On War

[Anonymous No.14148574]

Why has it been stressed by so many the in-honourability of war? As if it is only those who have not the experience of it claim otherwise. I myself have only ever believed the opposite, the systematised constructing principle of the quality's of life, war justified in its own nature, and the individual affirmation of standard in participation of it.

Perhaps then I am only speaking of the ideal of war, but what then does it become if not its own ideal? Just a technicality; as is the doctor who does not heal, or worse harms, is still a "doctor" but by definition goes against this practice. Dost war then become plunder?

But, because I myself have never experienced war I feel I must by some rule leave it to a more historic judgement. And that is your place, thoughts?

[Anonymous No.14148581]

>>14148574
Did Socrates not admire war?

[Anonymous No.14148599]

War is pretty much the coolest thing humanity has ever come up with and i don't understand why we have to pretend that it isn't.

[Anonymous No.14148605]

>>14148574
You write like a faggot

>>14148599
Based

[Anonymous No.14148673]

>>14148574
War is extremely interesting and necessary to the human condition but it absolutely has never been honorable. Rarely a few individuals will try to conduct war "honorably" but war takes a life of it's own once it starts and by it's very nature cannot turn away from savagery. The only honorable actions that can be taken happened before and after the battle. If you arrive in the field with intention of being honorable you might as well just kiss the feet of the opposing general and save your men's lives.
>>14148599
War is only cool to read and think about. How much effort in every facet of society is put into getting people to pursue war and not running the fuck away when encountering it only proves how uncool it is when you actually have to face it

[Anonymous No.14148676]

>>14148673
Fag

[Anonymous No.14148700]

>>14148676
I literally wasted money studying European economic and military history. Both my grandparents and two of my uncles have fought in wars, it's not fucking cool to actually experience as a participant, especially modern wars where it's just anxiety for months on end and then dying like a bitch. In premodern wars if soldiers weren't forced to fight they only did it for the looting afterwards, you think the common soldie was motivated by shit pay and "king and country" to fight in a battle? There are tons of examples in history of soldiers getting loot before they actually fought the battle and just deserting or refusing to fight when the battle actually came. Or literally abandoning their fellow men to protect their shit back at the camp. War turns you into a chimp again and history doesn't change your instincts, nothing has changed

[Anonymous No.14148701]

>>14148599
I don't think I would call it cool but yes it is beautiful.

>>14148605
>t. without intuition

>>14148673
You seem to think death by another is somehow savagery. What basis do you have for this belief? Don't you know War is the extension of the political? Have you not heard of the mutually agreed war either?

[Anonymous No.14148714]

>>14148700
The amount of knowledge one has doesn't change his nature. Are there not those men who desire the experience of strife above all others? And who has ever said war exists solely as the -- at least your idea of -- individual experience. As I say again, and as I have learnt from Clausewitz; War is the extension of politics.

[Anonymous No.14148725]

>>14148700
And who are you to hold such monopoly on human nature? You sit there and throw your own cowardice onto others as anon( >>14148714 )
>The amount of knowledge one has doesn't change his nature.

Are there not those who do not fear death? And if so is that not by all means a valiant and honourable trait? And even speaking abstractly is it not the greatest of joy for man to see who he is, to know his truest nature by war, and seek to improve upon what he has found for knowing the value of courage?

As I have said in the Op, War in its abstract purpose and individual experience, which are at times simultaneous, is something to be admired.

[Anonymous No.14148734]

>>14148714
>>14148725
*as anon said

[Anonymous No.14148742]

>>14148700
Get the sand out of your vagina fag

[Anonymous No.14148745]

>>14148700
>thinks the only collectively inherited traits of behaviour are those of chimps
Kys coward. It has become apparent that we live in an age where men may be openly cowards and instead of striving for their improvement they instead sit in vapid and vile sweats of incompetent apathy.

[Anonymous No.14148761]

>>14148701
>You seem to think death by another is somehow savagery. What basis do you have for this belief?
It's not death, it's how and why death is conducted. Just like life there are multiple ethical ways for it to happen. Killing somebody you do not know for an idea you cannot see in the theatre of battle is savagery. A man shooting at a lion charging at him is not the work of a savage, shooting a lion for metaphysical conquest or your religion is
>Don't you know War is the extension of the political?
Since when are politics honorable?
>Have you not heard of the mutually agreed war either?
There is no such thing outside of tribal ritual wars, wars explode once one side finds an advantageous opportunity and has more to gain from it. Both sides may be on very similar levels, but one side will always just be reacting.
>>14148714
Everything is for the individual human experience. Whatever higher idea you believe war exists for is only experienced by individuals, unless you somehow trancended the human condition and can experience all lives simultaneously like God. For the vast majority of it's participants, war fucking sucks. If one psychopath in one city enjoys brutally murdering people and someone else gets paid for it that doesn't somehow negate the fact that cold murder is dishonorable because the vast majority of people do not find it honorable when in that situation

