What are tanks for?

[Retro2001]

First, never watch Headline News after 1am....its unhealty.

Anyhow, this fact seems to be lost on so many people, I think its time I shared it. What are tanks (in the military since) for?



Give up?



KILLING PEOPLE. Same goes for Fighters, Bombers, Artillery, M-16s, etc... This means that when your congressmen vote in a new budget, spending billions upon billions of dollars on 'Defence' those dollars are being spent on KILLING PEOPLE.

If that budget were spent on things like education and (non-military) research, I think we'd all learn that there are better ways to deal with problems than blowing other people's houses up (and KILLING THEM).

</rant>
Peace,
Will

 

[Adul]

sometimes there is no other way. And they are there to proctect us has well has ahem destroy the enemy.

 

[gentobu]

Tanks are for killing the enemy.

 

[Spagina]

If there were no military, you nor I may be here today. Unfortunately, human nature dictates war, it will never change. No matter how enlightened a single society may become, there will always be a barabaric society that wants to destroy it, it is inevitable. Without a military, that government, that society and nation wouldn't survive for long, especially one as prolific as the United States. The United States wasn't built on peace, nor was any other country in the world. It was built on war and the blood of soldiers.

 

[rgwalt]

War is a sin, but sometimes it is a necessary one. Unfortunately, when someone else wants to kill you and will stop at nothing to complete their goal, you may have to kill them first.

Ryan

 

[SHoddyCOmp]

Oh give me a break, thats what war is all about. Also as previously mentioned, if there was no military we may not be here today. Would you rather have sharpened sticks or a cannon? Thats a toughie...

 

[Retro2001]

Tanks are for killing the enemy.

Saying "The enemy" is what I'm talking about. Calling people "the enemy" somehow de-personifies them to make their demise palitable.

No matter how enlightened a single society may become, there will always be a barabaric society that wants to destroy it, it is inevitable.

I am saddend by the defeatist attitude. Even 60 years ago walking on the moon was total fantisy. 60 years ago I could whip out "Scientific Studies" to prove the inferiority of a black man. 150 years ago, under 3 lifetimes, slavery was palitable. Why is it that peace must be unatainable.

sometimes there is no other way.

Is not it the stronger man who walks away when provoked rather than fight?

I'm not saying we could or would be here with out a milirary, I'm mostly asking why we must de-humanize those our miliary acts against. It seems that if we are going to use Ultimate Force, at least we should acknolage (sp @ 2:30am) it.

 

[gopunk]

actually those dollars are spent on finding better ways to kill people that want to kill us.

 

[Mill]

If all humans wanted peace then no military would be needed. Sorry to say this is not true. It is really a black and white area. Either kill or be killed.

 

[Moonbeam]

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Up is down. Believe all the platitudes and unexamined assumptions that rule the zombies you walk among. To question is to be different. To be different is uncomfortable. People don't like it. Be safe. Don't think. War is good. It's a necessary evil.

 

[Retro2001]

Would you rather have sharpened sticks or a cannon?

Personaly, I'd rather have a 20 megaton nuclear weapon. Why not just turn 'Problem Areas' (ie. Middle East) into giant parking lots (paved with glass, no less)? Why is that not O.K.?

edit: "?" != "."

 

[Zim Hosein]

Originally posted by: gopunk
actually those dollars are spent on finding better ways to kill people that want to kill us.

Well said gopunk, thank you

 

[gopunk]

Saying "The enemy" is what I'm talking about. Calling people "the enemy" somehow de-personifies them to make their demise palitable.

what the hell? would it make you feel better if we just said "people we don't like and people that hate us"? give me a break :disgust:

Is not it the stronger man who walks away when provoked rather than fight?

if you can walk away, great. unfortunately, countries can not simply "walk away", they stay put, and vulnerable to attack.

I'm not saying we could or would be here with out a milirary, I'm mostly asking why we must de-humanize those our miliary acts against. It seems that if we are going to use Ultimate Force, at least we should acknolage (sp @ 2:30am) it.

why? give me one good reason why.

 

[Mill]

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Up is down. Believe all the platitudes and unexamined assumptions that rule the zombies you walk among. To question is to be different. To be different is uncomfortable. People don't like it. Be safe. Don't think. War is good. It's a necessary evil.

Dammit moonbeam. I hate when you start posting like this. Makes me think too much. If you stopped posting after consuming ganja it would help.

 

[rgwalt]

Is not it the stronger man who walks away when provoked rather than fight?

I'm not saying we could or would be here with out a milirary, I'm mostly asking why we must de-humanize those our miliary acts against. It seems that if we are going to use Ultimate Force, at least we should acknolage (sp @ 2:30am) it.

You make a good point. Peace SHOULD be an attainable goal. However, the US certainly isn't a war-mongering state. I will say that you can't walk away from a fight when the other person wants to kill you and your family. Imagin someone threatening to kill you, your parents, your significant other, and your children (if you have any). What are you supposed to do? I personally would love to turn the other cheek, but you can't in that situation. You have to defend yourself with what ever means necessary. If lives must be taken to prevent the death of those you hold dear, then so be it.

Ryan

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Zim Hosein

Originally posted by: gopunk
actually those dollars are spent on finding better ways to kill people that want to kill us.

