sigh… the point of the strip isn’t questioning what wars have “accomplished.” It questions why killing each other is considered an acceptable way to solve problems instead of, say, negotiation, compromise, etc.
I didn’t realize that WW2 was suddenly American history… And Hitlers goal was never to rule the world, first off he was reuniting old Prussia and all German speaking countries like Otto von Bismarck did and then he started the holocaust (Which was his real goal). His view of the world was that there is a master race (Aryans) and he wanted to “save Europe” from the “invading easterners” hence his conquest to kill the Jews but not only them, he also killed gypsies and handicapt people (for being geneticly inferior).
Long story short, he had a faulty view on life which has been proved by genetics (Blond hair and blue eyes are recessive genes) and he would never have been able to take over the world with only the German army and I’m pretty sure Hitler also realized that.
Have your facts straight before you make an argument. But yes I agree with you that some wars are justified, like against slavery and all that. But I also think that diplomacy should come first and that does not make you a hippie Charlie. If a non violent solution is available that should be the first course of action.
unfortunately, there will always be people in this world that are not reasonable, and do not want to negotiate or compromise – Hitler being a prime example of that. This makes killing them acceptable. Not pleasant but necessary.
As for american history, the only one you got right was independence. We didn’t have a civil war about freeing the slaves, we had a civil war about state rights, we didn’t enter ww2 to stop hitler and save the jews, we entered ww2 for revenge (publically). Wars aren’t fought between good and evil, they’re fought between opposing viewpoints, and the winner gets to put whatever spin on it they want. If we had lost our war for independance, It’d be a civil war, not a revolution, if we had lost the civil war (the north) it would have been a revolutionary war for the south. If we had lost WW2, I don’t know what we would have called it, but we’d be having this conversation in either german or japanesse
cockatrice_hunter about 14 years ago
@greekhoplite, Shouldn’t all countries know… virtually all wars are for nothing
cockatrice_hunter about 14 years ago
@greekhoplite, Shouldn’t all countries know… virtually all wars are for nothing
master_tananh almost 14 years ago
@Charlie
sigh… the point of the strip isn’t questioning what wars have “accomplished.” It questions why killing each other is considered an acceptable way to solve problems instead of, say, negotiation, compromise, etc.
Hevil93 almost 14 years ago
My b-day strip ;_;
Summersnow over 13 years ago
@Charlie_Bucket
I didn’t realize that WW2 was suddenly American history… And Hitlers goal was never to rule the world, first off he was reuniting old Prussia and all German speaking countries like Otto von Bismarck did and then he started the holocaust (Which was his real goal). His view of the world was that there is a master race (Aryans) and he wanted to “save Europe” from the “invading easterners” hence his conquest to kill the Jews but not only them, he also killed gypsies and handicapt people (for being geneticly inferior).
Long story short, he had a faulty view on life which has been proved by genetics (Blond hair and blue eyes are recessive genes) and he would never have been able to take over the world with only the German army and I’m pretty sure Hitler also realized that.
Have your facts straight before you make an argument. But yes I agree with you that some wars are justified, like against slavery and all that. But I also think that diplomacy should come first and that does not make you a hippie Charlie. If a non violent solution is available that should be the first course of action.
bemis269 about 13 years ago
@master_tananh
unfortunately, there will always be people in this world that are not reasonable, and do not want to negotiate or compromise – Hitler being a prime example of that. This makes killing them acceptable. Not pleasant but necessary.
prettychainsaw over 12 years ago
As for american history, the only one you got right was independence. We didn’t have a civil war about freeing the slaves, we had a civil war about state rights, we didn’t enter ww2 to stop hitler and save the jews, we entered ww2 for revenge (publically). Wars aren’t fought between good and evil, they’re fought between opposing viewpoints, and the winner gets to put whatever spin on it they want. If we had lost our war for independance, It’d be a civil war, not a revolution, if we had lost the civil war (the north) it would have been a revolutionary war for the south. If we had lost WW2, I don’t know what we would have called it, but we’d be having this conversation in either german or japanesse
Mark Thames almost 11 years ago
…How did we start talking about this?
maxbacsi over 8 years ago
“…grown-ups just ACT like they know what they’re doing”? Was this a question anytime?
yow4zip Premium Member about 8 years ago
Very deep.
BobTheDuck9999 about 5 years ago
Calvin is wiser then we think.
rklynch almost 4 years ago
Calvin, I don’t think any adult can come up with an answer to that question…
tylerhagenbaugh13 almost 4 years ago
As a super early Sunday strip described, war is just a stupid game with no winners.
ltthebug about 2 years ago
Gods greatest questions
Jaythor about 2 months ago
Because some things are worth defending, even at the cost of lives. Freedoms aren’t free.