>>14148725
>And who are you to hold such monopoly on human nature? You sit there and throw your own cowardice onto others as anon

I'm not speaking about myself, I came to this conclusion by spending years learning about how human beings have reacted in the situation of war, it's called history. The primary job of every leader or government when conducting war is keeping the soldiers from running away and the food supply flowing. After that everything else becomes outsmarting the other guy on the horse with glittering armor and praying to your God

>As I have said in the Op, War in its abstract purpose and individual experience, which are at times simultaneous, is something to be admired.
I find committing unnecessary deaths for abstract ideas the forefront example of evils touch on the makeup of the human conscience. I gift corrupted. Culture spends a great deal of time connecting war with other collective experiences people actually want to experience

[Anonymous No.14148762]

war is chad as fuck. You're literally killing people you disagree with and don't like. ANyone who disagrees with me has a vagina.

[Anonymous No.14148764]

>>14148742
t. Faggot who has never been in a war
>>14148745
t.retard who has never studied history

[Anonymous No.14148782]

I bet all the idiots in this thread would love to be a roman legionary having cool battles and glory until the find out it's holding your shield up and stabbing at the dude you can barely see in front of you for 6 minutes at a time before your shift is up and taking orders from an old rich boyfucker to do backbreaking menial labor for the rest of the day. It's like being a wagecuck in a terrible job for shit pay but you most likely will get stabbed and slowly bleed out working or pick up a disease that makes you shit yourself to death. And if you try to leave they'll crucify you

[Anonymous No.14148842]

>>14148761
>It's not death, it's how and why death is conducted.
That's why I said death by another.

>Killing somebody you do not know for an idea you cannot see in the theatre of battle is savagery.
Know you fucking idiot, savagery is killing someone for egoist reasons, or for no reason at all. Savagery is not however dying for your belief, your nation, your principles, your people.

>Since when are politics honorable?
Anon, know the difference between the ideal of war and egoist plunder of a "democracy". The political requires an enemy, it's essential to defining its existence. An authoritarian state for example fighting for its own existence is honourable. Some egoist wet dream democracy of one person against another and one party against another within a state is not the idea of the political. For it results in egoism. The political originates in one tribe against another within the neolithic world, it expanded from there. Would one call a bickering family the political?

>There is no such thing outside of tribal ritual wars, wars explode once one side finds an advantageous opportunity and has more to gain from it. Both sides may be on very similar levels, but one side will always just be reacting.
The definition of War goes beyond mass collectives. And if you say "b..but I thought you said it was the extension of the political" it is, but that doesn't change that the definition of War is not "the extension of the political" but it is still that.

[Anonymous No.14148863]

>>14148761
>Hurr durr helping a collective in the longterm by short term suffering isn't helping the individual
Not that war necessarily doesn't help the individual. Besides you egoist, have you never heard of compassion? Have you no idea of a collective, the propagation of it? It as an idea, culture, race, etc, whatever. Man has a duty in life by his own identity, he does not exist for himself alone. The ideas and the people should be the leader, the leader should be the ideas and the people. It's simultaneous. He exists as we all do for the preservation of this special light.

[Anonymous No.14148894]

>>14148761
>I'm not speaking about myself, I came to this conclusion by spending years learning about how human beings have reacted in the situation of war
So you are necessarily speaking of yourself because you believe this to be human nature. You are saying that you would run away from death no matter its cause?

>I find committing unnecessary deaths for abstract ideas the forefront example of evils
Who said it was unnecessary? It is of the uttermost necessary acts of man. Do you think we can all just sing about how happy we are around a campfire you fucking cringe ridden normalfag; "le why can't we all just be centrist friends like me".

>Culture spends a great deal of time connecting war with other collective experiences
War is inseparable from all of mans fundamental intersections and because of this is innately of value, however it's own unique substance is also of a great value. Can you not see the beauty of the processual and oft tragic pulling and pushing of one dual to another? The marvellous interplay of the whole collectives but also the individual man. Have you never heard of the art of strategy, the art of tactics, or the art of physical combat?

>>14148764
t. coward you is afraid of dying no matter its principle cause

[Anonymous No.14148903]

>>14148574
>war is beautiful, war is cool, war is chad
itt virgins that have never been in a war

[Anonymous No.14148906]

>>14148903
>implying he's been in a war

[Anonymous No.14148909]

>>14148906
in 2 actually
t. serbian

[Anonymous No.14148920]

>>14148909
And I'm a WW2 vet.

