The more this crap goes on, the more I think we need to replace wars with putting the leaders into deathmatch fights. Want to destroy the others so bad? Sure, go ahead. The fights go on until all sides select a leader who’s willing to use diplomacy instead of nukes and bombs and such.
Let those who really want to fight, fight it out, and not send men and women who don’t want war, to die for them.
I’d love this to work, but unfortunately it seems the nature of war is more to act as a collective burden/punishment instead of actual dispute resolution. I guess it’s just a shitty way to have a temper tantrum that coincidentally involves countless millions of citizens who never wanted war in the first place on all sides.
Well, if only people held their elected leaders responsible… problem is, people in power will always try to use that power to shield themselves from the repercussions of their actions.
The more this crap goes on, the more I think we need to replace wars with putting the leaders into deathmatch fights. Want to destroy the others so bad? Sure, go ahead. The fights go on until all sides select a leader who’s willing to use diplomacy instead of nukes and bombs and such.
Let those who really want to fight, fight it out, and not send men and women who don’t want war, to die for them.
I’d love this to work, but unfortunately it seems the nature of war is more to act as a collective burden/punishment instead of actual dispute resolution. I guess it’s just a shitty way to have a temper tantrum that coincidentally involves countless millions of citizens who never wanted war in the first place on all sides.
Well, if only people held their elected leaders responsible… problem is, people in power will always try to use that power to shield themselves from the repercussions of their actions.