First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply Gentleman's War
Owner
4444 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / In your dreams...
Offline
Posted 12/8/08 , edited 12/8/08

WolvenDragoon wrote:
Tch. scale doesn't matter. Survival only matters if you have an agenda for after. And even then it isn't necessarily important. Take a defending army for example. If the defending army is smaller and less well armed there is little chance of survival. So the nature attitude should be that survival of the army is of no importance. Instead decimating the enemy and making it impossible for them to continue should be number one on the list. Thus in this example Survival is of less importance on a large scale.
Here is another one. Say a an empire begins to attack it's neighbors and that each of these neighbors are far weaker militarily than the empire. The idea that survival for each nation is rediculous. To think that all of them could survive isn't worth the brain power to think it. Instead the smaller nations should be thinking about how best to make it so that the empire can not attack anymore. Even if it means that one or two get swallowed up by the empire or by another countries government. Thus survival for that country and it's people are of Less importance in the larger scale of things.
As I said Survival is a plus. You don't have to be there to enjoying winning to have won.

And no winning isn't a completely relative term. Winning in a war means simply that the enemy is no longer a threat. All other terms are derived from this one fact. Someone always wins. Just because you don't know who doesn't mean they didn't.


Scale doesn't matter? That would be contradictory to the rules of strategy. You'd consider a victory by attrition a total win right? Well by that same rule, survival is quite imperative in large scale strategy.
In small scale, survival is not imperative, as you already stated, as it is [again] relative to one's conditions of victory.

In war, winning would be clearly relative to one's terms of victory.
Sure in general victory implies the enemy isn't a threat, but that could be a mutual condition or it could be a condition not related to one's actions at all. I take it you did not consider that.


10410 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / F / Somewhere in the US
Offline
Posted 12/8/08
It's called ICBM's use them wisely.......Instant victory.

8206 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Republic of South...
Offline
Posted 12/8/08

Ice_Blue_Eyes wrote:


WolvenDragoon wrote:
Tch. scale doesn't matter. Survival only matters if you have an agenda for after. And even then it isn't necessarily important. Take a defending army for example. If the defending army is smaller and less well armed there is little chance of survival. So the nature attitude should be that survival of the army is of no importance. Instead decimating the enemy and making it impossible for them to continue should be number one on the list. Thus in this example Survival is of less importance on a large scale.
Here is another one. Say a an empire begins to attack it's neighbors and that each of these neighbors are far weaker militarily than the empire. The idea that survival for each nation is rediculous. To think that all of them could survive isn't worth the brain power to think it. Instead the smaller nations should be thinking about how best to make it so that the empire can not attack anymore. Even if it means that one or two get swallowed up by the empire or by another countries government. Thus survival for that country and it's people are of Less importance in the larger scale of things.
As I said Survival is a plus. You don't have to be there to enjoying winning to have won.

And no winning isn't a completely relative term. Winning in a war means simply that the enemy is no longer a threat. All other terms are derived from this one fact. Someone always wins. Just because you don't know who doesn't mean they didn't.


Scale doesn't matter? That would be contradictory to the rules of strategy. You'd consider a victory by attrition a total win right? Well by that same rule, survival is quite imperative in large scale strategy.
In small scale, survival is not imperative, as you already stated, as it is [again] relative to one's conditions of victory.

In war, winning would be clearly relative to one's terms of victory.
Sure in general victory implies the enemy isn't a threat, but that could be a mutual condition or it could be a condition not related to one's actions at all. I take it you did not consider that.




It seems you seriously underestimate the insanity of people, fighting, and war. Not that I'm saying insanity is a bad thing.
10196 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Uoi'nota, kyon ul...
Offline
Posted 12/8/08


Ok first of all you just talked in a circle and said nothing in that first paragraph. Secondly why is that you believe surviving is a part of war? Seriously, how is it? If it was a suicide bomber wouldn't be used.