[Anonymous No.14148943]

Americans have never been in an actual war. They've never had their cities and temples leveled and wiped out and their people slaughtered in masses while desperation and madness spread and all acts of heroism and sacrifice became meaningless. Yet a few thousand dead in Vietnam were enough to break them

[Anonymous No.14148973]

>>14148943
The revolution?

[Anonymous No.14149017]

>>14148673
https://allpoetry.com/How-Rifleman-Brown-came-to-Valhalla

[Anonymous No.14149019]

>>14148842
>>14148863
You guys have a complete misunderstanding and arrogance of the problem being discussed in this thread. It's if war is honorable, it's not. That does not mean you cannot go to war for honorable reasons(very few wars). The procedure and act of war is inherently terrible that is why volunteering for it for collective betterment can be "honorable". The man working multiple shitty jobs so his family can eat is honorable, the shitty jobs in the system that forces him to work them aren't. And again these describe very few wars in history. Most are evil from the top down. If you're looking forward for a battle because you think it'll be glorious or fun you're a dumb fucking idiot or a morally depraved chimp
>>14148894
>So you are necessarily speaking of yourself because you believe this to be human nature. You are saying that you would run away from death no matter its cause?

Do you have a reading comprehension problem or did you purposefuly leave out the end of my sentence so you'll sound less like a retard? There are many wars fought in the last 10000 years that have actual information on how it was conducted. Actually read before you come to a conclusion
>Who said it was unnecessary? It is of the uttermost necessary acts of man.

No it's not. In war there is always one side who makes the choice to fight for unnecessary reasons. You cannot have two sides fighting for the right to live because that condition can only come from the reaction of another trying to take that away.
>Do you think we can all just sing about how happy we are around a campfire you fucking cringe ridden normalfag; "le why can't we all just be centrist friends like me".
Do you think anyone is going to take this distillation of what I'm saying seriously or do you truly believe everyone is as retarded as you?

>War is inseparable from all of mans fundamental intersections and because of this is innately of value, however it's own unique substance is also of a great value.
Again cutting my sentence so you don't actually have to address what I said

>Can you not see the beauty of the processual and oft tragic pulling and pushing of one dual to another?

Of course it's beautiful, of course it's tragic, it's such an attractive core for art simply because only something as terrible as war can bring out higher emotions. War is the fight between our belief in our divinity and the depravity of our nature.

>The marvellous interplay of the whole collectives but also the individual man. Have you never heard of the art of strategy, the art of tactics,

Yea that's why I studied it in school, it's interesting and can create some of the most extraordinary situations and events in history. It's still savagery and dishonorable and terrible to participate in.

>or the art of physical combat?
War is nothing like voluntary individual combat

[Anonymous No.14149053]

There has never been any peace. There have been only two periods in history: the period we know as war, and the period we call peace, which is a cover up - in reality it should be called preparation for another war. The whole history consists only of two things: war and preparation for war. And you are asking me, "Since peace was officially restored to the world at the end of World War Two, what have the politicians been doing?"

The politicians have been doing exactly what they have always been doing: creating more conflict, more unrest, more discrimination, more destructive weapons - and preparing for the third world war.

Adolf Hitler has made many significant statements. One of the statements is that if a politician wants to be a great hero, a great historical figure, then the only way is to create a great war. Without war you don't have heroes.

Just think of all your heroes, they have been created by war: Alexander the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte, Nadirshah, Tamerlane, Genghis Khan, Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, Winston Churchill... And what have these people got, except that they lived at the time of a great war? The war brings them to the pinnacle of their glory. And your whole history is full of these idiots.

[Anonymous No.14149105]

>>14149019
>You guys have a complete misunderstanding and arrogance of the problem being discussed in this thread. It's if war is honorable, it's not. That does not mean you cannot go to war for honorable reasons(very few wars). The procedure and act of war is inherently terrible that is why volunteering for it for collective betterment can be "honorable". The man working multiple shitty jobs so his family can eat is honorable, the shitty jobs in the system that forces him to work them aren't. And again these describe very few wars in history. Most are evil from the top down. If you're looking forward for a battle because you think it'll be glorious or fun you're a dumb fucking idiot or a morally depraved chimp
NO! You are missing the point, I have said myself, War has its own unique value, but also cannot be separated from mans exterior events. Your broad statements show your cowardice, for example lets say hypothetically if there were a war between a good nation and every man fighting volunteered because of the belief in those good principles within this good nation. And they were fighting a mercenary group, and lets also say hypothetically none of the good nation died. That's a technical war retard, and only those bad died. You base your views on war partly by your own nature, and secondly by some ultra specific and narrow understanding of it.

