Lock, stock and barrel, instead of merely to take prisoners of war and then cuddle and rebuild the other country so they will be able to strike back at their convenience?
2006-07-28 09:01:08 · 8 answers · asked by Just Ask 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
adobeprincess - were you writing dirty questions about me and now you're confused becausethe big yellow deleted your question? Or an I just making myself feel important?
2006-07-29 18:00:40 · update #1
War is a method of achieving a specific political result.
Depending on what you are trying to achieve and who you are fighting you may have to hit them harder.
2006-07-28 09:46:58 · answer #1 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I kind of wonder what their goal is. I gues they get it form playing all those board games from the times they are little. Winning is everything back then for some people. I do not know. Mean people suck and if yahoo does not like a question someone writes they delete it. I guess I was too radical for them. I guess I should just talk about butterflies and flowers. How about I give you a flower and they can cuddle. Since the though police are out that is best.
2006-07-29 03:34:17 · answer #2 · answered by adobeprincess 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends on the aims of the fighting parties.
Look for example at the so called "War on terror" It is a war against fear, not a concrete enemy. Waging wars on an intangible thing does not have any easy outcome; how is it possible to eradicate fear from everyone's lives? I honestly don't believe that it is
In terms closer to your example the aim of war is to win; the criteria of victory is determined by the dominant side (ie the winners). This paradox is usually resolved by the winners developing the morality of the time and writing history as they see fit. Therfore historically the winners will always be benevolent; the losers always tyrants. Its complex...
2006-07-29 03:39:45 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, look at the example we set in WW2. Germany and Japan have not been a threat since. Then look at things that we half-assed Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War.
Total victory is the only option for a sustained peace. Victory through superior firepower.
2006-07-28 09:11:46 · answer #4 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When I was younger, I thought the reason for war was to overcome the other country so they could rule. Now I see that the reason to go to war is merely to overtake and kill.
2006-07-28 15:06:41 · answer #5 · answered by peppermint_paddy 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no, not the country, jsut the military....if that includes the country, then so be it
2006-07-28 10:28:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
war is not a sporting game, you find your enemy and you crush them.
2006-07-28 09:10:51 · answer #7 · answered by thirteen_fox 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i don't get either my friend .i agree with you take them out no mercy
2006-07-28 09:05:30 · answer #8 · answered by idontkno 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