Welcome to war

[Hoo]

9 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

But Stalin won. Isn't all that matters to you - destroying the enemy?

Yes, civilians must know what is coming, what the war is about and where to side.  More often than not the war is about them and their lives because it is either directly against them; or it will escalate to be about them and that escalation is a flip of a coin.

[The Marquis de Leech]

1 minute ago, Hoo said:

Yes, civilians must know what is coming, what the war is about and where to side.  More often than not the war is about them and their lives because it is either directly against them; or it will escalate to be about them and that escalation is a flip of a coin.

Again: Stalin. Evil or not, given that he defeated his enemies? 

[Hoo]

25 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Again: Stalin. Evil or not, given that he defeated his enemies? 

All politicans are evil, every single one of them in every country is a terrorist -- seeks to use force for political aims.

[OldGimletEye]

3 minutes ago, Hoo said:

All politicans are evil, every single one of them in every country is a terrorist -- seeks to you use force for political aims.

This is just another clownish answer that tries to act like it's really deep and sophisticated.

[Regular John Umber]

This is starting to feel quite trollish.

[Hoo]

15 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

This is just another clownish answer that tries to act like it's really deep and sophisticated.

That's how I feel about your posts.  They are all bullsht.

 

[Deminelle]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

Also, I believe there is an old study out there that basically concluded that British civilians that had the experience of being bombed were more willing to continue with the war.

When do civilians ever get to decide? "Let's call a referendum. Are we in war or not." Unlikely.

This kind of study can not be done while the war is on-going. What would they say at that time? Depending on how big losses they suffered and how well the leaders encourage them to fight on, they want to continue during the war.

A study done afterwards, yes, it will be easy to cling on to vengeance but the situation is over when studies like these are done. "We should have continued." 

You ask traumatized people. What kind of replies would you get from the side that lost? What is their afterthought?

46 minutes ago, Regular John Umber said:

You make it sound like collateral damage, accidental deaths. Did ... did you watch the episode?

I watched the show. My reply was not based on the show.

As a civilian you don't get to expect justice. It's not that I would accept any of it. 

 

[OldGimletEye]

1 minute ago, Hoo said:

That's how I feel about your posts.  They are all bullsht.

 

I really don't give damn how you feel.

You know, I think if you've been around the block enough, and I'm sure many posters here have, you are already aware there is lot of nasty stuff that happens in this world. And you''re aware there is a lot hypocritical bullshit too.

But, if you have been around the block a few times, you probably have encountered Mr. Nihilist guy. He typically dresses in all black or something and smokes skinny cigarettes and claims everything is meaningless and everything is bullshit and nothing matters,  believes his own insights into the world are deeply profound and insightful, when really they are not, and then believes everything he says is brilliant when they are not. He accuses others of being simplistic and unrealistic, when it is he that is being so. If you've been around the block enough times, you know that Mr. Nihilist guy is just generally full of shit.

[Hoo]

6 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I really don't give damn how you feel.

Same here.

[OldGimletEye]

5 minutes ago, Deminelle said:

When do civilians ever get to decide? "Let's call a referendum. Are we in war or not." Unlikely.

Then the justification for bombing civilians on the theory it will undermine their morale and cause their country's defeat works how then,

7 minutes ago, Deminelle said:

This kind of study can not be done while the war is on-going. What would they say at that time? Depending on how big losses they suffered and how well the leaders encourage them to fight on, they want to continue during the war.

At minimum, believe or not their was Gallup polling back then. And I'm pretty sure that British attitudes after the blitz remained quite high.

[Varys_was_right]

1 hour ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

War is politics by other means, and the Nazi aim was the extermination of the Jews (and others). As such, the Holocaust was the point of the exercise, not a diversion.

I would disagree. The German armed forces were desperate to use the Jewish labor because they had an extreme labor shortage compared to the allies. So from the perspective of the people doing the fighting it would have been a huge diversion of actually trying to win or at least fight to a draw.

[Varys_was_right]

1 hour ago, Hoo said:

All politicans are evil, every single one of them in every country is a terrorist -- seeks to use force for political aims.

This is extremely lazy analysis, not being able to differentiate a single politician or leader from one another.

[Hoo]

3 minutes ago, Varys_was_right said:

This is extremely lazy analysis, not being able to differentiate a single politician or leader from one another.

