View single post by ole
 Posted: Thu Sep 18th, 2008 04:54 am
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 

Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Posts: 2031

  back to top

I think that's more of what I meant. That the impact of the war was visited on the populace and not just between the armies. The idea of the "Gentleman's War" was not getting the job done.
We're in the same book, Bighouse. The same page is coming up fast. Today's civilization, and yesterday's, had the idea that a test of strength involving only armed forces was the way it ought to be.  I've yet to see one of those tests of strength that didn't eventually get down to smacking the civilian. Consider WWII. It began, on England's part at least, that your army and our army will do this quite nicely and one of us will win. By the time that fracas ended, civilians paid a dear price. I don't see many wars wherein that wasn't a part of the horrors of war.

To me, the idea that war ought always to keep civilians out of the loop is a bit ludicrous and dreamy. Civilians are always sucked into the maelstrom sooner or later.

Since the Civil War, we've not experienced slaughter of civilians on our side, but you'd better believe that we've visited some hell on those of our opposition. One day, perhaps, we'll get into one of those conflicts wherein we are exposed to invaders. (Did you ever watch that teener flick, "Red Dawn"?)

"War is cruelty; there is no way to reform it."

I've rambled enough.




 Close Window