Is war fun?

I swear to god these recent pro war posts are done by some shill at the Pentagon to get young dumb fucks excited about invading Iran

i wish a country declared war on africa.
Id be the first to sign up.

That's not true though. There are plenty of men who enjoy war. It's just that, the Blundens and the Graveses sell more books than the Jungers or the Grenfells. The idea that "war is hell" is arguably more of a myth than the idea that war is a grand adventure.

The overwhelming positive emotion felt about war is in retrospective. The knowledge that you were tested and passed, modulo how fucked up you are (I was not at all).

>The woman who has not had a child remains incomplete, ill at ease, and more than a little ridiculous. She is in the position of a man who has never stood in battle; she has missed the most colossal experience of her sex.

Is it "fun"? No, the word is a category error. Is it a positive experience? It can be. Obviously dying and losing body parts is not fun or good. But to know that you could have, and yet you didn't...By the deaths of our comrades are we glorified.

One thing to remember, and it was a guy named James Lafond who helped me put this into words, is the difference between violence as a dominance display and violence as predation. Dominating violence can be "fun" -- picture a bully, or a bunch of nigs stomping on some guy. Modern combat, with its insanely lethal weapons, is pure predation. You feel satisfaction when you do it right, but it's not "fun". The psychological aspects of PTSD are caused by being the victim of predatory violence, by the way (the physical aspects are caused by the effects of high explosives on brain matter).

There's one huge exception: when you have "won" a head-to-head battle, even if it's just a bullshit skirmish which is all I ever saw, there is a feeling of euphoria. I have felt it, others have felt it, and you can find it in the history books when you know to look for it. That feeling (and its opposite) is how you *really* know who won or lost.

I think the positive experiences of combat veterans are actively suppressed by our rulers, who fear the martial virtues either knowingly or intuitively. Much of the "automation" of warfare is driven by a desire to minimize the number of fighting men, of people who have learned intimately that there are virtues infinitely higher than how much money you can make, and that they're readily accessible to the average man.

If you want to ransack Africa all you have to do is join a massive corporation and deplete them of all their resources

I don't think that fun is a good way to describe it. Modern war is certainly a waste of time. Pre-industrial warfare is certainly more interesting. There's the thrill of domination, and the promise of spoils and glory/prestige awaiting the victor, but the fear of death, humiliation, and annihilation is never fun.

>The woman who has not had a child remains incomplete, ill at ease, and more than a little ridiculous. She is in the position of a man who has never stood in battle; she has missed the most colossal experience of her sex.
Fuck. What's the point then, if I cant ever experience combat?

>We're going to war with Iran!!!

says increasingly nervous man for the 50th time in the last three years

Attached: Fawlty.jpg (882x674, 59K)

That's just one dude's opinion man. I'm a combat vet too and I think there is waaaay more to life than war. Better than anything I have ever experienced is the thrill of seeing the business I started begin to be successful

Do you not see that tensions have escalated significantly? Sure, you could argue that Trump is too petty, unprincipled and cowardly to actually do it, but the thing is, escalating tensions increase the risk of war even if neither side is interested. Think of it like a fire. If you've got a bunch of firewood and its safely stored as though its new, you can have a few sparks here and there and you're probably going to be fine. That's peacetime. If your firewood is all set up for a pyre with accelerants and everything, a spark could set the whole thing off. That's what we have now. Tensions close off diplomatic avenues for solving problems. The whole thing with the Saudi oil facilities happened a mere few days ago. Trump said that they're "locked and loaded". Any reasonable person would be alarmed. I hope the fucker actually does it and that you /pol/tards get conscripted and die for the freedom of saudi oil.

>thrill of seeing the business I started begin to be successful
t. Bugman.

go away aspie

bugmen work for someone else, they don't create something new

Attached: 1502420962565.jpg (613x533, 107K)

bro shut up lol nothing ever happens, get off the internet for a bit

I’m sure your tales of successfully navigating the market will thrill your grandkids.

t. SEETHING bugman.

pretty sure you're arguing with 3 different anons, of which at most 1 is bug

It's the same guy who got triggered.

I am the third and only the third (you) I don't nkow why you replied to me

This is like a sex haver telling an incel that theres more to life than sex. Thanks for a worthless post, douche

Whatever you say, bug.

