What's your opinion on dueling? Could it still be used to settle international d

1. 60

   Josakposted 11 years ago

   What's your opinion on dueling? Could it still be used to settle international disputes without war?
   
   There was a time when an honorable duel was acceptable in America (it still is many places around the world) President Andrew Jackson is said to have been in dozens of duels to the death and to have been wounded so many times that he "rattled like a bag of marbles" from the shot still inside him.  Could dueling still serve a purpose in America? Saddam Hussein challenged George Bush to a duel with swords to avoid the Iraqi war, to be held on neutral soil, Bush refused, would such a duel be a better solution than the ensuing war that killed up to a million people, most of the innocents?

   replyreport
2. 76

   JohnGreasyGamerposted 11 years ago

   I think as weaponary is advancing, I highly doubt there'll be such thing as an honorable duel. There's too many ways to cheat, and assassination is as easy as taking candy from an unguarded baby.
   
   If ever you've seen Gangs of New York, starring Leonardo de Caprio and Liam Neeson, the intro practically shows how duelling might work. But how would people know when to stop killing?
   
   But why duel? Why not have games of football, or a match of Warhammer?

   replyreport
3. 60

   swordsbaneposted 11 years ago

   Unfortunately, for it to work, you first need the leaders of countries to be honorable, or at least more worried about their honor than about losing the duel.
   
   Good luck with that.
   
   Also, do you really think that the population of a country will sit by and let an invader take possession of their country simply because their leader lost a duel?
   
   Duels for personal honor?? I can get behind.  It is a great indicator of character, and that seems to be all that presidential elections are about these days, so go for it.  However, duels to resolve disputes? Not so much.  Skill with the sword or the pistol has nothing to do with right and wrong.  The only thing a duel resolves is who's better at a sword or a pistol.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      No it would not be that severe, for example in the Saddam vs Bush one the deal was something along the lines of America would not invade if Saddam won and Iraq would open to full inspection for weapons if Bush won.

      replyreport
4. 60

   ackman1465posted 11 years ago

   I have quite some opinions on the handling of international disputes....
   
   First, I think that the leaders of the prospective combatants should arm-wrestle to see if that will bring the dispute to a conclusion.  Of course, that would mean that we might want to change the USofA Constitution to allow Arnold to be President...
   
   But, wouldn't that be preferable to having someone like Mitt Romney cede 1/2 the states to Russia, if he couldn't beat Putin????
   
   Second.... the waging of war.   In my plan, the combatants will use water guns... no holds barred.... ALL will be allowed .... SuperSoakers and the like.... NO water cannons or anything that needs to be hooked up to a pressurized water source or to electricity...   
   
   The primary rule for this combat is that you will be allowed to towel yourself off - AS LONG AS YOU ARE NOT WET OVER 50% OF YOUR BODY.   Once he (she) is fully soaked, that soldier will have to go home and leave the battle.  THIS, alone, should reduce the death toll from wars, dramatically.....
   
   As to using guns to settle ANY disputes, I'm  not much in favor of it.....
   
   I am, of course, fully in favor of "standing my ground" and plugging anybody who I can remotely convince myself (and a jury) that that person was probably going to hurt me if I didn't hurt him (her) first!!!!!!

   replyreport
5. 73

   d.williamposted 11 years ago

   Amusing question.  I would hate to see the fate of America depend on two idiots who are not adult enough to come to terms using logic instead of brute force.
   Even if the weapons of the duel were 'intellectual', the US would surely lose.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah well we already do depend on such idiots apparently considering the war happened.

      replyreport
6. 94

   FatFreddysCatposted 11 years ago

   
   
   I think it's a great idea. It would be even cooler if the "duels" were fought by two men (one representing each side) piloting gigantic robots, like in the classic film "ROBOT JOX"

   replyreport
   1. 63

      Sheepsquatchposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Excellent idea. May be a few flaws in the application of the  process, but definitely doable.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, a hundred times yes.

      replyreport
   3. 71

      TomBlalockposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      While I do like the idea of giant dueling robots, I'm not sure hundreds or possibly thousands of tons of destructive metal, presumably containing their own sources of fuel or generators would be the best solution to stop devastating wars :0

      replyreport
7. 63

   Sheepsquatchposted 11 years ago

   The country can be very divided on topics such as war. Do you think that all people would just go along with the winner of the duel's results?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I don't think everyone would be happy but hat are most people going to do? this certainly worked in past times particularly in classical Greek History.

      replyreport