In the beginning of civilization, disputes often came to an unavoidable conclusion. Originally the two opposing forces would gather their best warriors, post up on a field and fight until the last man was standing. As upsetting that the two sides could not come to some sort of diplomatic solution was, the loss of human life was overwhelmingly more tragic. But this system of testing a collectives ideals and battling until defeat had it's positives. Warriors had to have the conviction to carry out his duty for the cause of his/her ideals, country, and countrymen. It is in this that I feel that modern weapons and warfare are inferior.
Any coward with enough fear and malice in their heart can pull a trigger. There aren't any warriors but only assassins, trained to kill and follow orders. Why not then settle current problems and tensions between countries fairly and ethically. If there is going to be a war, select 500 of each countries best warriors and without weapons assemble at a battleground. Last person standing wins... It would sure beat the current system involving, thousands, even hundreds of thousands of lives lost. I understand it is within everyones rights to "bare arms", but at what cost? I dunno, I might just be rambling...
No comments:
Post a Comment