Victory has nothing to do with one's opinion. If your enemy isn't a threat anymore then that is victory. Period. How is this in any way related to one's actions on the battlefield or elsewhere. If the enemy can't Do anything they aren't at threat. Conditions and personal opinions have no place within that idea. Either they are a threat or they aren't.

I take it you did not consider that huh?
Owner
4444 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / In your dreams...
Offline
Posted 12/8/08 , edited 12/8/08

WolvenDragoon wrote:

Ok first of all you just talked in a circle and said nothing in that first paragraph. Secondly why is that you believe surviving is a part of war? Seriously, how is it? If it was a suicide bomber wouldn't be used.

Victory has nothing to do with one's opinion. If your enemy isn't a threat anymore then that is victory. Period. How is this in any way related to one's actions on the battlefield or elsewhere. If the enemy can't Do anything they aren't at threat. Conditions and personal opinions have no place within that idea. Either they are a threat or they aren't.

I take it you did not consider that huh?


Did you not understand my words? Let me simplify.
You would consider attrition a total victory, would you not? Being that in a victory of attrition all enemy forces cease to survive, that would prove that survival is a valid factor in victory atleast in large scale strategy [in that a force of many opposes a force of many rather than a singular force opposes another singular force which would be small scale.]

Victory is defined as "achievement of mastery or success in a struggle or endeavor against odds or difficulties" and there is not just one type of victory. There's many types. Anyone who studies strategy understands this.

I never said anything about opinions but yes conditions have very much a place in this idea.

What I meant is that an enemy can cease being a threat for reasons not pertaining to victory itself. Therefore the general term of an enemy ceasing to be a thread cannot be considered victory unless that outcome has been influenced from the actions of the said victors as that would contradict the definition of the word itself.

Furthermore, I'd appreciate it if you'd keep the condescension out of this thread. You're perception may differ, but in my eyes this is a respectful debate. Lets keep it like that. If you do not agree, you need not continue the discussion.

10196 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Uoi'nota, kyon ul...
Offline
Posted 12/8/08


Where is it that I have stated that attrition is or is not victory? As I have not even mentioned it I am wondering why you keep talking about it. Yes genocide and such is victory, however I have been stating that it is not the only victory, in fact I have not mentioned it at all..... And you know what else? If all the enemy is dead that doesn't mean you are alive. Ever hear of bioweapons and nukes? These instruments can't be used in a small scale manner and can easily kill you as your enemies. Thus you DO NOT have to survive to make the enemy a none threat.

The definition you have just used is the most general of all the definitions for the term. It is not meant for any one thing. Were as we are speaking about war in the specific. There for that definition is not relative as war can be done without any kind of struggle at all. Take an assassination. That is a tactic in war. If you a kill of the leader of a country before they attack, and this causes them to be unable to act against you then that is winning. There was no struggle involved.

Oh you didn't say anything pertaining to opinions?

Ice_Blue_Eyes wrote: "In war, winning would be clearly relative to one's terms of victory."

The words "one's terms of victory" is stating that it is up to someone's idea of what victory is. In other words it is their opinion.

If you make it so that an enemy can not attack, defend, nor produce a way to harm you then they are no longer a threat. If you subjugate a country that doesn't mean they aren't a threat. It means you occupy their space. Making sure their warriors and all who could fight can't or won't is making sure they aren't a threat. This is victory. Again you don't have to be Alive to claim that as victory.

Finally, If you feel that I was being condescending then with

WolvenDragoon wrote:
"I take it you did not consider that huh?"
then is it not you who was the one that was being condescending first? I was simply repeating your own words back to you.
Member
189 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Texas
Offline
Posted 12/8/08
*wide grin on face*
i like how you guys type
makes me feel smart that i am reading and understanding it (to an extant ---me------------you guys-)
still to me
a victory is something that you obtain through hard work (in this case fighting) and you rid yourself of that obstacle (opposing country) and are still able to say it (declare)

Wolven im not sure but did you say that victory can still be declared even if you end up dieing; so wouldn't that mean that a third party would have to come in and declare the victor?