[Anonymous No.14149129]

>>14149105
>War has its own unique value
Jesus is very paradoxical, but meaningfully so. To take in the meaning many things have to be understood. First, peace is possible if everybody is almost dead. There will be no war, no conflict, but there will be no life either. That would be the silence of the graveyard. But that is not worth anything; then even war is better, because in war you are alive and vital.

Another type of peace - a totally different dimension of peace - is when you are vital, alive, but centered in your being: when self-knowledge has happened, when you have become enlightened, when the flame is lit and you are not in darkness. Then there will be more life, more silence, but the silence will belong to life, not to death. It will not be the silence of the graveyard.

This is the paradox to be understood: war is bad, hate is bad; they are the evils on the earth and they must go. Disease is bad, health is good; disease must go, but you must remember that a dead man never falls ill, a dead body can deteriorate but cannot be ill. So, if you don't understand, all your efforts may create a dead world: there will be no disease, no war, no hatred, but no life either.

Jesus would not like that type of peace. That type of peace is useless; then this world, with war, would be better. But many have been endeavoring, and their attitude is just negative. They think, "If war stops, everything will be okay." It is not so easy. And this is not only the ordinary man's conception: even very great philosophers like Bertrand Russell think that if war is finished everything will be okay. This is negative, because war is not the problem, the problem is man. And the war is not outside, the war is within. If you have not fought the war within, you will fight it without. If you have fought the war within and have become victorious, then the war without will cease. That is the only way.

[Anonymous No.14149152]

>>14149019
>Do you have a reading comprehension problem or did you purposefuly leave out the end of my sentence so you'll sound less like a retard?
It doesn't change the fact you autist, you are dictating something on human nature, primarily his nigh total refusal of War. What I have said to be war is truthful, and you ignore it. You blatter on about "historic facts" yet provide none. Perhaps because of the difficulty of providing such a specifically existential relation but that only stupefies your persistent use of the term historical evidence.

>hurr durr war must be about the right to live
Are you actually a fucking wombat? Some things are worth more than life, and some things are worth more than not-risking death. Do you think the world would not be as it is without the great conquerors of the world? As example do you think the priceless art -- and all cultural enlightenment and progression for which this stands for -- which was produced as the result of Alexanders entering into India is merely a worthless trinket of Alexanders conquering? Do you think his military genius a meaningless thing? Do you think a man fighting for his country whether attacking or defending is a meaningless thing? War is necessary, and it is going beyond timid men like you who think that pacifism is a good thing.

>Do you think anyone is going to take this distillation of what I'm saying seriously or do you truly believe everyone is as retarded as you?
Didn't answer the point, War is unavoidable, and in its own ideal of unique substance should not be considered a bad thing. It is only suffering which progresses man, it was the sufferings which we found within Europe that defined us Europeans, it is the suffering of a nation which creates itself.

>Again cutting my sentence so you don't actually have to address what I said
No I didn't, you just seem to expect that an argument has to be answered in the way you wanted because "le I'm right how is it someone has different arguments to me?".

>war has an aesthetic revelation of such highness it is like no other
>but it's universally bad bro
Smart one. I shall tell you the suffering which does not make a man better, which cannot be made into an aesthetic revelation. Something like paedophilia, precisely because of its extreme degeneracy and pessimism it is unable to give a psychological recursion, it was a product of the psyche, or soul, but cannot give anything back to it exactly because of its evil nature. War however is not that, it is not a universal evil, and will never be held as too abrasive lest men become women.

>terrible to participate in
You think Napoleon didn't take pride in his marvellous tactical achievements? I have refuted all other points of this statement prior. Also since when could you study it in school, do you mean history?

[Anonymous No.14149158]

>>14149019
>>14149152
>War is nothing like voluntary individual combat
Yes it obviously is, for one voluntary individual content is contained within war. Secondly, speaking of the ideal of war, a man voluntarily fights, if he is conscripted he must accept it for he is fighting for a greater good, if he does not accept the possibility of dying for a greater good than he is a coward and in need of individual betterment.

[Anonymous No.14149162]

>>14149053
This is true but somewhat ignores the moralistic reasoning behind war and its necessity.

>>14149129
This is based however.

[Anonymous No.14149177]

>>14149162
>moralistic reasoning behind war and its necessity.

>war
>ego
>morality
pick 2, leave one

[Anonymous No.14149184]

>>14149177
>>war
>>ego
>>morality
>pick 2, leave one
No. They all relate to the other.

[Anonymous No.14149195]

>>14149184
i guess they do. i was looking it a different perspective.

