What is Digg?Sponsored by AVG
Windows 7 Needs An Extra Layer of Security view!
free.avg.com - AVG Anti-Virus Free 9.0 works with Windows 7, to provide the best protection against web threats.
204 Comments
- bigredgpk, on 11/01/2007, -5/+108Reminds me of this classic
http://www.webskinz.com/photoshop_intro/projects/comic/calvin_hobbes1.jpg - kevinvsgodzilla, on 11/01/2007, -7/+82I really miss Calvin and Hobbs. Hands down, the best comic strip EVER.
- shyner, on 11/01/2007, -10/+70Often times while I'm re-reading some Calvin and Hobbes I realize that Calvin is truly much more smart than most of the people who we elect as leaders.
- DeskFlyer, on 10/10/2007, -3/+61I miss Bill Waterson. :(
- inactive, on 11/01/2007, -4/+39Oh hell... One of these days, we're gonna have to admit that humanity isn't nearly as evolved as most of us would like to believe.
- DaedalusX, on 10/10/2007, -3/+37No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.
He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country. - LoveWidescreen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+29To quote or at least paraphrase another Calvin and Hobbes: "Sometimes I think the greatest proof that there is intelligent life out there is that none of it has tried to contact us."
- robbie32, on 11/01/2007, -3/+25Having a war usually doesn't solve anything... ever. In fact logically there is no reason that it should. All it does is force the weaker group to submit to the will of the stronger, but not necessarily correct, group. It doesn't determine who is right. It determines who is dead.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -6/+25They don't solve the world's problems. They solve wealthy individual men in leadership positions' problems.
- joshreed104, on 10/10/2007, -2/+21"The only way to win is not to play"
- KyjL, on 11/01/2007, -3/+21Calvin / Hobbes '08
- shyner, on 11/01/2007, -1/+18I kept going between "more smart" and "smarter". Which one is right? Rereading my comment, I now think it's "smarter". My bad.
- KoopaTroopa, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18So, soldiers killing innocent families is helping to enforce the rules of the government?
- LoveWidescreen, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17I support our troops and I support what they're doing in the world, but that doesn't mean that I have to like the fact that they're necessary. War is nothing more than two governments who are pissed off at each other and decide to fight it out -- with the innocent populace getting caught in the middle.
As a teenager, I actually lost sleep during the 80s wondering, "I don't hate Russia or the Russian people. Why the hell should I have to die from a nuclear blast just because the US and Russian governments don't like each other?" - nick111, on 10/10/2007, -4/+16Not very quick on the uptake are you?
This bout of Anti-France propaganda started when France tried to prevent America from making the worst foreign policy blunder in US history and congressman Rob Ney coined the phrase "Freedom Fries", and an era of ***** ensued.
Well the French were right - and Bob Ney has since pleaded guilty to conspiring to defraud the United States. America is Trillions of dollars in debt, the constitution is in tatters... and you're still laughing at the French?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA - Silverbird, on 10/10/2007, -6/+15Soldiers killing soldiers is generally a nonconstructive activity, and doesn't solve the world's problems, per se . However, it is a necessary step towards the ultimate goal of having your soldiers bring their guns to bear against the true enemy, that being the leaders of the opposition. Intermediate goals, such as creating chaos, and civil unrest leading to the unseating of the opposition leadership are accomplished by wiping out the military forces of the opposition. So ultimately, soldiers killing soldiers can be a step in solving the world's problems.
- Koldkompress, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Is that why you hit me and Mommy, Dad?
- nuhrd, on 11/01/2007, -2/+11It harbors animosity. It perpetuates the cycle of needless death, destruction and human suffering. Or do you think those are good things?
- blubadger, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Oh come on guys. There's a sensible answer to this question, but apparently not a single Digger to say it. What are you all - dumb, naive, or just cowardly?
War is SOMETIMES necessary. Soldiers killing soldiers is occasionally, just occasionally, the only right, honorable thing to do. Because diplomatic politics breaks down from time to time. Because states threaten aggression, or commit it. Because tyrants oppress their people and commit atrocities against human decency.
So read up on the theory of the just war. It's a rare phenomenon, but it exists. In recent years soldiers have killed each other in Kosovo, in East Timor, in Sierra Leone, in each case with good reason, unfortunately. And I sure am glad that soldiers killed each other in 1940s Europe. Because, awful though it sounds, the alternative was worse. - MagicCake, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Yeah, "smarter" is the way to go.