Well said gopunk, thank you

btw, why do cops have guns?

 

[Zim Hosein]

Originally posted by: Retro2001

Would you rather have sharpened sticks or a cannon?

Personaly, I'd rather have a 20 megaton nuclear weapon? Why not just turn 'Problem Areas' (ie. Middle East) into giant parking lots (paved with glass, no less)? Why is that not O.K.?

Think about this if you are pro-this country or pro-that country, dropping the "bomb" will affect both areas for years to come, is this really what you want? Remember, a nuke isn't like a conventional weapon, one big "boom" and it's over, nukes leave a lasting effect for years to come. I'm not sure about you, but that's not something I wish to see.

 

[Retro2001]

actually those dollars are spent on finding better ways to kill people that want to kill us.

Really now...when you already have a weapon capable of killing 98% of all things within a 6.5 mile radius (ref), what more can you ask for?

This was only ment to be 50% a pacifict thread. The other half was more a psych-ish edge...Why can we not bring ourselves to 'humanize' our enemies? Why do you think Germans were not rounded up during WWII? Because you can't tell a German on sight! They look just like us (us being a good ol'e white male).

Peace,
Will

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Retro2001

actually those dollars are spent on finding better ways to kill people that want to kill us.

Really now...when you already have a weapon capable of killing 98% of all things within a 6.5 mile radius (ref), what more can you ask for?

don't be recockulous... that's like asking "why are you going to buy weedkiller? just bulldoze your garden!"

This was only ment to be 50% a pacifict thread. The other half was more a psych-ish edge...Why can we not bring ourselves to 'humanize' our enemies? Why do you think Germans were not rounded up during WWII? Because you can't tell a German on sight! They look just like us (us being a good ol'e white male).

actually there were a few german internment camps (in america) not to mention, when we were at war with them, we did produce propaganda to dehumanize them into being 'krauts. same thing with the russians, and just about any other enemy we have had.

anyways, to answer your question, we dehumanize them because it makes it easier to fight them, and makes it less likely that people will start to feel sorry for them.

 

[rgwalt]

Originally posted by: Zim Hosein

Originally posted by: Retro2001

Would you rather have sharpened sticks or a cannon?

Personaly, I'd rather have a 20 megaton nuclear weapon? Why not just turn 'Problem Areas' (ie. Middle East) into giant parking lots (paved with glass, no less)? Why is that not O.K.?

Think about this if you are pro-this country or pro-that country, dropping the "bomb" will affect both areas for years to come, is this really what you want? Remember, a nuke isn't like a conventional weapon, one big "boom" and it's over, nukes leave a lasting effect for years to come. I'm not sure about you, but that's not something I wish to see.

That isn't quite true anymore Zim. The fall-out from nuke blasts has been greatly reduced over the years. It is still pretty bad, but is supposed to be livable in close to 5 years if my memory serves me.

Ryan

 

[Retro2001]

Remember, a nuke isn't like a conventional weapon, one big "boom" and it's over, nukes leave a lasting effect for years to come.

FYI: Nuke tests in the Lower 48 states: 941 (In all fairness, some of this number are underground tests). We've already left one heck of a lasting effect.

 

[Retro2001]

What are you supposed to do? I personally would love to turn the other cheek, but you can't in that situation. You have to defend yourself with what ever means necessary. If lives must be taken to prevent the death of those you hold dear, then so be it.

This is a good point...What do you do? It does have a flaw. What do you define as a threat? Lots of people in Iraq have died as a direct result of the actions of the USA (see: depleated uranium shells and econmic sanctions). Would it be legitmate for an Iraqiee to come state-side and kill legislators?

Peace,
Will

 

[gopunk]

This is a good point...What do you do? It does have a flaw. What do you define as a threat? Lots of people in Iraq have died as a direct result of the actions of the USA (see: depleated uranium shells and econmic sanctions). Would it be legitmate for an Iraqiee to come state-side and kill legislators?

if iraq wishes to wage war (war, not assassination or terrorism), then so be it. war and diplomacy are the two accepted ways of solving disputes between nations.

 

[Pundit]

If you assume that all parties are sane, then war is unnecessary. But they are not. But there are some governments intent on destroying others because of instanity. And they must be stopped. And we need weapons and vehicles that kill people to do so.

If a rabid dog is running at you, would you use a gun to shoot it or take some time to determine why it became rabid? I say shoot first, determine later.

 

[Zim Hosein]

Originally posted by: rgwalt

Originally posted by: Zim Hosein

Originally posted by: Retro2001

Would you rather have sharpened sticks or a cannon?

Personaly, I'd rather have a 20 megaton nuclear weapon? Why not just turn 'Problem Areas' (ie. Middle East) into giant parking lots (paved with glass, no less)? Why is that not O.K.?

Think about this if you are pro-this country or pro-that country, dropping the "bomb" will affect both areas for years to come, is this really what you want? Remember, a nuke isn't like a conventional weapon, one big "boom" and it's over, nukes leave a lasting effect for years to come. I'm not sure about you, but that's not something I wish to see.

That isn't quite true anymore Zim. The fall-out from nuke blasts has been greatly reduced over the years. It is still pretty bad, but is supposed to be livable in close to 5 years if my memory serves me.

Ryan

Ryan, got any links for this? I'm curious. Thanks for your time