 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
Person
| Joined: | Tue Nov 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 680 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Again as previously stated, what's the goal of war - to kill the other person, to me nothing chivalrous about that.
Doc C
I've got to disagree with you a little there, Doc. The goal of war is to win, the goal of the soldiers actually fighting the war is to kill the other person. To the folks well out of the danger zone, their looking not at having to kill anyone. Rather, their looking at who is being killed, how much territory their side has won or lost, and whether or not their going to win. The men actually doing the fighting are the ones who truely worry about kill or be killed.
ole wrote:
I'll not object to the idea that hogs were present at Gettysburg, but the style of farming there precludes that feral hogs were a major presence. I'd welcome an opposing view to adjust my perception.
Ole
I don't know how true it is and I don't know if it would change your prespective or not, Ole, but I saw something talking about hogzilla and whether or not the monster hog could have been real or not. Don't recall if it was 2005 or spring 2006 but I think it was either on the National Geographic channel or one of the Discovery channels. Anyway, they had someone on there that said of all the animals man has domesticated hogs are the ones to become feral in the shortest amount of time once in the wild. Don't recall how long it was, think a matter of weeks but I don't know.
Now pertaining to Gettysburg, unless the hogs Lt. Inman described had been on the run for a while it's unlikely they were feral. More likely they had been set free during the battle itself.
Last edited on Sat Jan 13th, 2007 07:09 am by Hellcat