The Woodward Academy, Year 8

Safely clean and repair Windows Registry problems with a few simple mouse clicks! Naturally Attract Power, Wealth and Success Into Your Life! Find the perfect tattoo for you!


The entire thread can be found here
2019-Jul-7 @ 12:11 AM
mrd3510
Tipsy
Member since 2017-Mar-27
Posts: 2

Thanks Eric, I had missed the distinctions between the wall and field.


-----

2019-Jul-7 @ 9:21 AM
Wyvern
Tipsy
Member since 2008-Nov-4
Posts: 2

Eric Storm wrote:

Killing non-combatants would almost certainly be against any international law.  For the king to issue the order himself would have to be a violation of international treaties.  Treaty violation is an arrestable offense for a sitting king, and thus David, as the "closest" Rimohr to the situation, would be tasked with arresting him.

This would either lead to chaos, as no line of succession exists, or REAL chaos, if the royal court tried to defend the king (which would lead to a lot of dead royal court).

Eric Storm

This is leaving out the fact that the Vrudenan troops are slaughtering, raping etc.  Callamandian citizens as they go.  Also, troops are designated as expendable; that's why they are sent out to fight.  To break the will of the people, you have to destroy and kill those things and those people that are not considered expendable.  The American Civil War, WWII in both Europe and Japan ended because the civilian population became casualties, and even their oppressive governments (In the case of Japan and Germany, and even the CFA if you include slavery as oppression) could no longer stomach the cost of the fight.  As David himself noted, Vrudenan citizens have wands, too, not just the soldiers.  If they wanted the war to stop, in enough numbers, it would stop.  Once it is actual War, there is no such thing as an invalid target.  Selective targeting doesn't work, just ask Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, and Afghanistan.  Trying to do so instead of destroying until your opponent gives up is a recipe for the conflict/occupation going on forever, that is if you don't lose outright.


-----

2019-Jul-7 @ 10:53 AM
Eric Storm
Pub Owner
Member since 2006-Sep-13
Posts: 4363

So your rationale is, "Because my enemy is a barbaric shithole, I need to be a barbaric shithole, too."  There is such a thing as morality, you know... the "good guys" aren't supposed to do evil things.  Yes, there ARE such things as invalid targets, and people who aren't involved in the war effort qualify.

I'm sorry, but targeting the general populace is NOT a useful tactic.  EVER.  The only civilians who are legitimate targets are those that are part of the war effort:  factory workers, truck drivers, etc.  And you're not targeting the people, they just happen to be inside the building or vehicle you ARE targeting.

You win a war by either stripping the military's ability to fight any further, or by convincing the leadership that you have the ability to do so, and that you will absolutely do so if they don't stop.

People who start wars of aggression tend not to give much of a damn about their own people, so the death of their citizenry rarely has much meaning to them. 

Germany, for instance, did not "give up" because of all their civilians that had died.  They surrendered because they were overrun by enemy military units.  The Allies were entering Berlin at the end of that war: it's very hard to NOT surrender with the enemy's gun pointed at your head (metaphorically speaking).

There is some debate, actually, as to why Japan surrendered (some think it was the entry of the Russians into the Pacific theater).  In any case, they were contemplating surrender LONG before the atomic bombs were dropped.

And the CSA didn't even surrender as a country.  The capital of the CSA had been overrun, and its leadership had fled, so there really was no one who COULD surrender on behalf of the CSA.  Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox, but only surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia, not the CSA.  And Lee surrendered not out of concern for the civilians, but because his army was out of supplies, and Grant basically told him, "Surrender, or we will wipe you out."  And he had the troops to make Lee believe that.

My point in all this being: these wars were not won because we indiscriminately laid waste to the civilian populace.  They were won because we took out strategic targets without too much concern with whether or not there were civilians in the way.  THIS is the thing we are no longer willing to do, and why we continue to struggle to win wars.  It's not about destroying the civilians, it's about not giving them special consideration if they're too close to an actual target.

Eric Storm


-----
Please Remember:  The right to Freedom of Speech does not carry the proviso, "As long as it doesn't upset anyone."  The US Constitution does not grant you the right to not be offended.  If you don't like what someone's saying... IGNORE THEM.
----
Please don't be an asshole to me, because then I'll have to be an asshole to you... and I'm MUCH better at being an asshole than you are.
2019-Jul-8 @ 2:51 AM
thehilz
Wasted
Member since 2010-Sep-7
Posts: 240

Great chapter. Interesting how far David is willing to go to help Jenny. I’ve always leaned towards Zyla being the other woman for David but now it’s becoming a harder to pick one. Not to mention Denise is looking to be more available than was in the past.


-----

2019-Jul-8 @ 2:54 AM
Timberwolf92
Inebriated
Member since 2015-Dec-11
Posts: 48

Great chapter as always Eric. Especially loved the Giselle and Jenny tie-ins.

(posted from Chapter 3: August)


-----

2019-Jul-8 @ 10:08 AM
StoryJunkie
Wasted
Member since 2010-Dec-31
Posts: 184

I know we all give you a ration of shit about how long it takes for a new chapter lately....but you know it's (mostly) done in fun......that said, another great chapter, it was kind of surprising (in a good way) to see someone (no spoilers) from an earlier year make another appearance.

(posted from Chapter 3: August)


-----

2019-Jul-8 @ 3:31 PM
Drowsy
Inebriated
Member since 2011-Oct-9
Posts: 23

I have to say I thought David was talking about catnip at the beginning of the chapter


-----

2019-Jul-8 @ 5:15 PM
bigfoot
Inebriated
Member since 2016-May-6
Posts: 65

If I understand your Omniportal theory correctly, should the Vrudenans discover the Omniportal, it can be directed so the entire Vrudenan army could simply walk into David's attic in Pendergrast Manor. Ouch! It just went from being the safest place in Bolmont to potentially the sketchiest.


-----

2019-Jul-8 @ 8:04 PM
Eric Storm
Pub Owner
Member since 2006-Sep-13
Posts: 4363

Not a whole lot of it would exactly fit in his attic.  And as there is no door out of the attic, they'd have to make rather a lot of noise - giving ample warning - before they'd be able to do any real harm.

And... hmmm.  There's a good question, though.  How does the OmniPortal deal with nodes that already have established portals connected to them?  I'll have to think about that for a while.

Drowsy: Catnip is not a food, it's a low-grade toxin.  Your cat is, in fact, "high".  That would actually be chemical warfare.

Eric Storm


-----
Please Remember:  The right to Freedom of Speech does not carry the proviso, "As long as it doesn't upset anyone."  The US Constitution does not grant you the right to not be offended.  If you don't like what someone's saying... IGNORE THEM.
----
Please don't be an asshole to me, because then I'll have to be an asshole to you... and I'm MUCH better at being an asshole than you are.
2019-Jul-9 @ 4:31 AM
thehilz
Wasted
Member since 2010-Sep-7
Posts: 240

Is it possible for the were races to have offspring together? I remember that during a magical creatures familiarization seminar it was said that that weres can have children with humans but between other were races wasn’t discussed. If they are able to have children together what kind will the child be? Will it be either one or the other or a hybrid of the two?


-----

2019-Jul-9 @ 10:27 AM
Eric Storm
Pub Owner
Member since 2006-Sep-13
Posts: 4363

Can cats and dogs have children?

Weres have a human half.  That is why they can cross-breed with people.  And ONLY with people.  (Well, yes, and with whatever animal they have half of, if you want to get gross...)

Eric Storm


-----
Please Remember:  The right to Freedom of Speech does not carry the proviso, "As long as it doesn't upset anyone."  The US Constitution does not grant you the right to not be offended.  If you don't like what someone's saying... IGNORE THEM.
----
Please don't be an asshole to me, because then I'll have to be an asshole to you... and I'm MUCH better at being an asshole than you are.
2019-Jul-9 @ 9:54 PM
neolyn
Inebriated
Member since 2016-Feb-13
Posts: 67

Eric Storm wrote:

Can cats and dogs have children?

Weres have a human half.  That is why they can cross-breed with people.  And ONLY with people.  (Well, yes, and with whatever animal they have half of, if you want to get gross...)

Eric Storm

Say the guy that wrote multiple scenes with half-humans... and one particular scene in justice seven ...

But I do agree. Every time I read Bistander stories I have to skip those parts. Even though they are written well, such a shame.


-----

2019-Jul-9 @ 10:00 PM
Eric Storm
Pub Owner
Member since 2006-Sep-13
Posts: 4363

half-humans are sentient.  And so was the "dog" in Justice Seven.

Eric Storm


-----
Please Remember:  The right to Freedom of Speech does not carry the proviso, "As long as it doesn't upset anyone."  The US Constitution does not grant you the right to not be offended.  If you don't like what someone's saying... IGNORE THEM.
----
Please don't be an asshole to me, because then I'll have to be an asshole to you... and I'm MUCH better at being an asshole than you are.
2019-Jul-9 @ 10:00 PM
Eric Storm
Pub Owner
Member since 2006-Sep-13
Posts: 4363

And actually, there were TWO particular scenes in Justice Seven, as Loki and Cammie did it as dogs during their scene together.

Eric Storm


-----
Please Remember:  The right to Freedom of Speech does not carry the proviso, "As long as it doesn't upset anyone."  The US Constitution does not grant you the right to not be offended.  If you don't like what someone's saying... IGNORE THEM.
----
Please don't be an asshole to me, because then I'll have to be an asshole to you... and I'm MUCH better at being an asshole than you are.
2019-Jul-11 @ 2:12 AM
neolyn
Inebriated
Member since 2016-Feb-13
Posts: 67

Most animals are sentient... and humans ARE  animals.

Anyway ... Yes I was talking about THAT scene with Loki and Cammie.


-----

2019-Jul-11 @ 3:41 AM
Eric Storm
Pub Owner
Member since 2006-Sep-13
Posts: 4363

I'm reasonably certain you know what I meant by "sentient", so your reply is disingenuous at best.

And that was not the only scene in which Loki took dog form.  He also had sex with Allison as a dog.

Eric Storm


-----
Please Remember:  The right to Freedom of Speech does not carry the proviso, "As long as it doesn't upset anyone."  The US Constitution does not grant you the right to not be offended.  If you don't like what someone's saying... IGNORE THEM.
----
Please don't be an asshole to me, because then I'll have to be an asshole to you... and I'm MUCH better at being an asshole than you are.
2019-Jul-11 @ 11:59 AM
Elessar
Wasted
Member since 2009-Oct-28
Posts: 148

I'm not sure what the point of arguing a scene or story line in a book with the person who wrote it. He may dislike those kinds of scenes, however, for the sake of the story line, it had to have been written.

neolyn wrote:

Most animals are sentient... and humans ARE  animals.

Anyway ... Yes I was talking about THAT scene with Loki and Cammie.


-----

2019-Jul-11 @ 10:41 PM
Maverick7508
Inebriated
Member since 2012-Feb-4
Posts: 33

When it comes to history, the Japanese in WW2 had just finished legislation that would have drafted over 20 million civilians for militia duties. Also, due to the American/British side stopping short, the Russians got to Berlin first. They proceeded to shell they city with every artillery piece they could get their hands on. Those same troops wiped out at least 1 german city of civilians on their way there. Their are many examples from WW2 alone of atrocities against civilians and the perpetrators in some would surprise you.
Personally, I am of the school that precise, controlled violence to prove a point is best, to minimize war time and losses on both sides. Sadly, war never goes that way.

(posted from the Item Information Page)


-----

2019-Jul-12 @ 8:33 PM
Maverick7508
Inebriated
Member since 2012-Feb-4
Posts: 33

Still though, Ch. 3 was awesome.

(posted from the Item Information Page)


-----

2019-Jul-12 @ 10:54 PM
Eric Storm
Pub Owner
Member since 2006-Sep-13
Posts: 4363

I never said that armies didn't kill civilians stupidly.  I said it wasn't useful toward winning the war.  Also, at least in the example you pointed out, I'd like to point out you're talking about the Soviet Union under Stalin.  The man killed 20 million of HIS OWN people.  What the hell were Germans to him?

Eric Storm


-----
Please Remember:  The right to Freedom of Speech does not carry the proviso, "As long as it doesn't upset anyone."  The US Constitution does not grant you the right to not be offended.  If you don't like what someone's saying... IGNORE THEM.
----
Please don't be an asshole to me, because then I'll have to be an asshole to you... and I'm MUCH better at being an asshole than you are.
2019-Jul-13 @ 12:32 AM
Blackie
Contributor
Member since 2017-Jul-13
Posts: 68

I'm finding it odd this turned into a discussion of Military History and nature of conducting war.

I'd dispute the usefulness of military actions against civilians. After all, once Rome beat Carthage they took almost the entire population as slaves, killed them, or made it impossible to live without relocating by salting the fields.

WWII the desperation level hadn't been reached in Japan when they surrendered, but the blockade was already producing a savage famine in Japan. Another six months of that and several millions of civilians would have died. The military were given a priority on food.

Shrug. I'm not saying one should target civilians, or that it is ethical. None the less, war is not about ethics, it's about winning. Heinlein is the one who pointed out the example of Carthage for the fact violence settles more than you'd imagine.


-----
-Himself

"Typos are very important to all written form. It gives the reader something to look for so they aren't distracted by the total lack of content in your writing." -Randy K. Milholland
2019-Jul-13 @ 3:28 AM
Eric Storm
Pub Owner
Member since 2006-Sep-13
Posts: 4363

But listen to what you wrote:  once Rome beat Carthage... (emphasis added).  Point being that the battle was already won.  What they did afterward was not about winning, it was about punishment, and encouraging the next group of people to not be so stubborn.

As to the blockade of Japan:  Was the Allies' goal to starve the people, or to starve the military?  I realize that it makes little difference to the starving citizenry, but it makes a big difference to the point I was originally trying to make:  You fight a war by removing the military's ability to fight, without much consideration for the civilians that get hurt collaterally.  If the military always gets first dibs on food, and you're trying to remove the military's food supply, then the civilians will suffer consequently, but the civilians were still not your target.  They were... "in your way".


-----
Please Remember:  The right to Freedom of Speech does not carry the proviso, "As long as it doesn't upset anyone."  The US Constitution does not grant you the right to not be offended.  If you don't like what someone's saying... IGNORE THEM.
----
Please don't be an asshole to me, because then I'll have to be an asshole to you... and I'm MUCH better at being an asshole than you are.
2019-Jul-13 @ 7:17 PM
Barbarian3165
Completely Blotto
Member since 2015-Feb-11
Posts: 270

I'm not saying I remember my history correctly, but I believe either Genghis khan or else one of the early muslim nations offered surrender or total destruction to the city states they went up against.  Their purpose was terror and if the city state didn't surrender then they would kill all but a handful of the people in the city.  The few allowed to live were marched off to the nearest cities, villages and towns to tell them what happened to their city, town or village in order to terrify their next targets into surrendering without a fight.

Anyway, I'm not saying it's ethical nor am I saying it should be done, but it has and is being used to this day.  Terrorists use it against those that aren't willing to stoop to their level, and they tend to use it quite effectively against the weak willed nations of the world.

As to innocent civilian population, I think that too can be argued at least some of the time.  In the example of terrorists, there are organizations that support them either directly or indirectly and those civilians that donate to those organizations are just as guilty as the actual terrorists... at least in my opinion.

Of course, this doesn't necessarily have anything to do with your story Eric.  I just like to comment sometimes.


-----

2019-Jul-13 @ 11:53 PM
Eric Storm
Pub Owner
Member since 2006-Sep-13
Posts: 4363

Once again, what you're discussing doesn't happen during the course of the fighting.  It was an attempt to get capitulation without fighting, and punishment after victory to make them pay for fighting.  It wasn't used as a tactic to end the fighting.

As to terrorism... terrorism isn't warfare, it's simple cowardice.  It is exact proof that only evil people target the innocent.  And our struggle fighting terrorism is that we are unwilling to accidentally hurt the civilian population that the terrorists are hiding inside of.

And while, yes, those who monetarily, or even morally, support terrorism really are just as guilty as the terrorists... how would you spot them within the civilian community to target only them?  Moreover, if there are no terrorists to support, then the money has nowhere to go, so again, killing off the guys with the guns is really the most effective means of ending the conflict.  But you have to be willing to allow some innocents to die in that endeavor. 

Eric Storm


-----
Please Remember:  The right to Freedom of Speech does not carry the proviso, "As long as it doesn't upset anyone."  The US Constitution does not grant you the right to not be offended.  If you don't like what someone's saying... IGNORE THEM.
----
Please don't be an asshole to me, because then I'll have to be an asshole to you... and I'm MUCH better at being an asshole than you are.
2019-Jul-14 @ 11:54 AM
Maverick7508
Inebriated
Member since 2012-Feb-4
Posts: 33

True enough on the Stalin bit. Heck he was responsible for some of the mass graves in Poland.

(posted from the Item Information Page)


-----