Or did you mean to say that even if both warring side's military are wiped out, the survivors of either side are able to declare victory depending on who has the most still living?

just asking for clarification
Owner
4444 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / In your dreams...
Offline
Posted 12/8/08 , edited 12/8/08

WolvenDragoon wrote:

Where is it that I have stated that attrition is or is not victory? As I have not even mentioned it I am wondering why you keep talking about it. Yes genocide and such is victory, however I have been stating that it is not the only victory, in fact I have not mentioned it at all..... And you know what else? If all the enemy is dead that doesn't mean you are alive. Ever hear of bioweapons and nukes? These instruments can't be used in a small scale manner and can easily kill you as your enemies. Thus you DO NOT have to survive to make the enemy a none threat.

The definition you have just used is the most general of all the definitions for the term. It is not meant for any one thing. Were as we are speaking about war in the specific. There for that definition is not relative as war can be done without any kind of struggle at all. Take an assassination. That is a tactic in war. If you a kill of the leader of a country before they attack, and this causes them to be unable to act against you then that is winning. There was no struggle involved.

Oh you didn't say anything pertaining to opinions?

Ice_Blue_Eyes wrote: "In war, winning would be clearly relative to one's terms of victory."

The words "one's terms of victory" is stating that it is up to someone's idea of what victory is. In other words it is their opinion.

If you make it so that an enemy can not attack, defend, nor produce a way to harm you then they are no longer a threat. If you subjugate a country that doesn't mean they aren't a threat. It means you occupy their space. Making sure their warriors and all who could fight can't or won't is making sure they aren't a threat. This is victory. Again you don't have to be Alive to claim that as victory.

Finally, If you feel that I was being condescending then with

WolvenDragoon wrote:
"I take it you did not consider that huh?"
then is it not you who was the one that was being condescending first? I was simply repeating your own words back to you.


You never said attrition is not victory. I was making a point.
No you don't have to survive to make end the enemy's thread, but you said earlier survival doesn't even play into it. I disagreed and proved through examples how it does. Furthermore singularly dying pertains to small-scale strategy. You're not differentiating.

You're just contradicting yourself know. An assassination may be a component of war but it in itself is not nor can be construed as war alone thus your example is moot.

Terms of victory has nothing to do with opinions. You are not aware there are different types of victory?
You're assuming too much, man.

I never said you had to be alive to claim victory. You must be misunderstanding everything I have been saying. Perhaps you should go back and reread. Misunderstandings can cause needless disagreements.

I was not referring singularly to that quote in observing your condescension. I asked a sincere question and did not have a haughty ', huh?" at the end. I think you're taking this a bit too personal. Don't get worked up over a conversation, man.
Owner
4444 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / In your dreams...
Offline
Posted 12/8/08

Telomonian wrote:
It seems you seriously underestimate the insanity of people, fighting, and war. Not that I'm saying insanity is a bad thing.


How so..?
10196 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Uoi'nota, kyon ul...
Offline
Posted 12/8/08

bhavik15 wrote:

*wide grin on face*
i like how you guys type
makes me feel smart that i am reading and understanding it (to an extant ---me------------you guys-)
still to me
a victory is something that you obtain through hard work (in this case fighting) and you rid yourself of that obstacle (opposing country) and are still able to say it (declare)

Wolven im not sure but did you say that victory can still be declared even if you end up dieing; so wouldn't that mean that a third party would have to come in and declare the victor?

Or did you mean to say that even if both warring side's military are wiped out, the survivors of either side are able to declare victory depending on who has the most still living?

just asking for clarification


Hahah no problem. What I have been trying to point out is that whether or not you live or die isn't important. So long as the goal, Making sure that your enemy is no longer a threat (And note I never specify any one person or group), you can claim victory. Look at heros for an example of this. They do something great and die doing it. Yet they still are considered to be the victor.

