to lecture me about Engineers? I had four MOS's in the military. Military Occupational Specialties. In Special Forces, I was the team . . . . ENGINEER! So, I'm just a bit familiar wiht the duties and difficulties of an engineer.
And I'm not young Skywalker on the dark side???? Bad Scotch???
If you're going to quote others, such as Clausewitz, please have the courtesy to indicate that you quoted someone else. You know the sentence, "war is a continuation . . ."
Maybe you need to sleep it off. You're rambling pretty bad, and it's hard to keep up. I mention the necessity for a military to maintain freedom of movement, and you're off on some mystical, nebulous, conceptual brainfart which is completely out of context with what I was referring to.
Sounds like you alreay spent the evening in the Temple of Bacchus. (that's how it's spelled._
Whatever you said. Same as you.
So many embedded snipes in your response, it would be impossible to discuss with you without addressing those first.
But that's not productive. I don't want to play.
Back on topic:
Nah. Your question wasn't thought provoking in the least. Nebulous metaphors are a really piss-poor method of engaging in fruitless rambling. No substance in your point, thus the ethereal concealment.
And by the way, I don't think anyone else is very impressed with your effort to engage in verbose embroidery. Hell, man. Just say what you mean.
Caesar fought for an ideal? If you believe that baloney, you're as delusional as your language is unclear. Men like Caesar fought for one thing. More.
Yes, I fought for the guy next to me, and that was good enough. When we came upon a small hamlet that had just been slaughtered for insufficient cooperation with my enemies, and I saw the bodies, the very young, the elderly, the women - two of which I think were pregnant - then I knew without a doubt that I was in the right place, killing the right animals, which were my defined enemies.
And I needed no lesson from some fairy pretender whose sole exercise if discussing the ethics of a struggle. And the MORALITY. Of war.
And (I'm sure to your horror,) we tracked them down. We illegally crossed a national border, and we made absolutely certain that not one of these animals would ever again hurt an innocent.
We violated several military regulations, we violated direct orders, we violated international law, we violated the Geneva Conventions, and we violated their "civil" rights.
So you bring up the ethics and morality of war?
Why? Why bother yourself? You sure as hell won't be participating in any event!
As it is, standing on the distant sideline, the very best you could hope for is a GUESS.
You're just guessing!
You have some hang-ups about this "hearts and minds." Once you have completely broken them, the hearts and minds aren't important at that moment. Because you now have their full attention.
The greatest Western warrior that ever lived, wrote"
"It is important to win morally as it is to win militarily. By which I mean our victories must break the foe's heart and tear from him all hope of contesting us again. I do not wish to fight war upon war, but by war to produce such a peace as will admit no insurrection." ALEXANDER
So, you discuss your shifting moralities on the conduct of war.
I'll go with what works.
Actually, since the people of the hamlet were slaughtered, there wasn't any hearts and minds left to win.
Being the problem or the solution is arguable. It's great to reflect back on past events with great vision and certitude. You do the best with what you have, based on the best information you have, at the moment.
I really don't put much truck in debating cause and effect - afterwards - as it has no place in the task of the moment. Yesterday's water turns no wheel. Analysis is also a shifting mechanism, with shifting points. As more is learned, the points shift. Nice, but it demonstrates the questionable value of detailed analysis. Assumptions today made on past events will eventually change. Therefore, I find them to a degree, somewhat questionable.
War is not all bad. You seem to assume that war is bad. It's not all bad. War defines peoples and nations. War enables ideals, concepts, practices, and methodology.
War is often purifying. War often purifies a rancid human condition. War culls, and thus promotes the evolutionary process you mention. War proves. Men and equimpment, and ideals and principles are tested by fire. Fire proves all things.
I don't put a lot of stock in Karma. If you're an evil bastard, then you can't expect good things, but that is more due to poor practices.
You mistakenly assume I just went, and didn't know why. I watched the war every evening on the news for years. I was friends with one of "America's Ten Most Feared Fighting Men" according to the article in Saga Magazine.
In fact, I volunteered for combat three times, so I had a pretty good idea of what I was walking into. Idealism is where you find it, and I never had much use for it one way or the other.
Practicalities? Now you're talking my language.
I assure you that by taking our own actions, we did not, nor would any of us have been inclined toward anything to willfully negate the military necessity for good order and discipline, nor refuse our duty under necessary military control.
There was a task unfinished, a task that any man worth his salt would be required to perform, and we refused to take the easy way out. We missed our pickup point by five days. Had some problem with the radio, as I recollect.
And I'll agree with you, it was certainly an animalistic response.
The good kind.
As far as who was footing the bill during this little international side trip, since I could not get my WP grenades through military channels as they were being stolen off the docks, and since I had to buy my own in the local village for $5 apiece, I figure me and the American taxpayers are square.
You suggest that we somehow abandoned our oaths in exchange for independence and to satisfy our own rage. Well, we certainly had a cold rage going, and as our countrymen were paying us to kill our enemies over there, we assumed that in a manner of speaking, we were doing exactly what we were getting paid for, and performing exactly as expected.
We just weren't able to do it by the book. Oh, we got our asses chewed a bit, but after all, radios will occasionally fail.
You see, there's the military way, the wrong way, and then there's the right way.
The right way is often determined by the circumstances of the moment.
I would disagree that after all these years I'm struggling. I'm not struggling with anything. I sleep well, I am respected in the community, and I make no apologies to anyone.
You see, there are truly no ethics in war. You check your ethics, your morals, and your sensitivities at the door.
Survival is your sole moral point.
The strategy in war, contrary to popular misconception, is victory.
You either go in to win, and win quickly, or you keep your ass home.
No half measures.
Which is all we've seen since 1946.
Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Well, . . . *.
That puppet Master takes all the fun out of things, doesn't he?
And all this time . . .
I'll chew on that for a while!
Originally posted by xxpigxx
reply to post by Nammu
You know nothing about me. How dare you make assumptions. You do not know my life, my family, and the troubles, if any, we have went through.
But that is neither here nor there . . . your reply was just a thinly veiled attempt to get pity.
Does not work here.
Next you will throw the kids into the bunch. That always works on the bleeding hearts.
There is an old saying: "Kill em all, let God sort em out"