I disagree.  It's a commonality.  They all seek to "enforce" "ideology."  That is terrorism.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Hoo said:

I disagree.  It's a commonality.  They all seek to "enforce" "ideology."  That is terrorism.

So your philosophy is nihilism/anarchism?

[Hoo]

9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So your philosophy is nihilism/anarchism?

No.  Strategic goals are to destroy the enemy.  That never changes!  For any nation, ever.  That goal is static.

The only thing that changes is the "enemy" part.  That's why there is diplomacy, ideologies, politics, laws -- and we peddle it to convince, so that we can find common ground, so that we are not enemies, we have the same worldview, we are on the same page.  The goal is to gain friends so that they are not enemies, because enemies must be destroyed.

If there is an enemy, the enemy must be destroyed in a war, or befriended somehow.  Both are valid -- it's a judgment call.

[ramla]

On 5/13/2019 at 12:14 AM, Centurion Piso said:

I don't get into logic debates when it comes to this show because it's not the real story.  I just want to point out that what we saw is the reality of war.  Every war kills civilians.  It's not only the soldiers who died when the Americans dropped the atom bombs in Japan.  A half-assed, uncommitted attitude will result in losing the war for your side.  

First... Dropping 2 bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a war crime. So there's that... Also, Dany is killing the HER people! The people she is supposed to be queen of. Its not really similar. Itd be like dropping bombs on NY because an occupying force is in the area. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

33 minutes ago, Hoo said:

No.  Strategic goals are to destroy the enemy.  That never changes!  For any nation, ever.  That goal is static.

The only thing that changes is the "enemy" part.  That's why there is diplomacy, ideologies, politics, laws -- and we peddle it to convince, so that we can find common ground, so that we are not enemies, we have the same worldview, we are on the same page.  The goal is to gain friends so that they are not enemies, because enemies must be destroyed.

If there is an enemy, the enemy must be destroyed in a war, or befriended somehow.  Both are valid -- it's a judgment call.

How is the unarmed population of King’s Landing Dany’s enemy?  Particularly, after the forces opposing her entry to the city have laid down their arms?

[Bael's Bastard]

On 5/13/2019 at 12:14 AM, Centurion Piso said:

I don't get into logic debates when it comes to this show because it's not the real story.  I just want to point out that what we saw is the reality of war.  Every war kills civilians.  It's not only the soldiers who died when the Americans dropped the atom bombs in Japan.  A half-assed, uncommitted attitude will result in losing the war for your side.  

Stupid argument. Daenerys has been positioned as caring for the smallfolk, slaves, innocents, etc. And unlike in the real world, Dany has the Dothraki and Unsullied completely under her command, to the extent they would obey her every order. Bloodlust during a sack might be realistic, but in this case it is only possible at the command of Daenerys. For the character Daenerys has been built up to be to suddenly intentionally seeking out, chasing down, and burning to death masses of smallfolk is absolutely absurd and unearned. Had she charged and sentenced the noble allies who had sworn to her and who she believes have betrayed her, we might not like it, but it would at least have a chance of making sense from her POV. What she did makes no sense, and the traumas she experienced are not believable catalysts for her to suddenly intentionally target innocents. That was shitty writing.

[Dragonslack]

Ha ha ha, Welcome to Dumb and Dumber storytelling.  It is what they want it to be without frame or consequence. Why speculate over something so vaporous? Just watch their interviews, about what they intended. Probably madness because they are straight forward like that, Varys said it, they all feared it.

Danny strategy? Make me angry and I will burn you all. Fear it is. Again she literally said it. No subtlety these guys, tell me instead of show me.

 

War itself? Yes it can be really terrible, with sacking, rape and many nasty stuff. Think more apocalypse now than a military propaganda movie.

 

They did not show it being any problem to commit massacres and violate sacred laws in westeros and keep on governing. Populace and lords are irrelevant. Only main characters can intervene or take revenge. That is all. So any reaction will have to come from the main actors. Dragon, unsullied and savage riders will not desert her.

 

[Deminelle]

We can't be sure that bells rang on Cersei's orders. We don't see it.

Watching the scene again I'm almost certain that they are trying to portray Dany as mad. Yet there's a small chance that Dany saw the bell ringer. If by that she could deduce, that it wasn't Cersei who gave the order, then she might have attacked because technically Cersei didn't surrender.

It's not clear how far the bell tower is from Dany.