[Anonymous No.14149197]

I took part in war, and while it was cool at the time in hindsight it was so childish and quite frankly bullshit. True some of it is for the interest of "your people" but the bigger picture is in the interest of intolerant politicians that think anything can be solved by wiping out the other people, at least enough of them to subdue insurgency and instill enough fear so you can assert your dominance in the area. Also the problem with "war on terrorism" is that it's not only soldiers waging war on each other somewhere far off, terrorists blend into normal cities so a lot of civilians get involved while doing absolutely nothing wrong. Not to mention I've always held this conspiracy that we're only doing this in the financial interest of arms dealers and manufacturers (the military stocked up on enough weapons so they stop buying as much, war wastes a big part of the arsenal and he military has to replenish it).
That being said, as a 19 year old kid war is pretty cool, you get to see destruction on an unimaginable scale and do what you were actually trained to do (in contrary to doing just bullshit jobs in the army while waiting for war), plus most bets are off, you know you'll never be judged for small scale war crimes so you have much more freedom to just demolish the enemy (again on a small scale, like shooting up places you're not supposed or just generally shoot first ask questions never). And all this happens while you imagine you're doing something noble and necessary, so even the fear is diminished in most banal scenarios (I've known friends which in the time actually wanted to die in that war for their country, had these thoughts pop up in my head occasionally as well).

All that being said I've never gotten a chance to kill anyone (weird way of putting it), have seen people die but not many, some friends got injured, one died. I was mostly stationed one leg behind the absolute front so I mostly held ambushes and dealt with apprehending terrorists before they made it to the bigger camps, no super intense firefights with lots of explosions.

For short, war isn't noble, at least modern day "war on terrorism" isn't.

[Anonymous No.14149204]

>>14149195
I know how you were looking at it, but you can't have the correct answer without also seeing it from the perspective I gave.

Appreciate the Osho posting btw. Any recs for his works?

[Anonymous No.14149213]

>>14149197
>at least modern day "war on terrorism" isn't.
This, you are describing the modern technicality of war not its traditional ideal. Modern wars a but the self contained "political" interests of various rich men and politicians so often only a whore to these richer men.

[Anonymous No.14149225]

>>14148762
>You're literally killing people you disagree with and don't like
That's a weird take on it. I've not read much about modern wars, but the impression I got from personal accounts of wars of the past is that most soldiers didn't hold any grudges towards their enemies, even more so they had a lot of respect for them and for the most part left their personal feelings outside of fighting

[Anonymous No.14149236]

>>14149213
Are you implying this isn’t what war has always been lmao?

[Anonymous No.14149245]

>>14149204
>Any recs for his works?
just google man. google anything on ur mind with osho next to it

But what Theosophists were doing was just the opposite: they were trying to create a world teacher. So of course they were disciplining J. Krishnamurti from the age of nine; now he is ninety. He was picked up by the Theosophists while he was bathing naked in a river which flows through Adyar in India, where the headquarters, the world headquarters of the Theosophical movement is. At that time it was a great movement: thousands of people were interested in it. All that was missing was the world teacher.

There were very clever people like Leadbeater, Annie Besant, Colonel Olcott, but none of them had charisma. To be a master, one thing is absolutely essential: the person should have some magical quality, some charisma. Not only his words, but his very being should be capable of pulling you like a magnet. That was not there.

Annie Besant was a nice lady, but what to do with a nice lady? There are millions of nice ladies. Leadbeater was a great writer, but no world teacher has ever been a writer. Not a single world teacher worth the name has ever written, because the spoken word has a magic about it which the written word cannot have. The written word can be written by anybody. Do you think it will make any difference whether Jesus writes it or you write it? Perhaps your handwriting may be better. But it won't have charismatic impact just because Jesus writes it. As far as the spoken word is concerned: the word that Jesus speaks has a certain impact. You can say the same word but it is not going to have the same impact.

https://www.osho.com/osho-online-library/osho-talks/j.-krishnamurti-annie-besant-alcott-1a916381-206?p=a396a442e987b2f133ed4df9dbac6d79

[Anonymous No.14149289]

>>14148574
By thy noble phraseology I deduce that thou art a valorous gentleman of good standing. Then hence, sirrah: let thy heart subsume the virtues of thy tongue, which of yet has twanged unblemished valour, and make with all expedience t’wards the battleground. Thy honour hangs ‘pon this: that thy articulated wishes thou dost put into effect, notwithstanding fate, whereby thy blood may spill; nor cowardice, whereby Urine does the same.
Hence, OP!
Only be as those Spartan men of old:
Returning with thy shield
Or on it.

[Anonymous No.14149317]

>>14149236
Not entirely but yeah sure.

>>14149245
I'd have to disagree with you on the "no great man has been a writer". It's just simply the supplementation of ability for another. Introverted intellectualism for Extroverted Actual. Though of course there is more to it, primarily the mystic element however it remains true none the less.

[Anonymous No.14149320]

>>14149289
Well said anon, well said indeed. And funny too. Ever tried writing like this in poetic meter? Would be interesting to see how well you could translate it.

[Anonymous No.14149348]

>>14149320
Thanks. And no; I don’t even know how to write in meter.

[Anonymous No.14149358]

>>14149105
>lets say hypothetically if there were a war between a good nation and every man fighting volunteered because of the belief in those good principles within this good nation

Why are they volunteering to fight? To defend these values or to spread it?
>And they were fighting a mercenary group,

It doesn't matter if the men fighting the battle are doing it get paid or are levied or volunteered, it's the intention behind the war in the first place. You can hide a mercenary army to defend your city or nation as many have done before. No matter who specifically is conducting the war there is nothing morally right or honorable happening on the battlefield, what is judged is the catalyst for the supposed necessary evil of war
>and lets also say hypothetically none of the good nation died. That's a technical war retard, and only those bad died.

You're an idiot, wtf are you even saying? "Bad man died" ok? And who killed them and how? Is the act of hanging someone honorable or is hanging a dangerous man who committed a violent crime honorable? Honor is near equal to the concept of sacrifice. You sacrifice your moral and mental wellbeing to commit a terrible act for good reasons. "Nothing except abattlelost can be half so melancholy as abattle won."
>You base your views on war partly by your own nature, and secondly by some ultra specific and narrow understanding of it.

Jesus Christ you dumb fuck for the third time I base my views on actually reading about military history, how wars are conducted and what the participants have to say about it

[Anonymous No.14149401]

>>14149348
Oh, try rhyming. I think that's all it is.

>>14149358
>Why are they volunteering to fight? To defend these values or to spread it?
Doesn't change the matter, act out both if you want. The more the merrier, we are trying to find the truth after all.

>It isn't morally right to kill the wicked and those who have killed innocents before
That's stupid, was Jesus wicked when he -- in a fury -- whipped the money changers out of the temple? Punishing Evil is never wrong. You might as well say execution if savagery even for paedophiles or what not since "muh killing another no matter their sin". Or is it just the extreme physical difficulty that makes you judge it as ape-ish?

>it's honourable to do honest work
>honour is only sacrificing something to do the good
Pick one retard, you've said both.

>can't you hear me just say I have all this super dooper evidence, why don't you believe me when I say I know everything about war,
Are you this dumb?

[Anonymous No.14149402]

>>14148599
>>14148605
>>14148676
>>14148742
>>14148745
>>14148762
>>14148764
>>14148842
>>14148894
>>14149105
>>14149152
>>14149158
>>14149213
t. underage

[Anonymous No.14149424]

>>14149152
>It doesn't change the fact you autist, you are dictating something on human nature, primarily his nigh total refusal of War.
Nope soldiers love going to war, people love sending others to war but nearly everybody does not like being on the receiving end as a innocent or actually going into battle. Civilizations rose and fell based on their ability to train or aquire soldiers who do not immediately run away from the enemy in the field or do not panic and freeze in a firefight. Training out their instincts is not making them enjoy the killing of the enemy and their comrades but to become numb to it. But for most the psych cannot be fully put away and the debt is repaid fully later in life if they manage to survive
>What I have said to be war is truthful, and you ignore it. You blatter on about "historic facts" yet provide none.
Facts? About what aspect specifically? Military training? Motivation for battle? Reality of the battlefield? People's willingness to kill or face certain death? Why wars start? Why wars end?
>Some things are worth more than life, and some things are worth more than not-risking death.
There is nothing worth more than life, death and brutally murdering another human than just defending your own life and your communities way of life. Every other reasoning used by a person will have them burning in an eternal hellfire
>you think the world would not be as it is without the great conquerors of the world?
Obviously the world will not be as it is if the events that happened before didn't happen.
The majority of great conquerors brought nothing but death and destruction and any benefit that can be transcribed from them would have happened regardless
>Alexander
Did not commit the act of war for reasonings of cultural progression. Unplanned results of the war does not justify Alexander (Hellenism outside Greece and Anatolia that late in it's development was a disease anyway). There was nothing right in the act of aggressively invading and murdering for personal glory, humanity just has a knack for adapting to political situations with cultural output. "Good" things come out of terrible events in history, they are still terrible events because they were acted on and the motivation behind it was not for honorable reasons
>Do you think his military genius is meaningless? War meaningless?
When did I ever say anything about what is or isn't meaningful? Bad does not equal meaningless

[Anonymous No.14149426]

>>14148574
>Why has it been stressed by so many the in-honourability of war?
Slave Morality, affirm your aristocratic ideals.

[Anonymous No.14149437]

>>14148673
>>14148700
>>14148761
>>14148764
>>14148782
>>14148903
>>14149019
>>14149197
>>14149236
>>14149358
>>14149402
t. cowards

[Anonymous No.14149441]

>>14149424
>>14149152
>War is necessary, and it is going beyond timid men like you who think that pacifism is a good thing.
Lol no it really isn't, most wars are fueled by bullshit greed, egotistism, and bloodlust employing low iq shame tactics like this to keep people from trying to stop it
>War is unavoidable,
Yes because humans are chimps in large scale groups and we have more confidence in our abilities than what exists in reality
>and in its own ideal of unique substance should not be considered a bad thing. It is only suffering which progresses man,
those who suffer in war receive no progression. And the chance of civilizational progression(very simplistic view of history) as a result of war is the same as other phenomenons created by cultural interactions and politics on top of war holding another chance of doing the complete opposite of progression and instead destroying itself
>it was the sufferings which we found within Europe that defined us Europeans

I'm not European
>War however is not that, it is not a universal evil, and will never be held as too abrasive lest men become women.

Yes it is. The act of war is evil. Sometimes evil is necessary. That is why war is an attractive aesthetic event. It's a reminder of our nature in a material world. We aren't god and cannot interact with each other assuming the other person is God. If pedos had to sometimes diddle kids to protect their city from being overrun for whatever reason than your example will work
>You think Napoleon didn't take pride in his marvellous tactical achievements?

Lol you fell for the meme. Who gives a fuck about what Napoleon felt in war, he's one evil (but "great") man in a situation involving millions. And the vast vast majority of those participants are not taking pride in anything but their ability to survive
>I have refuted all other points of this statement prior.

No you didn't
>Also since when could you study it in school, do you mean history

Military history

[Anonymous No.14149477]

>>14149401
You are such a massive retard it's astounding. He has literally said five times there is nothing honorable about the act of war or executing someone, positive virtues can only be applied to the reasoning behind the act. Committing these acts for morally sound reasons is given such high honors and fascination by the public because it's voluntary sacrificing your moral and mental wellbeing by committing a terrible act for the greater good. Honor necitates sacrifice. Committing a good act that's fun isn't sacrificing shit. Why is this simple concept so difficult for you to understand. Separate the act itself from the intention behind it and think idiot

[Anonymous No.14149491]

>>14148762
You mean you're literally killing people, because your grades in high school sucked and you liked playing Call of Duty a lot when you're were younger, so you might as well join the army.
So now you have to kill because your boss tells you to, because his boss told him to give the order and his boss told him to give the order and none of them really have any ideological disagreement with the people you're fighting, except the boss at the very top who knows there is money to be made in you shooting some sand people.

[Anonymous No.14149504]

>>14148762
You have more in common with a poor farmer in the middle east than the isreali and the fat old oil baron boomer on top giving you orders. "Disagree" lmao. Dumb idiot I bet you can't even point out the country you're invading on a blank map or point out any leader or event in their history

[Anonymous No.14149506]

>>14149424
>he now admits he believes the basic instinct of man is flight over fight
So you do accept your own cowardice? Not every men is innately looking to flight, in fact the most masculine have always chosen fight, but of course rationally. Besides you seem to think mans drives don't go beyond something as simple as "eat, shit, fight, fuck, sleep" and it is only the effectual abstract which we look to. You could not be more wrong anon, imagine thinking love be alone a drive for sex and group protection, or religiosity the drive for meaning.

>Facts? About what aspect specifically? Military training? Motivation for battle? Reality of the battlefield? People's willingness to kill or face certain death? Why wars start? Why wars end?
>thinks he can provide a universal statement on any of these questions.

>There is nothing worth more than life
Yes there is retard. You think it better to live the life as some mk ultra "high I'm samantha and tickle my anus" sex slave than die?

Or if you mean collectively (for which the individual life dies for) would it not be the same for a similar collective shame? And secondly I ask so please respond this time, would it not be worth risking life (individual or collective) given a certain circumstance of their benefit? For if they live eternally in the mediocre they have never lived, and they have died before their time never to leave a mark on history. And it isn't the same kind of murder when one soldier kills another, "brutally murdered" what a lie. Soldiers die.

>Obviously the world will not be as it is if the events that happened before didn't happen.
I meant within a positive sense smart-ass.

>the connection between Europe and Asia by Alexander the Great would of happened regardless
Anon stop being so stupid, if you're going to play that mindless game of the effectual value being relative in time you're a sub-20 iq. Now explain how you made this mistake for it is your greatest so far.

>Did not commit the act of war for reasonings of cultural progression.
The actions are simultaneous, an unconscious drive does not mean the individual does not have it. And if any man claims Alexander lacked such drive than he is a great fool for it only takes the most simplistic of cultural analysis to see that he does so have it.

