I offend people
I don’t give a flying-fudge about Gaza. Say, champ, have you seen those photos of kids getting pwned by rockets and missiles? Distressing, I’d say. Yawn. Look, here’s the thing about modern warfare, and I want you to listen to me carefully, because this is important: We have bigger guns now. Compared to the shit we used in WWII (fyi, that’s the last major war we had, and it wasn’t pretty), what those guys are using right now in Iraq, Afghanistan, Georgia and Gaza are huge. Like, fucking huge. It’s like comparing a 9 mm handgun with Bart Simpson’s slingshot. A US B2 bomber has the same firepower as a squadron of normal, average-Joe bomber planes. And oh, it flies really high, has a fucking huge flying range, packs more firepower than your average 3rd world country air force, not to mention that it’s stealthy and more quiet than a fetishist creeping up on someone’s wardrobe stealing panties and shit. The B2 bomber even has a fucking PANTRY onboard. Who the fuck has a pantry onboard a warplane? That, my friend, is a testament to just how awesome a B2 bomber is.
I guess the point I’m trying to make is that in modern warfare, the damage caused by weaponries have increased to such a ridiculous level of awesomeness and efficiency. Meaning, more people are likely to get fucked by explosions and shit. Tungsten rounds, AP, AA rounds, depleted uranium shells, smaller tactical nukes. Whoa, fuck me. I’m sorry, what’s that you said? Purposely targeting civilians? It’s war, honey, it’s supposed to be bloody ugly. We’ve been doing the same thing since the dawn of time, and that is because we haven’t yet evolved to that level where we could catch up with our advances in technology. If you ask me who’s to blame in Gaza, I’d say both are to blame. They’re like two kids beating the snot out of each other simply because neither doesn’t want to share a table together at lunch hour. If that doesn’t make any sense to you, then neither does what they’re doing now right there.
Peace out, hombres.
4 comments:
"pwned"? Really? Thats the word you're going to use? Yes, Modern warfare has gotten much deadlier since the early days of the Cold War, and from your description, it seems to me that you think of the kids getting "pwned" as nothing more than "collateral damage". But guess what, that phrase is nothing more than a handy excuse that disguises the situation as something that its not. Also, a carefree attitude towards "collateral damage" is partially the reason why conflicts can have such devastating effects and carry on into cycles of violence like what is happening in the Middle East right now. Yes, I get it, in war there may be some unintended civilian casualties, but until the stance taken towards "collateral damage" change and we take more precaution, things are going to stay the same.
On a more positive note, you're right, both sides must share the blame and both sides must also work together to find a solution.
P.S. Was your sign-off meant to be ironic?
Yes, the 'peace out hombres' was meant to be ironic. And incredibly smart at the same time. And yes, I meant every bit of what I wrote in there. War is not pretty, there will always be collateral damage. Accurate, smarter warfare will exist someday, but as for now we have to settle for 'Precision warfare'. Here's something that you might like to know, accurate and precise mean two entirely different things. i.e. Being accurate means hitting your target, and your target only. Not as easy as it sounds. Being precise, however, lies in the capability of a weapon to hit something . And by something, I mean, you know, anything.
I'm starting to ramble, which is not good, but what I'm trying to say is, no matter how good our stance is towards collateral damage, it will always be there, you know? Unless, you know, we invent some sort of ultra-death-beam-ray that could accurately target someone from miles away and you know, zap it with gigawatts of awesome firepower. Even in that case, the splatter of blood from the exploding dude will cause collateral damage to the people around him. In the form of epic, shower of blood. How's that?
As for the solution to whatever's going on there, I think the best thing to do is sit this one out. And wait. What's the worst thing that could happen? A minor nuclear exchange? I think we could live with that.
You seem to be emphasizing technological advances as the solution to "collateral damage". It's not. No matter how revolutionary our guns become, mistakes will still be made. However, owning up to what it really is, such as referring to it as civilian casualties instead of "collateral damage", and actually acknowledging your mistakes is a step in the right direction. As for actually targeting civilians themselves like the stuff going on in the Cold War, thats just plain wrong.
And I don't know if you're being sarcastic about the "minor nuclear exchange" bit, but I highly doubt that we could live with that. The short term consequences alone would be unprecedentedly disastrous and the long term consequence will undoubtedly lead to more problems.
I still stand by my opinion that civilian casualties will always be there, no matter how good a military's tactics or weaponries are. It's just, war isn't fought on open plains and fields anymore, you know? Even if it does, there'll always be an unlucky farmer getting his nuts blown off in the middle of the night when two opposing armies decides to use his house as a strategic stronghold. I just don't believe that there could ever be such thing as a 'clean' warfare. Especially when wars nowadays are fought where they're not supposed to be fought, you know?
And no, I'm not sure what a limited nuclear exchange will do to us.
Post a Comment