Bombs Go Off at Finish Line of Boston Marathon

[Violet]

And yet, Vae, those who actually go to war in the modern day are always a minority percentage of the population of the nation waging said war. Last time we had total war was WWII, and as I recall that was caused by two aggressive nations dragging about a dozen other nations into defending themselves and their interests...a minority as opposed to a majority. And, well, we all see what happens when the minority aggressors go up against the majority defenders.

Every civilian is waging war when their government does war declare... you'll note that they are providing for the war effort with their taxes, their infrastructure, and by making more babies. It's all well and good to attack the combat soldiers of your enemy... but it's usually cheaper, safer, and of higher an impact upon them to annihilate the (typically) lightly defended infrastructure and massed populations of them.

I see what happens: the aggressors nearly win, and are beaten only with a last-minute alliance... and by themselves overextending. See: had hitler's landgrab stopped with a fair portion of Europe, he could have had his people hold that territory for a while as he gained a powerful lead, and then continued. In small bursts, defending every new line drawn. Assaulting Russia when he did was a major mistake on his part (albeit if I were him, I too might have eagerly looked upon the lightly defended Russian west flank).

Had japan stopped with IndoChina, they likely could have had the materials they would have needed for their war effort within a few years... and then continued the landgrab. In small bursts, economizing the former lands of the weak. Their assault upon the USA accelerated the country into the war... I know the concern of their leaders, but still: I believe they would have been better served to colonize IndoChina and establish a larger warbeast.

War is a different story as it is; it's done for a reason, though sometimes a really bad reason...and how strange indeed that aggressive nations are often looked down upon in history when their only goal was conquest. The mongols led a mighty conquest across Asia and while they may have brought roads and trade to many nations and peoples, we still look down on them because they were murderous bloodthirsty warmongers. The only people who venerate them are the macho-man chest-beating types who think they were totally awesome because they were totally killy, not realizing that if they were alive in those days, the mongols would've cut them down just as happily as anyone else.

Just about everything done by a person is done for a reason, I find... whether the doer is aware of that reason or not. Aggressive nations are looked down upon by some people, others might similarly look down upon the passive nations who were weak enough to be conquered by the aggressive nations some would sneer upon

I do venerate the mongols... they made a mighty nation for a time, and a moderately progressive one at that. What I remember of the mongols is not their murderousness... it is their mercy: allowing surrender and a tax, for continued sovereignity. If you find them to be particularly bloodthirsty, I'd have to wonder what you thought of most nations who've started a war, or taken land.

I think they were awesome because they were successful

The Romans are perhaps one of the sole examples of a civilization that was a war-power that are still respected, and this is largely because they were highly disciplined and in their wake, those conquered benefited from being brought under Roman control, for the most part.

The Romans are your 'one good empire' example?

I imagine that those they conquered *would* benefit, seeing as the romans happily engaged in that whole 'infrastructure building' thing.

It all depends on the reason. Reason is what differentiates whether what you do is good or bad. Even if it's good to you, if it harms the greater whole, it's bad. Ad populum.

No... morality is what differentiates between good and bad. Under your morals, a larger population being conquered by a smaller population is bad. Under mine... this is good, as clearly the smaller nation can make more effective use of what it has than the larger population. Efficiency, y'know?

Bombing a marathon isn't good. Nor is it even really something to joke about happening. Besides, you know precisely what society I was talking about, don't be coy. ;D Or, actually, keep being coy, it's one of the things we love about ya.

I joke about everything under the sun... certainly don't see anything particularly special about this happening.

As for the society you're talking about, I'm actually not a fan of it. Sure, I appreciate some bits of it, but these are only because I'm in a medical minority. Once that annoyance is fixed: someone can shake things up as much as they like, for all I care