Instead of bombs, bullets, guns, tanks, airplanes, and chemicals who thinks wars should be fought with fist. Just major fist fights and the only way to identify your comrads are a tag that is taped to his leg. It can be removed but its just to identify your comrad. It would ensure strength and strategy. No civilians would really get hurt this way unless they fight too. It's better than seeing huge amounts of dead bodies with bullet wounds.
Oh and only one v.s. one please. 3 on one isn't fair. Not unless one guy is like huge and the only ones left are the scrawny nerdy guys(like me) then they can jump him at their own risk.
That would be awesome.
OR MY OTHER APPROACH!!!
This would include no death. Just fun. Okay there could be like a worldwide massive network only for militaries that could possibly bring people together. Online gaming war. No death just fun. Oh and no glitches. Around the clock moderator survelliance. Whoever has more points in the end gets the win. Eh?!
2006-07-29 10:04:06 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Sadly, wars are not about being fair, but about winning. Wanna bet that within minutes one of your style fighters will pick up a rock to pound a few skulls?
2006-07-29 10:08:40 · answer #1 · answered by Gungnir 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Then, you would need numbers and strength. The current method, is who ever is smartest, and makes the best weapons wins, and the dumb ones die, lest natural selection raise the IQ of humans. If we did what you say, the strong would survive, but not the smart ( even if you do not kill, winners get resources, eventually losers starve). That would be the same as animals, and the society would fall apart. Many of the great inventions that we use every day were invented during and for war. People would not follow the rules, but if they did it would be bad.
2006-07-29 10:11:29 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
California isn't cool because is: (a million) Bankrupt) (2) Over run with illegals (3) Too many brush fires (4) To many droughts (5) Too many floods (6) Too many gays and too lots drugs (8) Too many dirt slides (9) too lots pollutants (10) too lots site visitors If somebody offered me loose plane fare to California i might turn it down. it extremely is the final place i might ever opt to bypass, alongside with Florida an in depth 2nd.
2016-12-14 16:02:30 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think they should all play risk. The winner controls the World.
Think about it
You can still use everything in your arsenal without actually killing anybody. All you do is make little game pieces of everything you have. Then you use your stategy to win.
It's fair, easy, and with no blood shed.
2006-07-29 10:11:54 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Man I wish we could play games. But unfortunatly the Muslims ain't playing. They have beem blowing up Jews since 1948 and Americans since 1970 for no reason except that they hate us.
2006-07-29 10:11:06 · answer #5 · answered by Terrence J 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Anything that prevents war would be a good thing. Keep up the positive thinking!
2006-07-29 10:11:02 · answer #6 · answered by bluenote2k 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A better solution would be if the Leaders would fight each other, and not involve their followers of get any help.
2006-07-29 10:09:46 · answer #7 · answered by Hannah's Grandpa 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No war would be cool. What would be cool is we got smart enough and sensible enough not to fight; to be peaceful that would be cool. Fist fighting would not be cool! It would be inhumane and it sounds childish.
2006-07-29 10:12:04 · answer #8 · answered by ruthie 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dude, lay off the mountian dew
2006-07-29 10:07:42 · answer #9 · answered by vern2618 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Or draughts oe tennis or tiddley winks the possibilities are endless
2006-07-29 10:11:09 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