"It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to." - W. C. Fields
There are laws now though, right?
War, as it currently exists, is imo a ridiculous waste of lives and money. If some world leader is making an ass out of himself put him down.
Quick, cheap, and it deprives him of the honor of playing chess with other peoples lives.
No war rooms and drama. Constant fear. Exploding toilets. Poisoned food.
Why is it "better" for our treasure to be sprayed all over some farmers fields somewhere mixed with the blood of our best and bravest, than to simply put an end to the "source" of the problem?
Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
The Psychology of Persuasion
Hell, there are events that took place during WW2 that people are still ignorant of. This thread proves that. So, you'll excuse me if I reserve my confidence on the, "information age".
There are now, yes.There are laws now though, right?
That would cause nothing but all out mayhem, because every leader in the world would be getting capped.War, as it currently exists, is imo a ridiculous waste of lives and money. If some world leader is making an ass out of himself put him down.
Assissinating every cat that we don't like would cost the lives of even more ouf our best and brightest.Why is it "better" for our treasure to be sprayed all over some farmers fields somewhere mixed with the blood of our best and bravest, than to simply put an end to the "source" of the problem?
There are two schools of thought on this matter: one focuses on the man, one on the "tides of history".
One theory says it is the man, the dictator, the Hitler, who makes Nazi Germany (or whatever regime/nation) what it is.
Another theory says that when the tides of history, the forces of collective will, economic conditions, political trends, and so on, come together in such a manner, that some suitable leader will step forward to claim the mantle and ride the tide to conquest... the details might vary, but there would be war and atrocity all the same.
I'm not sure I entirely buy either argument... but if you assassinate one dictator, there's a very good chance that someone in his top-tier of advisors will simply step into his shoes and very likely continue similar policies for similar reasons.
In this sense, assassination is much less decisive than winning a war. Once you win a war the whole nation is no longer capable of fighting against you anymore... no one will be stepping into anyone's shoes with the same problems and resources inclining him to act the same.
Last edited by Goshin; 06-19-11 at 11:21 PM.
Fiddling While Rome Burns
Carthago Delenda Est
"I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."
When America is strong the world is calm, When America is weak tyrants and terrorist slaughter the meek. ~ SgtRock