The only thing I think of with this conflict is the Doctor Who speech on war:
Because it’s not a game, Kate. This is a scale model of war. Every war ever fought right there in front of you. Because it’s always the same. When you fire that first shot, no matter how right you feel, you have no idea who’s going to die. You don’t know who’s children are going to scream and burn. How many hearts will be broken! How many lives shattered! How much blood will spill until everybody does what they’re always going to have to do from the very beginning – sit down and talk!
A beautiful sentiment, but sometimes it’s about forcing people to sit and talk who wouldn’t otherwise do so. It’s rare, but the US civil war was an unfortunate necessity.
I agree, there was a lot that could have been done to avoid it but humans (as a group) are stupid.
There’s just some lines that should not be crossed, genocide, slavery, etc. and when that happens it comes down to who has the bigger stick and can stomach the suffering.
I am not an expert by any means, what I am sure of is that there were opportunities for dialog but humans did what humans do best. They ‘othered’ the fuck out of each side and made sure that this was the only possible outcome.
Which is no problem for them! Since they’re going to be rewarded in the afterlife! So who cares that they just shit in the proverbial sandbox!? /s
I’d love to see the war hawks from all sides put in a fighting ring. No more sending people to die for their inability to converse peaceably. You wanna fight? Do it in the ring. No civilian casualties. Put on a good show, let the audience decide what happens with the results of the fight. No one has to die, just fight until you’re ready to talk.
I hate to say it, but maybe some groups of people need the shared experience of war to find common ground with each other enough to sit down and talk. Before that, they perceive they have nothing in common and treat people as “other.”
The perception of “other” being specifically programmed by various leaderships through propaganda and population conditioning is a separate but related issue.
No, if you kill everybody on the other side, you don’t have to sit and talk. Or if you can kill enough so that they’ll themselves guess what you want and give it to you so that you wouldn’t kill the rest.
This quote ignores the issue of sociopaths, which may constitute up to 10% of people in every group.
So to prevent bloodshed you have to be strong enough to defend yourself. No other way.
Weapons usable in war should be as easy to get as notebooks and pens. Or at least as smartphones. Then we’ll see some kind of peace (the medieval way, there’ll be more small-scale violence, but less large-scale violence as in war, and less death all things considered).
Weapons usable in war should be as easy to get as notebooks and pens. Or at least as smartphones. Then we’ll see some kind of peace
The one country in which this is a reality shows the exact opposite. There’s more small scale hun violence in the USA as any other place in the world. It’s not even close.
I think you’ve just demonstrated inability to read. I literally said that there’ll be more crime with such instruments involved, but fewer large-scale wars.
And I wasn’t talking about small arms, I was talking about FPV drones, small mortars and other such things.
You were applying “a well armed society is a polite society” to geopolitics. I disagree. Weapons are what you fall back on after all the other options have failed. A “ballot box, jury box, ammo box” sort of deal.
Education and tolerance are the tools of peace. If your leaders are extremists who can’t compromise, pointing fingers for who you should hate more, jump to labels and teams, and issue ultimatums rather than dialogue, then you are on a road to war.
Weapons are what you fall back on after all the other options have failed.
Again you may, others may not think this way. It takes only one side to start a war.
Education and tolerance are the tools of peace.
Because real education and real tolerance make you stronger in war.
If your leaders are extremists who can’t compromise, pointing fingers for who you should hate more, jump to labels and teams, and issue ultimatums rather than dialogue, then you are on a road to war.
You are also on a road to war indefinitely if this is how the neighboring society’s leaders are.
You see the main weapon of war is capital. It’s hideously expensive to wage war, that’s why it’s not for individuals. Whatever weapons you have you won’t have the ability to wage any kind of war against your country of origin. Whatever weapons you buy.
It’s hideously expensive to wage war, that’s why it’s not for individuals.
You haven’t been paying attention in the last few years. Most effective innovations of modern war (and that’s not what Northrop-Grumman or IAI advertise, that’s what Shia combatants in Syria, Ukrainian military in, well, Ukraine, etc actually use to fight their enemies) are very cheap.
Anyway, it’s not unheard of in history of wars for a completely outclassed economically side to emerge victorious.
This quote ignores the issue of sociopaths, which may constitute up to 10% of people in every group.
How so? You don’t have to have empathy to see the non-human costs. Or do I not understand what you’re saying?
Weapons usable in war should be as easy to get as notebooks and pens. Or at least as smartphones. Then we’ll see some kind of peace (the medieval way, there’ll be more small-scale violence, but less large-scale violence as in war, and less death all things considered).
Correct me if I’m wrong. What I’m understanding from this is that your claim is that more weapons means more peace on a larger scale? I could agree, in theory, if we were still fighting with sticks and blades. However it seems like you’re claiming that making modern weapons of war accessible as notebooks and pens is the solution to large-scale violence?
How so? You don’t have to have empathy to see the non-human costs. Or do I not understand what you’re saying?
For humans, including sociopaths, costs are subjective. Wiping out their enemy completely may be preferable to having some economic gain simply due to satisfaction.
I could agree, in theory, if we were still fighting with sticks and blades.
Pay attention to what they use now in actual war zones. These are definitely not sticks and blades, but in many cases commodity hardware.
Also, to be honest, typical Soviet field artillery pieces and ammunition for them are not so expensive and complex to produce or even buy. They’d still have uses.
However it seems like you’re claiming that making modern weapons of war accessible as notebooks and pens is the solution to large-scale violence?
Yes, because of the weaker side always being able to inflict some damage on the attacker.
Notebooks and pens were an exaggeration, of course, and I meant not things like tanks and jets, but, again, small drones, small mortars, dumb MLRS like Soviet M-8 (“mountain Katyusha”) and similar guerilla stuff.
