a third world country in a war?
some one wrote this in an answer and I thought it deserved center stage.
2006-12-12 09:48:07 · 11 answers · asked by ? 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
1. The US doesn't have the power to destroy the world, that would take over 100 trillion hydrogen bombs.
2. We did beat them in a war, we beat them in a matter of weeks. It's the occupation that's going poorly. Changing people is always much, much harder than just killing them.
2006-12-12 09:53:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Why is it that people get on Yahoo! Answers and ask questions when they have no idea what they're talking about?
If by third world country you mean Iraq, which by the way is NOT a third world country? Well....we've done a pretty good job of destroying it. The part we can't get down is controlling it.
2006-12-13 02:29:33 · answer #2 · answered by Barrett G 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What third world country are we trying to defeat? If you mean control a third world country, that is totally different than destroying.
2006-12-12 10:15:27 · answer #3 · answered by beren 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Destroying the world would be lot easier than trying to defeat an insurgence with out killing large numbers of civilians. We could easily defeat them by massacring everyone in Iraq. That's not our goal.
2006-12-12 09:51:31 · answer #4 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
While technology has progressed, to a point where we could win war(s) w/o boots on the ground, the philosophical state of this country has been on the slide. Someone like Sherman - who took the war not only to the enemy, but the enemy's support structure (the so called innocents), would never be tolerated today. People prefer to sacrifice their own.
2006-12-12 10:12:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Its one of those things - did you see how easy it was to topple the Government Army of Iraq? That was an organized outfit with a clear infrastructure and chain of command.
How do you defeat people that blend into the society, are parts of the society, hit and run, smile and wave as soldiers drive by, and then shoot them in the back?
There is no order. The people of Iraq are not demanding order. They have to be the ones to put that order in place and not be so spineless.
2006-12-12 09:53:28 · answer #6 · answered by RustyOwls 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Conventional war shows the weakness of our fighting forces. Technology in terms of nuclear, I agree is superior, but it cannot be used. In the very near future the states that the USA threaten will have the same of near capability and then what?
We are even too frightened to attack N Korea because of the repercussions.
2006-12-12 09:53:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because if we go in and defeat with the force you are asking we will destroy everyone living there. We would be guilty of Genocide. That's why we can not destroy all of it.
2006-12-12 10:05:17 · answer #8 · answered by wondermom 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Right. I'm all for it. Let's dust off a nuke and light up the night sky over the Middle-East. Let them see the power.
2006-12-12 09:57:17 · answer #9 · answered by Overt Operative 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I'm sick of hearing this **** man, they know nothing of true war fare, even in the shock in awe campaign we didn't use our full force. We are capable of much more then the average liberal fagotts realizes.
2006-12-12 09:53:04 · answer #10 · answered by throw them out 1 · 1⤊ 2⤋