There is more to life than having sex... There's more to life than combat, there's more to life than building a successful business. I don't see what the problem is

that isnt fair

>you need to experience fucking stalingrad to guarantee success on your kids

Aerial and armored combat is the spiritual rebirth of the aryan war chariot tradition

Attached: 0aaa.jpg (736x734, 83K)

red pill me on jungers

>Read Junger
>Begin feeling compulsion to consume other war-related books and shows
>Begin having dreams about various kinds of combat
>Re-watch Generation Kill and unironically get psyched up when Ray is talking about how peace is for commie hippies and that they're bloodthirsty warriors that hope the Iraq war happens
>Kindle has Storm of Steel, The Bronze Age Mindset and The Metaphysics of War on it
>Have spoken to my local reserves recruiter

Is this what it feels like to be a baby crazy 20 year old girl? Why do I even have this photo saved on my computer

Attached: 1552591427932.jpg (2833x1877, 1.88M)

Shut the fuck up bug

Delusional freak. Have fun being blown up by drones, IEDs, air strikes, and random nobodies who were shooting in your general direction from a hundred metres away.

simulated one yes
like playing chess etc is fun

A woman wrote this post

War has always been a meme to extent, but that’s exceptionally so for modern conflicts (yes, including Junger)

Go die for the rights and freedoms of Saudi oil, you retard.

go back to /pol/ brainlet

>Is this what it feels like to be a baby crazy 20 year old girl?
Yep.

>user, it's dangerous!!!! don't do it, it's not SAFE!
actually the real reason not to join is that you won't see any combat.

If it wasn't then why would it happen so often?

>being anti-war is /pol/
what the fuck am i reading. i'm not him but holy shit your post is something else

What exactly are you trying to communicate here
What delusions do you think I am under?

>user, it's dangerous!!!! don't do it, it's not SAFE!
That wasn't my point. The image of war you have in mind is warriors clashing with one another, putting their life on their line to gain glory or give it, like something out of Homer. In reality, you're just a cog in a modern soulless war machine where you're probably the least significant part of the whole operation. Modern warfare is drones, missiles, and aircraft. Those forms of combat involve pushing buttons. Meatbags exist to get blown up by the above things, and even if you do get human on human combat it's just a hazy mess where both sides spray bullets at opponents they can barely see. Sorry, but you won't get to be Aias or Achilles. Just a dumb fucker who will guard some oil well for an American oil company.

>What delusions do you think I am under?
See . To summarize, modern warfare is completely bereft of anything you'd find appealing from the media you consume.

Let's see them hooves, ma'am

This was more true of WWI than modern oil escapade wars. At The Somme odds were that you wouldn't have a chance to use your rifle, walking into artillery fire basically vaporized you. In 2003 and today in Afghanistan there are soldiers kicking down doors. You can still die to an IED, sniper etc. but it is not the meat grinder of WWI. Can you really call tard-wrangling a bunch of stone age tribals with AKs modern war?

Yeah it seems appealing when you think about it, but it actually might be a lot of hard work and I don't wanna die so not for me.

Again, I'm not talking to the high amount of danger or lack thereof. What I'm drawing attention to is the nature of warfare. Even in Afganistan, warfare is carried out by drone strikes and the likes. Even when you do have infantry battles, firefights are nowhere near as exciting as they are in video games. There's no real struggle between humans. They could literally replace these men with children - hell, actual child soldiers are in fact used. A literal child can do battle with guns. There's no real element of skill or prowess involved in this whole thing. But like I said, this is not important because it's going to be some literally-who piloting a drone who will be doing all the work.
>Afghanistan there are soldiers kicking down doors
Yeah, you get to terrorize some civilians once in a while. But what's the point? You can't take any loot - even if they had any - nor slaves. What's the point of this?

>They could literally replace these men with children - hell, actual child soldiers are in fact used.
I don't actually know if this is true in Afghanistan specifically, but that's beside the point. I'm just saying that modern warfare lacks any meaningful struggle between humans. It's a contest between modern war machines.

What about Special Forces user? Surely, there is some skill and meaning behind what they do

>Modern warfare is drones, missiles, and aircraft.
It involves those things, but it is not only those things. You may have noticed that drones, missiles, and aircraft have repeatedly failed to achieve victory in a number recent wars. This is because those wars are waged by people who share your erroneous belief that there is no need for physical occupation of territory to win.

>hey could literally replace these men with children - hell, actual child soldiers are in fact used. A literal child can do battle with guns. There's no real element of skill or prowess involved in this whole thing.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Child soldiers are used exclusively by military forces that prey on the defenseless. Why? Because they're worthless against actual adult male soldiers.

For all your posturing, YOU are the one whose conception of warfare comes from video games (where indeed children are as effective as adults -- because the actual physicality of combat is completely removed) and media/nerd propaganda about how we don't need warriors anymore because THIS TIME when we say we'll press buttons to win forever it will turn out to actually be true instead of failing again.

>There's no real struggle between humans
>nowhere near as exciting as they are in video games
I think that's an exceptionally bold claim for a person who hasn't served. I imagine walking along a ridgline in Kandahar and being lit up by AK fire is quite intense. The fact that the majority of work is being done by dronestrikes is irrelevant. I couldn't care less if the drone pilot does more in one afternoon than I would in an entire tour.
>You can't take any loot - even if they had any - nor slaves. What's the point of this?
This is the closest thing to a good point you've made
The answer is exhilaration

>firearms
>can't take loot and slaves
I don't personally think I believe this, but here's some food for thought:

Firearms provide a means for the common man to stand against even those of heroic physical ability. It is really the would-be Achilles who are stymied by gunpowder, not the anonymous soldier. The democratization of martial virtue.

Further, the very absence of material gain purifies the exhilaration felt by soldiers in danger, and the euphoria of victory. Moneygrubbers are weeded out of the ranks to go join fintech startups.

You're right. But new castes have emerged. Junger and Remarque- one was a warrior, the other was not. Junger was not the same type of man Achilles was, but he has taken the role Achilles filled.

There wont be a war because the Saudis arent prepared for a war.

The USA did nothing when the Iranians gunned down that drone, so the USA are not gonna do anything for the oil refinery attack, whose perpetrator isnt clear.

All this war talk is for playing with oil prices, someone connected to the Trump administration must be making a fortune by short selling in the oil market.

The issue with WWI is that the combatant powers ran out of warriors and had to start conscripting the assistant professor of literature. Most of these guys, to their immense credit, went ahead and did their duty, but of course they didn't like it.

There's no question that technology has changed the form of valor, but the essence is still there.

>Trump is too petty, unprincipled and cowardly to actually do it
I think he has principles and that's why he won't do it. Fuck starting another war

Although they didn't start out that way, Special Forces are becoming a mystery cult of valor. The entire point is to confine combat experience and the associated status and virtue to a small, highly selected "elite" group rather than to the average male citizen.

How the fick did you get that from the post?

You're much better off feeling the initial thrill of battle by doing some real, full contact combat sports and actually fighting someone than getting blown up by an IED or drone controlled by an aspie 100 kilometers away

this

Interesting perspective post. Have you read Starship Troopers?

Bolton being fired probably unironically reduced chances of a new Iran war by 30%.

Tensions, especially concerning the strait of Hormuz, have escalated to unprecedented heights. I wouldn't be surprised.

Why do you feel so strongly about topics you know nothing of?

To further elaborate: the glory of combat on the most basic human level is feeling your own strength, witnessing your power by defeating another man. This is hopelessly lost in modern combat, the only thing that is left is the "locker room" atmosphere and the bonds that combat can forge. But these things are secondary compared to the initial experience of defeating another man in combat.

Modern war is mostly wandering around trying to avoid stepping on something that's going to explode and remove your genitalia and/or legs.

close combat is not obsolete

But would you agree that it is exceptionally rare in modern war?

This, modern war is fucking soulless. Someone should make a meme pic with a painted scene of the Iliad with SOUL above it and a pic from some modern desert war with SOULLESS above it.

Of course, this changes with environment though. SF will also always be around, too.

"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them. Actually it's quite fun to fight them, you know. It's a hell of a hoot. It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right up there with you. I like brawling."

Attached: troll-in-chief.jpg (992x558, 41K)

This guy is a major character in Evelyn Waugh's Sword of Honour trilogy, which is well worth a read

based “cultural sensitivity” Mattis

because what good does war do to you if theres a chance of no surviving to even greet your kids? best you could do is train/prep for YOURSELF and the wisdom you'll ever need to pass it down to your kids are from literature

Selection bias. The guys who got immolated by a mortar in the first ten seconds aren't around to tell their stories

Fun for whom? The soldiers on the winning side? The losing side? The civilians in the middle?

>I ordered an airstrike on some defenceless shepherds and enjoyed it and feel my manhood is somehow enhanced by this