10-01-2024, 07:30 PM
This post was last modified 10-02-2024, 12:16 AM by Maxmars.
Edit Reason: grammar
I always felt that such claims as 90% were MIC "marketing." In my mind I always apply a +/- 30-40% to any such claims... it's what they can 'get away with" given 'explanations' for every deficit in outcomes. In the very beginning, weapons of war, are all simple "products;" meaning they exist simply to be sold for war. Commerce compels 'selling' which always 'compliments' the product. The Iron Dome is a "product" (system) for sale.
In its' use I would applaud anything that saves lives. Even if it were only 20-30% effective that would mean many innocents were ultimately saved from indiscriminate bombing... it seems that it would be worth using, given that.
But this is one of those things that's ironic. You see they entire notion of "throwing rocks to hurt people" seems indiscriminate... the justification for killing "whoever is around" should always be always 'suspect.'
We live in a world where too many leaders of states are willing to "pay a bunch of money" to be able to slaughter their targets... with many seeming not just willing, but eager to do... the rest is just ideological, political, racist, or other bullshit leaders leverage against the compliance of their subject citizens.
Leaders make war, and we are all told (usually by them,) that "we" just accept (and even love) that the victimization of innocents is somehow "regrettably unavoidable, and thus, tolerable."
Where the real red flag soars above all others is the commonly promulgated notion that "There are no innocents" (while never adding "... among our leaders' targets.")
Oops, sorry went all deep and shit.
I hate war as an 'option.' When it is a defensive necessity it is not a problem... until your own 'offense' proves you to be no different then those who attacked you.
It is true:
War is hell,
War never changes,
War is about killing.
War leads to "becoming" exactly like your enemy.
In its' use I would applaud anything that saves lives. Even if it were only 20-30% effective that would mean many innocents were ultimately saved from indiscriminate bombing... it seems that it would be worth using, given that.
But this is one of those things that's ironic. You see they entire notion of "throwing rocks to hurt people" seems indiscriminate... the justification for killing "whoever is around" should always be always 'suspect.'
We live in a world where too many leaders of states are willing to "pay a bunch of money" to be able to slaughter their targets... with many seeming not just willing, but eager to do... the rest is just ideological, political, racist, or other bullshit leaders leverage against the compliance of their subject citizens.
Leaders make war, and we are all told (usually by them,) that "we" just accept (and even love) that the victimization of innocents is somehow "regrettably unavoidable, and thus, tolerable."
Where the real red flag soars above all others is the commonly promulgated notion that "There are no innocents" (while never adding "... among our leaders' targets.")
Oops, sorry went all deep and shit.
I hate war as an 'option.' When it is a defensive necessity it is not a problem... until your own 'offense' proves you to be no different then those who attacked you.
It is true:
War is hell,
War never changes,
War is about killing.
War leads to "becoming" exactly like your enemy.