Survival in war isn't the point of war. It is simply something that most Hope for.

Does this clarify it a bit?
8206 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Republic of South...
Offline
Posted 12/8/08

Ice_Blue_Eyes wrote:


Telomonian wrote:
It seems you seriously underestimate the insanity of people, fighting, and war. Not that I'm saying insanity is a bad thing.


How so..?


By not understanding what Wolven means, you don't truly understand the ecstacy of insanity in a fight. Writting it down doesn't come close to doing it justice, it has to be experienced. This about all I can offer you: Go out and experience the elation of a true fight.
Owner
4444 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / In your dreams...
Offline
Posted 12/8/08

WolvenDragoon wrote:

Hahah no problem. What I have been trying to point out is that whether or not you live or die isn't important. So long as the goal, Making sure that your enemy is no longer a threat (And note I never specify any one person or group), you can claim victory. Look at heros for an example of this. They do something great and die doing it. Yet they still are considered to be the victor.

Survival in war isn't the point of war. It is simply something that most Hope for.

Does this clarify it a bit?


Alright, that I would agree with.

10196 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Uoi'nota, kyon ul...
Offline
Posted 12/8/08

Ice_Blue_Eyes wrote:

You never said attrition is not victory. I was making a point.
No you don't have to survive to make end the enemy's thread, but you said earlier survival doesn't even play into it. I disagreed and proved through examples how it does. Furthermore singularly dying pertains to small-scale strategy. You're not differentiating.

You're just contradicting yourself know. An assassination may be a component of war but it in itself is not nor can be construed as war alone thus your example is moot.

Terms of victory has nothing to do with opinions. You are not aware there are different types of victory?
You're assuming too much, man.

I never said you had to be alive to claim victory. You must be misunderstanding everything I have been saying. Perhaps you should go back and reread. Misunderstandings can cause needless disagreements.

I was not referring singularly to that quote in observing your condescension. I asked a sincere question and did not have a haughty ', huh?" at the end. I think you're taking this a bit too personal. Don't get worked up over a conversation, man.


No I never even mentioned attrition.... at all. And that was a moot point since I pointed out that you don't have to be alive either. You have proved nothing. Death can be enmass as well as singularly.

I have yet to contradict myself, Assassination is used at the very begining of wars. When a country declares war and then the leader is immediatly assassinated that is war. Anything that is an act of voilence from one group to another can be construed as war. Whether it is guruella warfare, assassination, or straight out comflict this is all part of war. They are not indevisable pieces.

As to the term for victory, well can you claim my definition is at all in accurate for war? Can you say that 'victory in war is attained when the enemy is no longer a threat' is an incorrect definition? I have never said how exactly this must be attained. Whether through disarming, slavery, genocide, or other means is not my point nor have I stated anywhere that it is.

You have however been saying that surviving is necessary... it isn't and that was my point from the very begining.

Hahaha you call my saying back to you with a simple word tacted on haughty? Hahahahaha Now look who is taking this personally. I simply responded to your question with the same. You are the one that has assumed about my intentions and purposes.
Owner
4444 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / In your dreams...
Offline
Posted 12/8/08

Telomonian wrote:

By not understanding what Wolven means, you don't truly understand the ecstacy of insanity in a fight. Writting it down doesn't come close to doing it justice, it has to be experienced. This about all I can offer you: Go out and experience the elation of a true fight.


??
I've been in quite a few 'true' fights. Furthermore I understand well insanity and it's nature.
What I do not understand is your assumption that I do not understand said things based on my statements about an entirely different subject.
Member
189 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Texas
Offline
Posted 12/8/08 , edited 12/8/08


im scared of telo now

though i do undertand to some extent how one can find fight enjoyable
i myself tend to find fighting "fun" (spars not battlefield) every now and then
even then
insanity is something i understand in ways of mental illness
its kind of hard for me to think about it in terms of war
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.