Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
War is when the old and bitter, trick the young and stupid into killing one another.-Niko Bellic
That should go in Quotes You Like. It's a great soundbite but the trick is to get both sides to stop fighting. Stopping fighting means the most brutal side is overwhelmed.
For war to end, the ultimate victors must prosecute it to the maximum extent possible. I am not advocating attacking supermarkets and skyscrapers deliberately. Those kinds of attacks accomplish little. If fanatics seek war, they should be given what they ask for. In spades. Attempts to daintily avoid civilian casualties and negotiate prematurely lead only to prolonged and greater grief.
This is insane. So how many people do you think the US should murder to end war on the planet? The problem with the US and war is that the US is the one responsible so now you want it to have a blank check on murder.
If you want to reduce wars, then nations should go after the leaders who start wars. Goerge Bush butchered so many Iraqis, he needs to be arrested and prosecuted. Some nation starts a war? Focus efforts on assissinating leadership instead of having the idiots on the ground kill each other. Most war is over the enrichment of leadership, start killing leadership and you lose the motivation for war.
This is insane. So how many people do you think the US should murder to end war on the planet? The problem with the US and war is that the US is the one responsible so now you want it to have a blank check on murder.
Do you want the U.S. and Western countries to collectively be punching bags?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoyaleWithCheese
If you want to reduce wars, then nations should go after the leaders who start wars. Goerge Bush butchered so many Iraqis, he needs to be arrested and prosecuted. Some nation starts a war? Focus efforts on assissinating leadership instead of having the idiots on the ground kill each other. Most war is over the enrichment of leadership, start killing leadership and you lose the motivation for war.
Fortunately or unfortunately, leadership assassination is close to a "no go" zone. I have mixed feelings but there has been, informally, boundaries that even Israel observes on decapitating leadership. And trust me, there are some leaders I would love to see gone. Vladimir Putin for one. And the situations with Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot should not have been allowed to fester.
Fortunately or unfortunately, leadership assassination is close to a "no go" zone. I have mixed feelings but there has been, informally, boundaries that even Israel observes on decapitating leadership. And trust me, there are some leaders I would love to see gone. Vladimir Putin for one. And the situations with Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot should not have been allowed to fester.
The reason why "leaders" dont assassinate another one is because they dont want to be killed. So its ok to kill hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civlians but not ok to kill a few leaders. Then if you suggest this, you are somehow uncivilized. You have leaders like George W Bush who causes the mass murder of countless innocent people but we act like another country going after him is crossing some kind of line or somehow uncivilized. Then here you are actually acting like you support this concept because apparently the value of a POS "leader" is more valuable than hundreds of thousands of people (probably in part because you make the assumption that those innocent people killed wont be you or someone you care about).
The reason why "leaders" dont assassinate another one is because they dont want to be killed. So its ok to kill hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civlians but not ok to kill a few leaders. Then if you suggest this, you are somehow uncivilized. You have leaders like George W Bush who causes the mass murder of countless innocent people but we act like another country going after him is crossing some kind of line or somehow uncivilized. Then here you are actually acting like you support this concept because apparently the value of a POS "leader" is more valuable than hundreds of thousands of people (probably in part because you make the assumption that those innocent people killed wont be you or someone you care about).
I think in certain instances regime change is called for. I don't think killing Jefferson Davis would have ended the Civil War. But I think if Putin sipped some arsenic the remaining "leaders" might think better of continuing the war of folly. If Hitler were bumped off any time after 1942 ended, similarly, the war would have ended. I don't think killing LBJ would have ended the Vietnam War. Each situation is different.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
