It was a slaughter of women, children, and civilian men by US troops. They weren't raised wrong, or an abortion, it was a total break down of civilization.

If these soldiers were in any other situation with an exception of a very few they would have been honest hard working citizens, but were drug down into a pit that allowed them to become avatars of the worst aspects of humanity.

@Bookworm Of course, by Insane's reasoning, oathbreaking is also an acceptable act if it is judged to be a part of attaining victory in war. can you quote me on saying that i by any means agree with that. i said it happens not that i in any way condone breaking oaths

i said its neccesary to obtain victory in war

you can handle opponents with honor after you have won like respecting prisonors etc but winning? noone takes compromises for honor at the cost of winning.

The post I was referring to.

Which in hindsight, I realize is less you claiming it is acceptable and more you saying that people do so.

So, then, Insane, what is and is not to be condoned in the attainment of victory in warfare?

warfare is in itself taking something that is not yours by force. it dishonors conversation and logic its leads the victory of he who is strongest not he who is right

warfare is in itself anti human

Warfare is the ultimate form of conflict resolution. You could even say it is the ultimate form of economic distribution.

A resource is allocated to those willing to pay the highest price for it. Warfare is saying "I am willing to kill, and die, and so is everyone on my side for this."

warfare doesnt distribute economics as the person with the economic advantage has a way higher change to end on top

I never said it distributed resources equitably.

then how does it in your opinion distribute recources outside of a nation

How does war distribute resources?

The victor of the war gets the resources, on account of being able to dictate terms.

and that is, in your view, the ultimate form of economic distribution?

In that death is the highest price a man can pay, yes.

yes but the person wielding the most resources at the start of the war has an advantage wouldnt "distributing those recourses" be more like claiming them?

if a man pays with his life, he gets no resources in return. Whoever is leading him to his death does.

thats a very good point

Yes, but in warfare death is not certain. And of course, there's group concerns to think about.

Just because his life is the greatest thing he can give up personally doesn't mean that's all he cares about.

@Bookworm is there any honor in sending people to a higher change of death in exchange for resources?

Inherently? I don't think so. But there certainly can be, yes.

explain further?

Every great nation and society was built upon the blood of its soldiers.

Every advancement and opportunity paid for with their lives. Their sacrifice deserves respect.

>Yes, but in warfare death is not certain. And of course, there's group concerns to think about.
So you can't think of a scenario where that wouldn't be the case? You really can't imagine a better form of economic distribution?

I'm not sure what you're asking, Crow.

thats not an argument for war containing honor that is an argument for war being usefull to certain nations

@Bookworm you give the impression that since warfare leads to distribution of resources its the best way to do so

i think thats what crow means

and he asks for your standpoint on that

you said warfare is the ultimate form of economic distribution. Are you really telling me you can't think of a better form of economic distribution?

Ah. No, absolutely not. Warfare is incredibly costly, in terms of resources and human lives on both sides. In that regard, it's the *most* inefficient method of resource allocation. Almost everything less than warfare is generally preferable if possible, because you want to obtain the resources for as little as possible.

I call it 'ultimate' because it is the final escalation of cost. You cannot pay more.

one where, idk, "the 1%" send the "the 99%" to harvest resources for themselves at the cost of their lives with the survivors among the "99%" getting mere scraps in return

right