Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Bone to the bad.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                             

The Ending of War

It's defenitely not what it used to be, so why should it even exist?
  (+5, -12)(+5, -12)
(+5, -12)
  [vote for,
against]

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...
Salty Ham, Jan 10 2002

read this http://www.iwf.org/...q/Winter2002c.shtml
it might be about you [mrthingy, Feb 15 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]

[link]






       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.
angel, Jan 10 2002
  

       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.
seal, Jan 10 2002
  

       I'll concur on the 'war sucks' bit. Your other views about war suggest you could use some brushing up.
waugsqueke, Jan 10 2002
  

       Brushing up on what, may I ask, [waugsqueke]?
Salty Ham, Jan 10 2002
  

       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.
waugsqueke, Jan 10 2002
  

       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.
quarterbaker, Jan 10 2002
  

       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, Jan 11 2002
  

       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.
seal, Jan 11 2002
  

       Si vult pacem, para bellum (if you want peace, prepare for war).
supercat, Jan 12 2002
  

       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.
beerhunter, Jan 12 2002
  

       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.
wood2coal, Jan 17 2002
  

       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.
Helium, Jan 17 2002
  

       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.
Guy Fox, Jan 17 2002
  

       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.
RayfordSteele, Feb 14 2002
  

       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'.
angel, Feb 15 2002
  

       "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.
StarChaser, Feb 16 2002
  

       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.
codesushi, Oct 13 2002
  

       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.
chud, Oct 13 2002
  

       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.
supercat, Oct 14 2002
  

       As told in the onion? (see link)
Jinbish, Oct 14 2002
  

       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.
bungston, Oct 14 2002
  

       Yay woo to Guy Fox.   

       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.
Bigwill, Oct 10 2007
  

       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.
quantum_flux, Oct 10 2007
  

       And after the fight, when the losing country has the option of conceding or using its military to defend its borders...
wagster, Oct 10 2007
  

       // 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".
Brett-Blob, Oct 11 2007
  

       First we must understand the purpose for war.   

       The purpose of war is:   

       For the Rich to get richer,   

       For the Poor to get bloody,   

       And for the Middle Class to pay for it.
cyber_rigger, Oct 11 2007
  

       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.
cyber_rigger, Oct 12 2007
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle