h a l f b a k e r y
Puts the 'reek' in Eureka
idea:
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
meta:
news, help, about, links, report a problem
account:
Browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
or Create a new account.
|
|
|
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
The Ending of War
It's defenitely not what it used to be, so why should it even exist? | |
War. There are few things good about it, and no matter what kind of war it is, it still hurts people. So, why have war? Many say to help the economy, but I believe thats a bunch of crap. If I wanted to help the economy, I'd shoot myself so that I wouldn't use tax money to pay for toilet paper to
whipe my ass with because I'm bankrupt. Oh no, the true reason that we have war is, because it's a huge marketing agent. Think about it. How many people watch the news about wars? Millions. Now, do you know that commercial spots on news programs when they are having a story about a war costs more money than normal? It's crazy. It stares us all in the face, and no one even notices. Now, I propose a more conventional means to avoid war. Pick the best fighter from your country, and put him in a boxing match against the other country's best fighter. BAM! You can not only put the fight on air (with expensive, Super-Bowl-like commercial spots) but you can also sell tickets to the fight itself! The only violence is in the ring, in a boxing match that will result in no deaths (unless the victor is some kind of psycho mammoth that kills with a punch to the head). Even if one person dies, that's it. Just the one person. This saves so many lives in an already overpopulated world. Just imagine the possibilities...
read this
http://www.iwf.org/...q/Winter2002c.shtml
it might be about you [mrthingy, Feb 14 2002]
(?) Neville Chamberlain's famous words
http://www.theonion...7/history_3837.html
Good ol' Nev. He really showed em! [Jinbish, Oct 14 2002, last modified Oct 17 2004]
Ivan Drago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Drago
Rocky IV - 'I must break you' [Brett-Blob, Oct 11 2007]
Annotation:
|
| |
Baked. (Beat you, [PeterSealy]!) The notion of the King's Champion has been around for hundreds of years, and the Celts fought their battles pretty much like this hundreds of years before that. |
|
| |
Oh boy (sigh).... where to start?..... |
|
| |
You do realize that when another country is attacking your country, you're not going to sit around trying to get them to play your game, right? |
|
| |
Next you'll tell me that punks get in street fights just to support plastic surgeons. |
|
| |
I'll concur on the 'war sucks' bit. Your other views about war suggest you could use some brushing up. |
|
| |
Brushing up on what, may I ask, [waugsqueke]? |
|
| |
sodium chloride swine flesh person: Brush up on the dynamic behind wars. Go to the library and find out why everything you said from "Many say to help..." and "...no one even notices." is off the mark. You describe war like it's a football match. |
|
| |
Your whole approach to this topic is through the narrow scope of the media. War exists outside of that viewpoint. Media is accessory, not constituent. |
|
| |
There's a nice "proof" of the impossibility of permanent world peace that goes something like this:
1. Any two people can find something upon which to disagree.
2. Every disagreement must either reach resolution or escalate.
3. Resolution is not a permanent state.
4. The only limit to escalation is elimination of one or both parties.
Or something like that. Guess we need more options to #2, like "just ignore it." Or something.
This is one topic on which nobody ends up sounding smart. |
|
| |
A few years ago someone called Francis Fukuyama wrote a book called "The End of History" about how with the end of communism and the universal spread of capitalism there'd be no need for war any more. How right he was. |
|
| |
On the other hand, contrary to what seal says, most wars fought by the West in recent years have had little or nothing to do with national survival. The USA has arguably never been under serious threat in the past 100 years (apart from the threat from the Soviet Union, which never came to a war). There's certainly a choice as to whether most wars are fought (did the US have to fight in Vietnam or Serbia or even against Hitler?) |
|
| |
But equally, Salty Ham's observations are nothing new, and he contributes nothing that hasn't been here before. So he should just delete this idea now and go climb back inside a pig. |
|
| |
pottedstu: No, not all war has to do with defense against immenent destruction, but rather defense of vital national interests. If another country doesn't respect the defense of that national interest, you don't have much option. |
|
| |
However, I will say that there was no such vital national interest in Serbia. That was just another extreme act of horrible judgement by Clinton and the totalitarian wannabe global gov't fanatics. |
|
| |
Si vult pacem, para bellum (if you want peace, prepare for war). |
|
| |
quarterbaker - That proof is incomplete... can you try to find the original version? I don't think that we'll ever see world peace, but I'm also sceptical as to whether it can actually be proved. |
|
| |
1. Any two people can find something upon which to disagree, but this doesn't mean they will. |
|
| |
2. Every disagreement must either reach resolution or escalate. Getting over it is a form of resolution. |
|
| |
3. Resolution is not a permanent state, but when the disagreement recurs, it might lead to the same resolution, every time, until people get bored of it and don't bring it up again for several years. |
|
| |
you said:
"the true reason that we have war is, because it's a huge marketing agent. Think about it. How many people watch the news about wars? Millions. Now, do you know that commercial spots on news programs when they are having a story about a war costs more money than normal? It's crazy." |
|
| |
I hope you reallize that ever sense the age of television there have been less war than before the media came into play. It is because it is now more difficult for the government to cover its trail after it pulls a dirty operation.
However I belive that war can never be stoped, it is a normal part of society, just like crime. You cannot have war without peace, and the same you cannot have peace without war.
We can never end war the only thing we can do is try to make it less destructive.
And hopefully we will never have to face a nuclear war. |
|
| |
The only way to end war is to remove men from the planet and keep cloning women. |
|
| |
Women settle their differences over a cup of tea. |
|
| |
Hmm. wonder how long it'll be before this topic gets kind of... heated. |
|
| |
Anyhoo, the (*ahem*) 'classic' movie Robot Jox posits pretty much this scenario, except that the fighters are in giant mech robot things. It's not entirely plausible, but then that may just be the sub-Harryhausen special effects, male stunt-doubles for female actors, risible dialogue and stock footage thrown in when the robots - for some inexplicable reason - decide to blast off into space for five minutes during the middle of a fight. So, this is (half)baked, already. |
|
| |
1. Any two people can find something upon which to disagree, but this doesn't mean they will. |
|
| |
2. Every disagreement must either reach resolution or escalate. Getting over it is a form of resolution. |
|
| |
3. Resolution is not a permanent state, but when the disagreement recurs, it might lead to the same resolution, every time, until people get bored of it and don't bring it up again for several years. |
|
| |
That's closer to it, I think. There is such a thing as dynamic stability; ie. just enough war to make the problem go away for a few years, only to resurface in a few generations again. |
|
| |
Come off it, [Meph]. "Not as US versus THEM, but as US in certain circumstances versus US in certain other circumstances." That's like saying that rapists and murderers aren't 'other people', they're just 'us in different circumstances'. The point is that most of us don't get into those circumstances. If we did, we would deserve to be treated as 'them'. |
|
| |
"Not as US versus THEM, but as US in certain circumstances versus US in certain other circumstances." |
|
| |
Serious rose-colored glasses going on here. I can think of no possible instance that I would convince 18 other people to hijack planes and fly them into buildings. |
|
| |
had i known this site was overrun with repugnant-cans, i might have thought twice before creating an account. oh well. the only thing baked here is the same-old-same-old and all who tow its line. why don't you all go find a nice planet to migrate to where you can kill one another in peace and leave the rest of us, who just want to live our lives out and enjoy them and learn what we can during them, to do so ... in peace? |
|
| |
all war is, in the end, is a large-scale temper tantrum thrown by one diapered toddler at another who is sufficiently, equally immature to respond in like kind. everything else is justification and rationalization for something neither just nor rational. |
|
| |
sushi - dont forget that at least one of the toddlers usually requires the support of their government, military leaders and maybe people. |
|
| |
My personal view as to why there will never be peace is that humans are greedy, violent apes whose strongest emotions are fear and anger. War is driven by the greed of governments for power and the blind fear and anger of the people. |
|
| |
codesushi: Sorry you feel the need to make fun of those with whom you disagree politically. As a libertarian-leaning conservative I find the population here to be a bit too liberal for my tastes. |
|
| |
Still, the only stable situation without war is one in which any beligerent party to a conflict realizes that it has more to lose by escalating it than by standing down. If the response to a beligerent party is to make war profitable for it, war will be the inevitable result. |
|
| |
Had Neville Chamberlain stood up to Hitler during his early attacks into the "Sudetanland", it's possible that World War II might have been avoided. Unfortunately, Chamberlain's "peace in our time" made the Second World War inevitable. |
|
| |
As told in the onion? (see link) |
|
| |
Saltpork's idea is fully baked and he is dead on accurate as to its effect and marketing value. It is called football.
In the US it is called soccer, where it demonstrates the flaw of the idea as regards war: immense economic and other advantages do not necessarily translate well into a champion system. |
|
| |
I was wondering when Robot Jox was going to make an appearence. I was going to use that as an example myself. |
|
| |
My personal observations about war are similar to those of the playground. The biggest guy rarely gets picked on and if he does then if he stikes back then he is accused of being an ass. |
|
| |
If you are a small, poorly funded country, don't complain when you are pounded into submission by the bigger country you have just pissed off. |
|
| |
If you are a highly wealthy and developed country, try not to throw your weight around and play the sub/dom game with the little ones. If a little one irritates you there are far more fun ways of making life unpleasent for them and making them come back to you on bended knee. |
|
| |
Flame on you crazy diamond. |
|
| |
The old David and Goliath method of doing war, eh? I think that it would take more than 1 ultimate fighting match to determine a country's fate, but it is definantly a better alternative. |
|
| |
And after the fight, when the losing country has the option of conceding or using its military to defend its borders... |
|
| |
Yeah, I cannot see, under any circumstances, a nation's leaders saying "ok, you got ONE good fighter who managed to K.O. our good fighter. Ok, we'll go Communist. Come on everyone, take a pay cut and give up your large homes you've worked your entire lives for and your wives and daughters to be the dictator's personal concubines, the Commies won fair and sqaure," and everyone else saying "Okie-dokie!" |
|
| |
// a boxing match that will result in no deaths (unless the victor is some kind of psycho mammoth that kills with a punch to the head) // |
|
| |
You mean kind of like Eeevaahn Drrraaaggooo (Ivan Drago from Rocky IV - refer link), thus quoteth "Ey mhust breahk you". |
|
| |
First we must understand the purpose for war. |
|
| |
For the Rich to get richer, |
|
| |
For the Poor to get bloody, |
|
| |
And for the Middle Class to pay for it. |
|
| |
That is a very naive statement. So when Kuait fought back after being attacked by Iraq, they were trying to line their pockets were they? You have to remember in most wars there is an aggressor and a defender. In the current conflict in Iraq, don't forget that we (the Americans) were attacked in a much bigger way than any other non-middle-eastern country has been. Also consider that the vast majority of the voting population is the poor you claim war is about bloodying. How the hell do you explain that? The war's been going on for 6 years, fueled not by corporate greed, on which it could've only run so far with our checks and balances, but by majority votes from poor people who keep electing the officials that have kept the war going, and tell me where the responsibility lies. We have a responsibility to not elect officials that are going to do the things the Bush administration has done. That's the whole point of our Demcratic system, of the Checks and Balances that are in place. If the voting majority keeps electing these assholes after they've demonstrated in such a big way that they are capable of greed, corruption, and evil, then it's the fault of every man and woman who has voted for them (which does not include me, by the way!). |
|
| |
When you are "fighting back" you are usually trying to STOP the other guy who wants war. |
|
| |
I would file that under the purpose to STOP war. |
|
| |
Oh no, once you open fire you are a part of the war. The whole justification Bush gave for the Iraq War was protecting ourselves against future attack, that Iraq was the one who sent the terrorists over here to attack the towers, that they attacked under the Iraqi flag, and therefore Iraq was the aggressor and we the defender. Many would disagree with that, which is the nature of war. How do you define who is the aggressor and who the defender? Iraq claimed Kuwait was stealing their oil and thereby attacking Iraq's economy. They were acting in defense of their economy. A war is a war, and a warrior is a warrior, it doesn't matter which side you're on or why you're fighting. |
|
| |
An invader is not necessarily the aggressor, either. Politics have a huge role in war, and are usually the cause. I'm not saying it happened or it didn't happen, but if Kuwait really was slant drilling Iraqi oil, how was Iraq to stop them? File a UN complaint and wait for it to go through committees and be discussed at length before sanctions are imposed on Kuwait for doing it? Sanctions Kuwait could choose to ignore and keep stealing Iraqi oil? |
|
| |
let us assume for the purposes of this discussion that Kuwait really was slant drilling Iraq's oil. The only way to protect their oil reserves, then, are to attack Kuwait's drillers. But because they are on Kuwait's side of the border, it is seen as an invasion and Iraq would be seen as the aggressor, when really they were protecting their assets. |
|
| |
In this case, Kuwait, by defending it's drillers, was not trying to stop a war, they were trying to steal Iraq's oil and stop anyone from interfering. Now tell me, who is the aggressor in this scenario, Kuwait the thief, or Iraq the victim forcibly stopping the thief? |
|
| |