Hitler would have won, then. I wonder what the world would be like now, if we hadn't fought. We'll never know, but I guess it would be worse.
This is my pragmatic assessment. Pragmatism sometimes clashes with other ideals.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
A bit off topic But I wonder what the world would be if they would have killed the man on the right, right there on the spot. But somehow the "leaders" never kill other "leaders". Really strange, not pragmatic at all of those "leaders"
source
There is a cost to dishonor. I don't think it's clear that the expediency of killing one leader outweighs the cost.
It might be the case that the one leader you kill is succeed by a worse foe.
Might be. This could also be said with adolf hitler, in mind killing (earlyer on) him might have had that same effect too. That does not mean you can not kill proven dictators.
English is not my native language. So I hope I understood your first sentence correctly
I don't now what you mean exactly with dishoner. Do you mean it is dishonerable for one leader to kill another? Leaders don't kill eachother they talk?
It is mutually beneficial for them to talk without killing each other, and it is beneficial for the soldiers.
I don't see how it's beneficial for the soldiers. If they can't talk or don't talk, or they are just warmongering dictators, they don't care if the talks have the outcome of peace. Do you really think that two tyrants, who have no problem with mass murder, or sending man to kill the men of other country, or to be killed by the men from another country, will prevent wars.
Those people don't care.
"Leaders" don't prevent wars, they make them.
It would be beneficiary for the soldiers of both sides, to go talk to each other on how to prevent their "leaders" from escalating war or mass murder.
But I guess the order followers of both tyrants, listen to their tyrant, when the tyrant order; go over there and kill a bunch of people.
It's beneficial for the soldiers in terms of preventing unnecessary bloodshed and suffering. Geneva Convention, for example. Not to mention, neither side wants to lose soldiers, so if two sides are headed toward a massive clash with heavy losses on both sides, it could behoove both sides to avoid that situation with diplomacy.
They don't care about losing soldiers for the soldiers, they only care bout loosing soldiers because their power becomes less.
They don't care about innocent civilians either.
What about fighting so called defencive wars on the other side of the world. dropping bombs, on people who never did anything wrong. Irak comes to mind. WMD's blabla, freeing the people of Irak blabla.
If you look at the real world tyrants are never there for their people, they only want to protect their war machine and the slaves that finance and build their war machines........
(edit they terrorize and extort too build their war machines)
Those man in that photo didn't make peace either they where drawing their imaginary lines on paper of which part of the slave plantation will be theirs.
I see the rulers and tyrant not as benevolent people. Not one.......well when I was a statist I believed the gospel of government. But not anymore.