English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

At the end of World War 2, with the advent of atomic weapons, the ability to produce Darwinian extinction came into man's power. The political power structure then formulated the concept of Limited Conflict, in which they could play war, only in a limited area. Very soon after the end of World War 2, came the advent of television, and broadcasts of football games, a game of terrirorial conquest played within boundaries using regulated violence, force, manuever, and deception to establish dominance. When ball leaves field of play, play stops. During the Korean War, when the Chinese retreated back into China, Gen. MacArthur followed them into China, and was fired -- the Chinese had left the field of play and play was supposed to stop!

2006-12-27 05:05:16 · 8 answers · asked by nine-headed beast 1 in Politics & Government Military

8 answers

This diatribe masquerading as a question is inaccurate. However, current American society DOES in fact foster violence not through the means listed, but by scorning family values. Unfortunately, as corny as they may seem, it is only "family values" that when practiced enable us to form genuine loving bonds with each other which are the sole source of genuine emotional nutrition and health. So we're starving ourselves emotionally, which does lead to pent up rage and ultimately violence.

2006-12-27 05:09:36 · answer #1 · answered by All hat 7 · 0 1

You don't think "limited conflict" is preferable to all-out world war?

Football is a game of territorial conquest, but are not most sports (defending your territory and scoring against your opponents' is the basis for volleyball, baseball, hockey, basketball and more.

As for McArthur, he was fired for many reasons, not just the China issue. Primarily, he was firing for his disloyalty to the President and he needed to be reined in.

2006-12-27 05:09:25 · answer #2 · answered by kingstubborn 6 · 0 1

In my opinion, war is always fought over trade routes. The small conflicts between other nations are usually Western countries using "divide and conquer" tactics.

2006-12-27 05:08:13 · answer #3 · answered by Mickey Mouse Spears 7 · 0 1

Given the choice to be aggressive or roll over like the French and take it in the @$$, My vote is for aggression.

2006-12-27 05:52:11 · answer #4 · answered by Mom of One in Wisconsin 6 · 0 0

basic primal instincts !, the law of the jungle ; eat or be eaten. survivl of the fittest. to the victor goes the spoils. i want to rule the world !, and the latest social law of ; me- me- me- me- and only me and the heck with everybody else, what have they ever donr for me but to step on me and try to destroy me !, plus do not forget that by our governments subtle means to keep us ignorant and fighting against ourselves and each other , it makes it easier for them to control the masses !

2006-12-27 05:15:37 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Ahhhh.........George Carlin. Funny man.

So what was football on the radio before World WarII?

2006-12-27 05:09:10 · answer #6 · answered by tallerfella 7 · 0 1

Because people like violence. It's exciting, but that doesn't make it right.

2006-12-27 05:19:57 · answer #7 · answered by nealee 2 · 0 0

you are an idiot.

2006-12-27 05:13:37 · answer #8 · answered by recon_fsnco 2 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers