funny tho, not only would we not have a war, we would get rid of bush too <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> of course I can't say I'm for GWII dying
Actually, I was just thinking about something like this the other day. I'll bet that not as many people would be in favor of war if it was fought like it was back in the day. I mean with swords and shields. On the other hand, many others may just say "Cool! Big swords! Let me at 'em!!" *Sigh*... war is rather inevitable in either case I suppose. It's such a pity.
Yeah, I know that this post sounds like one of the "Deep Thoughts" from SNL, but this idea just came to me out of the blue last week. It's amazing what the mind will wander to when it gets bored in AP Government. Any thoughts?
I believe that the best resolution for this would be for Bush and Hussein to get together and play flag football. Ok, maybe two touch. Loser buys winner pizza.
<strong>Actually, I was just thinking about something like this the other day. I'll bet that not as many people would be in favor of war if it was fought like it was back in the day. I mean with swords and shields. On the other hand, many others may just say "Cool! Big swords! Let me at 'em!!" *Sigh*... war is rather inevitable in either case I suppose. It's such a pity.
Yeah, I know that this post sounds like one of the "Deep Thoughts" from SNL, but this idea just came to me out of the blue last week. It's amazing what the mind will wander to when it gets bored in AP Government. Any thoughts?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you’re right in a way. These days wars are partly fought without even seeing your enemy face to face, whether its ‘over the horizon’ missles launched from a fighter jet or bombs aimed using a screen in the cockpit. Perhaps there will come a time when humans aren’t involved at all and wars will be fought between unmanned machines, or even simulated in a virtual reality to determine the winner without bloodshed.
Hey, good idea. I had a similiar one during the whole 2000 election disaster. I think that from now on, candidates should just be thrown in a ring and fight to the death. Perhaps that would work for international disputes as well.
I'm all for it...put these 2 maniacs in a ring in Las Vegas, and let them at it! I'm no fan of Don King's, but rather him make the bucks than the Carlyle group! This would save the beleaguered US economy some $1 Trillion over the next 6 years.
Actually, when it comes to Iraq, Saddam really is the problem. We have no problem with the people of Iraq (they didn't vote for Saddam and they're anxious to get rid of him), we have a problem with this evil dictator who kills his own citizens at the drop of a hat, has no regard for human life, and who's only goal is to stay in power for as long as possible. Frankly, I think that if we just got rid of Saddam (and his sons), that would solve our problem. Sometimes international problems really are just between one or two people.
<strong>I think notions like this are silly. The assumption is that the whole matter is only between two people. When that's clearly not the case.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I didn't mean or say that the matter is between two people. My idea is that instead of risking the lives of thousands of mostly innocent people, the leaders of the discordant parties (or any other representatives, e.g. Iwan Drago vs. Rocky Balboa) could do the fighting.
Las Vegas is probably not a very fair and neutral choice. UN Headquarters, Geneva/Switzerland?
<strong>Actually, when it comes to Iraq, Saddam really is the problem.<hr></blockquote>
Really now? From when he started in power until the Kuwait invasion the US supported him. So did the UK under Reagan's corrupt little English poodle Thatcher.
Saddam used mustard gas and sarin against Iranian troops in their 8 year war with the full knowledge and approval of the West. Saddam's whereabouts is often known to intelligence and both the CIA and MI6 could have taken him out on numerous occasions since the Gulf War, but nope... nothing. Now, conveniently, he is portayed as public enemy #1, and he hasn't attacked or threatened anyone in some 12 years, not even his closest neighbors, let alone the U.S.....whereas bin Laden is all but forgotten...presumably because al'qaida isn't a country we can conveniently bomb to smithereens.
Strange how the Pope's emissary can meet Saddam no problem, and so can Dan Rather, but the CIA cant, or won't. Instead, we send in 200000 troops and limitless hardware to flatten the whole country and destroy it's infrastructure, lobbing 800 cruise missiles into Baghdad in the first 2 days, as well as using tactical nukes and microwave bombs...all to remove Saddam Hussein and effect a regime change. And...all the wonderful and heartfelt goodwill expressed by the rest of the world in the wake of 9-11 has all but evaporated in a sea of angry protest worldwide, with both NATO and the UN in unprecendented crises. What a damned waste.