- dboylon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10You are wrong. WW1 was fought to a standstill until the US entered. Germany sued for peace and Wilson tried to get France and England to be fair about it...because he sold WW1 as the war to end war. England and France wanted their pound of flesh...and starved Germany...cutting of the country from their normal trading routes and trading partners. Starving the country of resources. Germany suffered a depression. Hitler came to power promissing to restore Germany to greatness. To reverse the wrong that had been done to Germany after WW1. This is how Hitler came to power. Hitler knew that if Germany wanted to be a world power again they had to gain control over trade routes and resources. That is why they went to war. That is why wars are fought. You have a child's view of history. Hitler was a poor leader...arrogant and full of hubris...he didn't go crazy until he started to lose.
- Gongjimein, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9I don't think he's dead. Unless something happened between 2005 (the last wikipedia entry of him) and now. Maybe he cryogenically frozen his head like Walt Disney.
- WhiteRaven, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9There is actually an valid response to this question. Soldiers killing one another does not solve problems but it does address the *root* problems of humanity and can buy for some of us a semblance of peace and security and liberty.
People are prone to being controlled by dogmas. Often, dogmas assert that *all* people must follow the dogma. Whether that dogma is communism or fundamentalist, militant religion, the outcome is the same... a large group of people willing to risk life and limb and commit unspeakable acts against others for the sake of that dogma.
When you are a member of the group known as the "others" you have three choices. Surrender you life, surrender your freedom... or confront the dogma and fight.
Soldiers killing each other doesn't *solve* problems any more than fertilizer solves world hunger... it just does a lot to prevent *worse* problems.
As I said, the root issue is the essential truth that human beings are conditioned to accept dogmas as a part of their social nature. It's part of the way our intelligence accommodates itself to more primitive elements of our biologic nature. In this case, the simple rules of a tribe which so closely resemble a pride of lions must be rationalized and legitimized by our intelligent minds... dogmas are embraced to accomplish this. Unfortunately, the simple framework necessary to rationalize social instincts is soon added to and ends up supporting a hideous beast full of concepts like honor or faith or sin or socio-economic "justice".
It is a sad truth of humanity. Rather than determining our action in a rational manner, our intelligence must accommodate and adapt to our base animal natures... and while nature's struggle has it's own internal logic, it is very much at odds with actual reason. Of course, reason can provide no motivation for living so I guess it's a good thing we're still ruled by, for lack of a better term, instinct. - posneg, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10I like Calvin & Hobbes just as much as anyone (I have all the books) but this cartoon is pretty basic and naive. It's not that easy. One way "soldiers killing each other solve the world's problems" is by preventing an aggressive force from conquering your peaceful land (Germans in Europe, Japanese in Asia, Napoleon in Europe, etc.). Even if your land *is* conquered you did your best and killed as many of the "bad guys" as you could. *That's* how "soldiers killing each other solve the world's problems". (Also, the relativist argument that both sides are aggressors is stupid. Japanese were bad. Germans were bad. Napoleon was bad. The Khmer Rouge was bad. etc.)
- linuxrebel, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9You couldn't be more right about one thing. The one thing every soldier knows is that his #1 function is to be so unbelievable good at their job that a potential enemy is afraid to attack. If the enemy does it is either in shear desperation, and the attack will fail, or it is because we as soldiers failed to properly prepare.
BTW this was originally said by non other than General George Patton. - inactive, on 11/01/2007, -0/+8mostly
- davidhildreth, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10it wasn't ending itself
- general13, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8War goes back to the old school-yard bully metaphor.
If the bully is constantly beating you (or some other poor sap) up, what do you do?
1) Lie there and take it if you aren't strong enough to defend yourself
2) Hope someone stronger comes along and stops him
3) Knock his freaking lights out
When someone ceases to play by "The Rules," the only choice you have is to take him out of "The Game."
In life, there are people who will not be stopped by friendly conversation. When that happens, the only resort you have is physical force. It's pretty simple really. - Novagenesis, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9They got you, too, huh?
Hitler was Times man of the year and photographed with the pope only a few years before WW2. He began a war of conquest; it was not really forbidden then, considering France did the same thing in Vietname a decade or two later with our support.
We stayed neutral in that war, but smuggled goods to our buddies Britain (who opposed Germany in fear he was going to look towards them...rightly so).