>Bad does not equal meaningless
So you claim his military genius to be bad or just purposeless? For it's greatest achievement will only be to conquer.

[Anonymous No.14149520]

>>14148762
This.

[Anonymous No.14149543]

Who gives a fuck about what Napoleon felt in war, he's one evil (but "great") man in a situation involving millions. And the vast vast majority of those participants are not taking pride in anything but their ability to survive
Are you seriously telling me the vast majority of those French fighting were not doing so by patriotism of the new regime? They may of been trying to survive but they held loyalty to Napoleon.

"For there is no sadder proof of a mans own littleness than his disbelief in great men"

- Carlyle

>No you didn't
Do you lack a memory or creative thought?

>Military history
Which level of school are you talking about anon?

[Anonymous No.14149553]

It's actually disgusting how preoccupied a lot of /lit/ is with huffing their own farts.
The complete lack of genuine humour, the mind numbingly pretentious writing, it's disgusting. The kind of person who throws a tantrum when people make jokes about something because what he wants is "serious intellectual discussion", these kinds of people are shockingly insecure, desperate for validation, and funnily enough, not very intelligent.
This board is filled with these people, their thinly veiled egotism disguised as thought and their straight up blog threads.
It's because half of this board is from reddit.

[Anonymous No.14149574]

>>14149477
>being a good father isn't honourable
>killing an evil person is somehow horrible
Also retard I wasn't saying a honour doesn't necessitate sacrifice, I was pointing out his own hypocrisy by stating being a good father was honourable yet honour requires some great sacrifice. And I think willing to die for something is putting in the will to sacrifice something great, war is great and you are not.

You suffer your own prejudices in your inability to understand basic refutations. I understood what he said, I simply refuted him and by that he seemed to think simply stating his view against mine of these actions being evil is somehow a refutation of me. He has as of yet not explained why they are evil, and this is but one example of his stupidity in thinking his views so grand that they are an argument in themselves. Now you see he has just been repeating himself while I actually debate, provide evidence, example, rational and logic behind my ideas and your mutt brain took his stupid repetition as genius.

[Anonymous No.14149577]

>>14149441
Refer to>>14149543

[Anonymous No.14149583]

Vid related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJlmfrFWVGc

[Anonymous No.14149588]

>>14149553
Then go somewhere else then you dumb low iq faggot. You'll feel at home with your "humor" and retarded shitposts on any other board. Anybody who uses the word pretentious should outright kill themselves.

[Anonymous No.14149597]

>>14149588
Lol someone felt targeted didn't they.

[Anonymous No.14149619]

>>14149553
I agree humour is important and I enjoy shitposting, I am Australian after all. However you're a pretentious 80 iq retard who doesn't seem to be able to engage in intellectual discussion -- the point of the board btw, not comedy, which follows; not the other way around -- without le humour frog face.

[Anonymous No.14149635]

>>14149619
I never said deep discussion is bad you fucking stain. Christ.

[Anonymous No.14149640]

>>14149635
Did you not understand my post anon? I never stated nor inferred such a thing.

[Anonymous No.14149689]

ITT: Civilians

[Anonymous No.14149692]

>>14149640
You either think that or you are imagining that i'm wearing a username.

[Anonymous No.14149704]

>YEAH KILLEM
Just how low can you autistic incels fall?

[Anonymous No.14149719]

>>14149692
>or you are imagining that i'm wearing a username.
What's anonymous?

[Anonymous No.14150660]

[Anonymous No.14150732]

>>14149689
Imagine worshiping a glownig.

[Anonymous No.14150758]

[Anonymous No.14151539]

>>14149491
>>14149504
It's not who you're fighting, but the act of fightong itself which is chad as fuck. Obviosuly fighting your brothers in your homelands should be avoided... and fighting for Israel at all costs, but simply put, blowing up poor farmers in the middle east is better for boys / men than sitting behind a computer or being a gay fag back at home just wasting away. Bro like the vast majority of civilisations realised that promoting war/the military was the best way to ensure the youth don't just wither away.

[Anonymous No.14151547]

>>14149402
Cope harder for never being let into the marines for having scoliosis faggot

[Anonymous No.14152392]

>>14151539
>>14151547

[Anonymous No.14152444]

If you like war, go fight a war.
If you don't like war, don't fight a war.

[Anonymous No.14153969]

>>14152444
We are speaking of the ideal of war man.

[Anonymous No.14155391]

>>14152444
Powerful stuff.

[Anonymous No.14156377]

>>14149402
okay boomer

[Anonymous No.14157593]

>>14153969
>the ideal of war
please, go on