[quote]We have no problem with the people of Iraq (they didn't vote for Saddam and they're anxious to get rid of him), we have a problem with this evil dictator who kills his own citizens at the drop of a hat, has no regard for human life, and who's only goal is to stay in power for as long as possible.<hr></blockquote>
Ever since Gulf War, the UN sanctions have hit the ordinary Iraqi people the hardest...and Saddam is still sat there in the lap of luxury, as happy as a pig in sh
Comments
<strong>Why can't the boys handle it like our ancestors? George is the challenger, Saddam can choose the weapon - the winner takes it all.
No troops, no collateral damage, no slaughter.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Saddam has already made that challenge.
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2432694,00.html"; target="_blank">The Challenge</a>
No talking, no cheating.
funny tho, not only would we not have a war, we would get rid of bush too <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> of course I can't say I'm for GWII dying
Yeah, I know that this post sounds like one of the "Deep Thoughts" from SNL, but this idea just came to me out of the blue last week. It's amazing what the mind will wander to when it gets bored in AP Government. Any thoughts?
<strong>Why can't the boys handle it like our ancestors? George is the challenger, Saddam can choose the weapon - the winner takes it all.
No troops, no collateral damage, no slaughter.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don´t see Saddam as a threath to anyone outside Iraq but if he was the ruler of US, then I would be a little bit worried...
<strong>Actually, I was just thinking about something like this the other day. I'll bet that not as many people would be in favor of war if it was fought like it was back in the day. I mean with swords and shields. On the other hand, many others may just say "Cool! Big swords! Let me at 'em!!" *Sigh*... war is rather inevitable in either case I suppose. It's such a pity.
Yeah, I know that this post sounds like one of the "Deep Thoughts" from SNL, but this idea just came to me out of the blue last week. It's amazing what the mind will wander to when it gets bored in AP Government. Any thoughts?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you’re right in a way. These days wars are partly fought without even seeing your enemy face to face, whether its ‘over the horizon’ missles launched from a fighter jet or bombs aimed using a screen in the cockpit. Perhaps there will come a time when humans aren’t involved at all and wars will be fought between unmanned machines, or even simulated in a virtual reality to determine the winner without bloodshed.
[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: RodUK ]</p>
Vive la France!
<strong>I think notions like this are silly. The assumption is that the whole matter is only between two people. When that's clearly not the case.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I didn't mean or say that the matter is between two people. My idea is that instead of risking the lives of thousands of mostly innocent people, the leaders of the discordant parties (or any other representatives, e.g. Iwan Drago vs. Rocky Balboa) could do the fighting.
Las Vegas is probably not a very fair and neutral choice. UN Headquarters, Geneva/Switzerland?
<strong>Actually, when it comes to Iraq, Saddam really is the problem.<hr></blockquote>
Really now? From when he started in power until the Kuwait invasion the US supported him. So did the UK under Reagan's corrupt little English poodle Thatcher.
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,904509,00.html"; target="_blank">http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,904509,00.html</a>;
Saddam used mustard gas and sarin against Iranian troops in their 8 year war with the full knowledge and approval of the West. Saddam's whereabouts is often known to intelligence and both the CIA and MI6 could have taken him out on numerous occasions since the Gulf War, but nope... nothing. Now, conveniently, he is portayed as public enemy #1, and he hasn't attacked or threatened anyone in some 12 years, not even his closest neighbors, let alone the U.S.....whereas bin Laden is all but forgotten...presumably because al'qaida isn't a country we can conveniently bomb to smithereens.
Strange how the Pope's emissary can meet Saddam no problem, and so can Dan Rather, but the CIA cant, or won't. Instead, we send in 200000 troops and limitless hardware to flatten the whole country and destroy it's infrastructure, lobbing 800 cruise missiles into Baghdad in the first 2 days, as well as using tactical nukes and microwave bombs...all to remove Saddam Hussein and effect a regime change. And...all the wonderful and heartfelt goodwill expressed by the rest of the world in the wake of 9-11 has all but evaporated in a sea of angry protest worldwide, with both NATO and the UN in unprecendented crises. What a damned waste.
[quote]We have no problem with the people of Iraq (they didn't vote for Saddam and they're anxious to get rid of him), we have a problem with this evil dictator who kills his own citizens at the drop of a hat, has no regard for human life, and who's only goal is to stay in power for as long as possible.<hr></blockquote>
Ever since Gulf War, the UN sanctions have hit the ordinary Iraqi people the hardest...and Saddam is still sat there in the lap of luxury, as happy as a pig in sh