The only thing I think of with this conflict is the Doctor Who speech on war:
A beautiful sentiment, but sometimes it’s about forcing people to sit and talk who wouldn’t otherwise do so. It’s rare, but the US civil war was an unfortunate necessity.
Everybody just needs to sit in a room and do Molly together. No war. Just massage.
For real, though, MDMA is shockingly good at conflict resolution, lol.I agree, there was a lot that could have been done to avoid it but humans (as a group) are stupid.
There’s just some lines that should not be crossed, genocide, slavery, etc. and when that happens it comes down to who has the bigger stick and can stomach the suffering.
I am not an expert by any means, what I am sure of is that there were opportunities for dialog but humans did what humans do best. They ‘othered’ the fuck out of each side and made sure that this was the only possible outcome.
Which is no problem for them! Since they’re going to be rewarded in the afterlife! So who cares that they just shit in the proverbial sandbox!? /s
Yes; Ultimately, there will be an agreement at the negotiation table.
But as long as there is a disagreement over where that final line will be drawn …
As long as one party thinks they can get a better result on the battlefield …
The fighting will continue.
I’d love to see the war hawks from all sides put in a fighting ring. No more sending people to die for their inability to converse peaceably. You wanna fight? Do it in the ring. No civilian casualties. Put on a good show, let the audience decide what happens with the results of the fight. No one has to die, just fight until you’re ready to talk.
https://youtu.be/pO1HC8pHZw0?si=-feCVXTcNRbBwvLc
As a child of the 80s.
I was expecting War Pigs, but thats a couple decades earlier.
Frankie is also relevant, though.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/pO1HC8pHZw0?si=-feCVXTcNRbBwvLc
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
As a fellow child of the 80s…
Thanks! I hadn’t heard (or seen) this one.
Legalize dueling when
Legalize dueling NOW!
lol
As had been happening for almost 100 years with this particular pair of combatants.
I hate to say it, but maybe some groups of people need the shared experience of war to find common ground with each other enough to sit down and talk. Before that, they perceive they have nothing in common and treat people as “other.”
The perception of “other” being specifically programmed by various leaderships through propaganda and population conditioning is a separate but related issue.
No, if you kill everybody on the other side, you don’t have to sit and talk. Or if you can kill enough so that they’ll themselves guess what you want and give it to you so that you wouldn’t kill the rest.
This quote ignores the issue of sociopaths, which may constitute up to 10% of people in every group.
So to prevent bloodshed you have to be strong enough to defend yourself. No other way.
Weapons usable in war should be as easy to get as notebooks and pens. Or at least as smartphones. Then we’ll see some kind of peace (the medieval way, there’ll be more small-scale violence, but less large-scale violence as in war, and less death all things considered).
The one country in which this is a reality shows the exact opposite. There’s more small scale hun violence in the USA as any other place in the world. It’s not even close.
I think you’ve just demonstrated inability to read. I literally said that there’ll be more crime with such instruments involved, but fewer large-scale wars.
And I wasn’t talking about small arms, I was talking about FPV drones, small mortars and other such things.
You were applying “a well armed society is a polite society” to geopolitics. I disagree. Weapons are what you fall back on after all the other options have failed. A “ballot box, jury box, ammo box” sort of deal.
Education and tolerance are the tools of peace. If your leaders are extremists who can’t compromise, pointing fingers for who you should hate more, jump to labels and teams, and issue ultimatums rather than dialogue, then you are on a road to war.
Again you may, others may not think this way. It takes only one side to start a war.
Because real education and real tolerance make you stronger in war.
You are also on a road to war indefinitely if this is how the neighboring society’s leaders are.
Yeah if there’s anything the united states isn’t involved with its large scale wars…
Which is irrelevant, because USA is not an illustration of my proposition. #2
You see the main weapon of war is capital. It’s hideously expensive to wage war, that’s why it’s not for individuals. Whatever weapons you have you won’t have the ability to wage any kind of war against your country of origin. Whatever weapons you buy.
You haven’t been paying attention in the last few years. Most effective innovations of modern war (and that’s not what Northrop-Grumman or IAI advertise, that’s what Shia combatants in Syria, Ukrainian military in, well, Ukraine, etc actually use to fight their enemies) are very cheap.
Anyway, it’s not unheard of in history of wars for a completely outclassed economically side to emerge victorious.
And I think im replying to one right now.
That’s where you’re mistaken.
I’ve described what the other side attacking you might think of your “we’ll have to sit and talk eventually” ideas.
How so? You don’t have to have empathy to see the non-human costs. Or do I not understand what you’re saying?
Correct me if I’m wrong. What I’m understanding from this is that your claim is that more weapons means more peace on a larger scale? I could agree, in theory, if we were still fighting with sticks and blades. However it seems like you’re claiming that making modern weapons of war accessible as notebooks and pens is the solution to large-scale violence?
Sociopaths don’t give a shit about the costs unless they directly hinder their goals.
For humans, including sociopaths, costs are subjective. Wiping out their enemy completely may be preferable to having some economic gain simply due to satisfaction.
Pay attention to what they use now in actual war zones. These are definitely not sticks and blades, but in many cases commodity hardware.
Also, to be honest, typical Soviet field artillery pieces and ammunition for them are not so expensive and complex to produce or even buy. They’d still have uses.
Yes, because of the weaker side always being able to inflict some damage on the attacker.
Notebooks and pens were an exaggeration, of course, and I meant not things like tanks and jets, but, again, small drones, small mortars, dumb MLRS like Soviet M-8 (“mountain Katyusha”) and similar guerilla stuff.