We joined that war because Japan bombed us for our breaking neutrality. (we still villainize their 100% legal military act that we responded to by attacking civilian centers in Japan and eventually concluded by launching Weapons of Mass Destruction on population centers, breaking just about every human rights law that's come about since then.)
After the war ended, we found out that Hitler really did want world domination, and that he was killing Jews. Scribble scribble in the history book, and now we're heroes.
History is written by the winner. - comictrio, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11Amazing how a fictitious character has more brains then any leader in the history of mankind.
- jtbandes, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8O_O He died? Why did nobody tell me...
- jsh22, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7How many years will it take for everyone to learn to use your/you're correctly?
- DracoFlameus, on 11/01/2007, -1/+7Don't feed the troll
- AnteChronos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6And if there is a god, then ethics are nothing more than his whim. How can you be ethical when you've essentially defined "ethical" to mean "what someone more powerful than me tells me to do"? That seems much *less* ethical than deriving your ethics logically from first principles.
- themakasu, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7your father obviously has a stupid kid.
- onewingedangel9, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6100% of your comment carries no references.
- Waiting2awake, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5His living hurts me...does that count?
Probably not... *shrugs* - CptnObvious, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7You were doing good until you mentioned god. I personally don't believe in god, I believe in forming my own views and not living by what anyone else believe I should do (such as god). I have my own ideals and believe in being an ethical atheist. That's just my belief though, you are open to your own.
- ashoichet, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Answer:
Soldiers are supposed to solve the world's problems by defending the civilians of their country from attacks by other countries or by terrorists. A country that lives in peace and security is a country that can prosper and it's citizens can live well-fed and happy, enjoying the fruits of their labor. The citizens of a country whose soldiers can't provide security usually end up being exploited, despoiled or killed. - WhiteRaven, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5A teenager can be forgiven for thinking that way but do you now understand what was actually going on?
People are prone to being controlled by dogmas. Often, dogmas assert that *all* people must follow the dogma. Whether that dogma is communism or fundamentalist, militant religion, the outcome is the same... a large group of people willing to risk life and limb and commit unspeakable acts against others for the sake of that dogma.
When you are a member of the group known as the "others" you have three choices. Surrender you life, surrender your freedom... or confront the dogma and fight.
Soldiers killing each other doesn't *solve* problems any more than fertilizer solves world hunger... it just does a lot to prevent *worse* problems.
As I hinted at, the root issue is the essential truth that human beings are conditioned to accept dogmas as a part of their social nature. It's part of the way our intelligence accommodates itself to more primitive elements of our biologic nature. In this case, the simple rules of a tribe which so closely resemble a pride of lions must be rationalized and legitimized by our intelligent minds... dogmas are embraced to accomplish this. Unfortunately, the simple framework necessary to rationalize social instincts is soon added to and ends up supporting a hideous beast full of concepts like honor or faith or sin or socio-economic "justice".
It is a sad truth of humanity. Rather than determining our action in a rational manner, our intelligence must accommodate and adapt to our base animal natures... and while nature's struggle has it's own internal logic, it is very much at odds with actual reason. Of course, reason can provide no motivation for living so I guess it's a good thing we're still ruled by, for lack of a better term, instinct. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5An opinion that I happen to share. Thank you for your idiotic ad hominem crap. The fact that he makes comics has anything to do with the validity of his statement? Besides, no one's saying they base their life on his works, merely acknowledging that he just went out and said what we've all been thinking.
- BAFrayd, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6 People love to equate the evolution of technology with the evolution of humanity...
Our humanity hasn't evolved at all. Never will. The only thing that has evolved is our technology. - pype, on 10/10/2007, -1/+621,387, 234,187 - roughly
- davidhildreth, on 10/10/2007, -6/+11yea, it's pretty hard to argue that it's never worked
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5For a war is just for those to whom it is necessary, and arms are sacred when there is no hope except in arms.
People give up their lives for many reasons. For friendship, for love, for an ideal, and people kill for the same reasons... Before China was one great country, it was divided into seven warring states. In the Kingdom of Qin was a ruthless ruler. He had a vision - To unite the land, to put an end, once and for all, to war. It was an idea soaked in the blood of his enemies. - robbie32, on 10/10/2007, -7/+12I believe you have confused "solving" and "ending."
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6because if we don't fight back, it's just soldiers fighting normal people
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4And what you need ot realize is that the absense of armed conflict is not necessarily peace. The world was not at peace in the 90s.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 208 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
