It's No Ball
By p1kef1sh
@p1kef1sh (45681)
October 25, 2011 4:25pm CST
Americans amongst us will have heard of the "Boston Massacre" which was either a provoked defence on behalf of a beleagured British soldier, or a deliberate attack on colonists making mild protest whilst armed with their usual walking out paraphenalia of agricultural implements and sticks. Either way, the outcome was the same. Five colonists killed and one very upset group of Bostonians. Further reading into this reveals that the colonists were not only armed with sticks but many threw snowballs at the soldiers. Perhaps we have here a great way to wage war. Two groups of beligerants each armed with a pile of snowballs. War might almost be fun. Afterwards the losers treat the winners to hot chocolate and baked potatoes round the fire. I commend it to the house.
5 people like this
7 responses
@grandpa_lash (5225)
• Australia
26 Oct 11
I prefer setting aside a suitable piece of useless land, putting in an armory of WWI weaponry, and letting loose the politicians of each of the warring sides to choose their weapons and fight to a conclusion. Set a time limit, have neutral referees controlling the action, and a time limit with a points score given if one side isn't completely beaten. Oh yes, and charge exorbitant rent from the participants for the privilege. This way not one single non-combatant can get hurt, and generations of the youngest and the best aren't thrown on to the trash heap.
Lash
3 people like this
@pumpkinjam (8876)
• United Kingdom
27 Oct 11
I think that's a good idea too. That way, the only ones fighting a war are those who wanted it and not those who don't.
. If there are troops of ostrich-feather sword play, sign me up. After I use the snowball, hubby isn't much interested in feathers...
The fun is in the giving... @pumpkinjam (8876)
• United Kingdom
26 Oct 11
I think that's a brilliant idea although I think wars should be fought over a game of Monopoly where, assuming land is being fought over, each space should be for a particular bit of land and each side gets whichever bits are won in the game. If it's a fight for something other than land (or power over said land) then the same principle could be used. You see, you're idea wouldn't work in countries where there is no snow.
2 people like this
@pumpkinjam (8876)
• United Kingdom
27 Oct 11
Maybe it is a little but I thought it was just a good way of interpreting war in a non-violent way. I suppose you could use toy soldiers and water pistols and whoever shoots down the most toy soldiers is the winner. I would have suggested a game of football but that could get more violent than actual war.
@sharra1 (6340)
• Australia
26 Oct 11
Well if war was just about throwing snowballs we would all be better off. Unfortunately it does not happen that way. In West Papua there were tribes who made war into a showy dance. The men got all dressed up with lots of ceremonial decorations etc. The weapons were ceremonial bows and arrows that could not cause harm. They were men having fun. The trouble is that at night men would slip into the rival tribe’s camp and kill the women and children; that was where the real war was fought. For the men it was just a game, the women were the real victims but in that society they did not really count. This may have changed after the Indonesians invaded; I have no idea what happens there these days.
@Hatley (163772)
• Garden Grove, California
26 Oct 11
hi pikey this is one I have never heard of but a snowball
fight that would be fun and afterwards all shake hands
and peacefully drink hot chocolate and eat baked potatoes
and weiners cooked over the fire oh yes Americans love
to toast marshmallow. lovely wars such fun lol lol.
1 person likes this
