Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.
5878 messages in 172 discussions
Latest 8/26/21 by Jenifer (Zarknorph)
9342 messages in 66 discussions
Latest Nov-22 by smmheart1
5031 messages in 115 discussions
Latest Nov-21 by A Kid by any other name... (Kidmagnet)
I don't know much about the army but thanks .
If you come out of a close combat situation intact due to the actions of the men around you do you think anybody cares who they cut down for them to survive ?
None of the men will go hungry whether the Australians use them again in covert actions or a myriad of legal Private forces now being used will bend over backwards to have these men in their employ .
War is shit it is far more dreadful than any one man has ever described , it is terrifying even for the most battle hardened , it is beyond rational to expect men to act in decent honorable ways they dont , they wont and they cant , their purpose SOLE purpose is to win and stay alive
"War is shit it is far more dreadful than any one man has ever described , it is terrifying even for the most battle hardened , it is beyond rational to expect men to act in decent honorable ways they dont , they wont and they cant , their purpose SOLE purpose is to win and stay alive "
We have tried to make war a rules-based 'game' but you're right that in extreme circumstances, those rules are ignored in favour of survival.
There was a time when Chivalry was the name of the game but Agincourt saw that off , as the wars became ever more dreadful and the weapons ever more deadly the need to survive no matter the honor or the cost to others has remained paramount .
It would be NICE if wars or battles could be fought with laws and codes of honor but it takes both sides to honor such agreements and when one side is far more powerful than the other this is where asymmetric warfare evens the playing field and your enemy uses your rules of engagement to their advantage that is why many of these acts take place there are no real rules when fighting you dont want to die and you dont want to get injured and you seriously dont give a damn about the otherside
There was a time when Chivalry was the name of the game
.......but chivalry only applied to people who could be ransomed or exchanged. The ordinary troops sensibly ran away when their betters started losing. The rules that came in during the 17th and 18th centuries about protecting people who surrendered, didn't really work when the prisoners of war were stuck in camps where disease was rife and food and clean water were short or non-existent. After the battle of Dunbar in 1651, the victorious English released the wounded and sick, but marched the able bodied survivors to Durham. About 1000 died on the way from dysentery, exhaustion and hunger and the remainder, (about 3000), were imprisoned in Durham Cathedral and castle. Most died from starvation and disease. 150 survivors were transported to America as indentured labourers. Others were enlisted in the English army and sent to fight in Ireland and France. Others were sent as labourers (probably indentured), to help drain the East Anglian Fens. After indentured servitude, the ex-prisoner became a free man. (The indenture was usually between 4 and 7 years.)
I do not condone wanton killing but I KNOW that in war there are times that such acts send a very clear message to the other side and in the end unless you want to win then there are times when moving beyond the acceptable occurs
Making public the dirty laundry of ones army serves no purpose but to weaken the resolve that serve , let punishment be served behind closed doors beyond the eyes of the enemy that seeks to weaken every single facet of your abilities to operate
"Making public the dirty laundry of ones army serves no purpose but to weaken the resolve that serve , let punishment be served behind closed doors beyond the eyes of the enemy that seeks to weaken every single facet of your abilities to operate"
What does Australia hope to gain by releasing this alleged dirty laundry?