Freedomain Radio

On July 27, 1953 North korea and South Korea signed an armistice.

                           $

Reading the book "The History of the Peloponnesian War", by Thucydides,
I've realized:
Treaties and armistices are superficial.

The first part of the Peloponnesian war began in the 14th/15th year of an agreed upon 30 year peace.
The second part of the war, after a new treaty was made,
began long before the time specified by the treaty was up.

There's signs everywhere of the superficiality of the "internationally binding" papers,
and the fact that they are not respected even by their creators and advocates.

AESTHETE:

Reading the book "The History of the Peloponnesian War", by Thucydides,
I've realized:
Treaties and armistices are superficial.

The first part of the Peloponnesian war began in the 14th/15th year of an agreed upon 30 year peace.
The second part of the war, after a new treaty was made,
began long before the time specified by the treaty was up.

There's signs everywhere of the superficiality of the "internationally binding" papers,
and the fact that they are not respected even by their creators and advocates.

Do you think that it is better if both sides fight until one side totally defeats the other side?

                                                $

Better than what?

I think that the situation in which the most people benefit is when there is no government.
The general citizens don't really gain much, and actually lose quite a bit, from their country going to war.
Some Greek leaders advertised their war by saying that the citizens gain a sense of pride by being in the center of an empire.
I don't see how one can get pride out of something won by force, and not even by the person with the pride.

AESTHETE:

Better than what?

Better than both sides continuing to kill each other until at least one side is completely destroyed and defeated.

                                                                               $

H. Rearden:

AESTHETE:

H. Rearden:

Do you think that it is better if both sides fight until one side totally defeats the other side?

Better than what?

Better than both sides continuing to kill each other until at least one side is completely destroyed and defeated.

                                                                               $

those are the same thing.

I ask again:
Better than what?

AESTHETE:

I ask again:
Better than what?

The armistice that ended hostilities. Hostilities as in killing each other on the battlefield. Wasn't the armistice a better thing than continuing the hostilities on the battlefield?

                                 $

H. Rearden:

AESTHETE:

I ask again:
Better than what?

The armistice that ended hostilities. Hostilities as in killing each other on the battlefield. Wasn't the armistice a better thing than continuing the hostilities on the battlefield?

                                 $

The armistice only delayed the killings on the battle field.
It gave each side more time to reccuperate and then kill each other again.

Maybe, just maybe,
they would be better off fighting to the death.
At least afterwards there'd be no more fighting.

But then again,
the winner would go imperial,
and many people would be enslaved than were previously.

IDK.

AESTHETE:

The armistice only delayed the killings on the battle field.
It gave each side more time to reccuperate and then kill each other again.

THe fighting ended on July 27, 1953 and has not resumed.

                       $

H. Rearden:

AESTHETE:

The armistice only delayed the killings on the battle field.
It gave each side more time to reccuperate and then kill each other again.

THe fighting ended on July 27, 1953 and has not resumed.

                       $

Oh, sorry, I was still referring to the Greeks.

I suppose a genuine treaty is ultimately good.