Current Events > If you were in war, how far would you go?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Would you do anything the soldiers did in the attack of Nanjing in WWII?

I'd nail all the space whores I could find, that's what i'd do.
---

Yes, in war there's no li...

red_is_ash posted...

Would you do anything the soldiers did in the attack of Nanjing in WWII?

Oh, I thought you were talking solely in terms of things that actually contribute to winning, rather than just being a c***. No, there ARE limits, my bad.
---

DarkTransient posted...

Yes, in war there's no li...

red_is_ash posted...

Would you do anything the soldiers did in the attack of Nanjing in WWII?

Oh, I thought you were talking solely in terms of things that actually contribute to winning, rather than just being a c***. No, there ARE limits, my bad.

How do you know you'll actually follow the limits? How do you know you won't fall to peer pressure?

Far enough to get out.
---

Job of a soilder is to stay alive. Job of an officer is to lead your men.
---

Whatever it takes to win. Raping civilians doesn't help you win.
---

I was in war, and I didn't violate the Geneva Conventions.
---

Snap the infinity gauntlet
---

Not very far, honestly. I'm not the type.

Whatever I need to do to keep me and those around me alive.

Sativa_Rerose posted...

Whatever it takes to win. Raping civilians doesn't help you win.

Maybe it doesn't help you win, but it creates fear. It essentially gives you more power. It humiliates the enemy even more. If you were fighting for your country, wouldn't that be what you want? Anything to end the war quicker to stop the mess?

Let's be honest guys. There are no rules in war. Whoever says that there are rules in war is saying BS. Th only rule in war is that you have to try your hardest to win. In every war fought by every country, I can bet you guys that nobody has properly adhered to the Geneva Convention.

Syria and the chemical bombs, the US and the nukes, China and the forced conformity...the list goes on. If you could help the war, you would use chemical weapons.

red_is_ash posted...

Sativa_Rerose posted...

Whatever it takes to win. Raping civilians doesn't help you win.

Maybe it doesn't help you win, but it creates fear. It essentially gives you more power. It humiliates the enemy even more. If you were fighting for your country, wouldn't that be what you want? Anything to end the war quicker to stop the mess?

Let's be honest guys. There are no rules in war. Whoever says that there are rules in war is saying BS. Th only rule in war is that you have to try your hardest to win. In every war fought by every country, I can bet you guys that nobody has properly adhered to the Geneva Convention.

Syria and the chemical bombs, the US and the nukes, China and the forced conformity...the list goes on. If you could help the war, you would use chemical weapons.

Rape isn't a good fear weapon. Better to use napalm.
---

red_is_ash posted...

Sativa_Rerose posted...

Whatever it takes to win. Raping civilians doesn't help you win.

Maybe it doesn't help you win, but it creates fear. It essentially gives you more power. It humiliates the enemy even more. If you were fighting for your country, wouldn't that be what you want? Anything to end the war quicker to stop the mess?

Let's be honest guys. There are no rules in war. Whoever says that there are rules in war is saying BS. Th only rule in war is that you have to try your hardest to win. In every war fought by every country, I can bet you guys that nobody has properly adhered to the Geneva Convention.

Syria and the chemical bombs, the US and the nukes, China and the forced conformity...the list goes on. If you could help the war, you would use chemical weapons.

Realistically, though, that fear can backfire pretty catastrophically. It can galvanize people against you and makes the propaganda pretty much write itself. Recruiting local support is actually much more effective in the long run. Like, look at the Nazis during Barbarossa; they tried to commit genocide against the Slavic people of Eastern Europe, who actually hated Stalinist Russia, but became incredibly well dug in partisan guerillas who slowed the march into Russia to a complete halt. Had they recruited the peasants, they would have had a literal instant army, or at the very least, stoked a civil war they could exploit.

Dash_Harber posted...

Realistically, though, that fear can backfire pretty catastrophically. It can galvanize people against you and makes the propaganda pretty much write itself. Recruiting local support is actually much more effective in the long run. Like, look at the Nazis during Barbarossa; they tried to commit genocide against the Slavic people of Eastern Europe, who actually hated Stalinist Russia, but became incredibly well dug in partisan guerillas who slowed the march into Russia to a complete halt. Had they recruited the peasants, they would have had a literal instant army, or at the very least, stoked a civil war they could exploit.

Yeah. Another example would be the resistance movements in countries like Yugoslavia during the Nazi occupation. The more the Nazis cracked down on the civilian population and committed atrocities in response to the resistance movement, the fiercer the resistance got. They were fueling the resistance faster than they were killing it.
---

Sativa_Rerose posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Realistically, though, that fear can backfire pretty catastrophically. It can galvanize people against you and makes the propaganda pretty much write itself. Recruiting local support is actually much more effective in the long run. Like, look at the Nazis during Barbarossa; they tried to commit genocide against the Slavic people of Eastern Europe, who actually hated Stalinist Russia, but became incredibly well dug in partisan guerillas who slowed the march into Russia to a complete halt. Had they recruited the peasants, they would have had a literal instant army, or at the very least, stoked a civil war they could exploit.

Yeah. Another example would be the resistance movements in countries like Yugoslavia during the Nazi occupation. The more the Nazis cracked down on the civilian population and committed atrocities in response to the resistance movement, the fiercer the resistance got. They were fueling the resistance faster than they were killing it.

And the Nazis in France and the Nazis in ...

Yeah, the Nazis were actually pretty shit at that. Hitler was actually a really, really bad strategist.