alot of the time you see antiwar activists attacking wartime politicians for being pussies because theyre ordering military strikes but not actually fighting themselves which ok. but i dont think theyd enjoy it more if say bush 2 had been slitting throats in fallujah himself
-
Show this thread
-
so i basically see that as a criticism that lacks the courage of its convictions and while i dont generally hope for war, conditional on having one that i hope that some glorious bastard calls their bluff and joins the field of battle in person
10 replies 1 retweet 68 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @eigenrobot
Wars were a lot more frequent back when the warrior class and the nobility were the same thing.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @LiteralSheridan @eigenrobot
Wars were a lot less deadly too
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @OfKimbriki @LiteralSheridan
i dont think this is necessarily truehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Golden_Spurs …
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @eigenrobot @LiteralSheridan
At the start of world war one England's expeditionary force was 125k, in the battle of the Somme ALONE 420,000 men died
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @OfKimbriki @LiteralSheridan
yes there were a lot more people by the somme meanwhile in the 8th centuryhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Lushan_Rebellion …
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
genghis' wars killed so many people he ushered in an ice age order of a million people killed in the sack of baghdad alonehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Baghdad_(1258) …
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.