Liberals prefer to fight PC wars (everyone would prefer no war). A PC war is essentially when you sacrifice your troops in order to prevent collateral damage. A stray bullet is considered collateral damage and so is dropping a nuke on a populated area just to kill Osama bin Laden. Now, while this sounds all lovey and goody, a war has never been won fighting this way. So why fight a war this way?
2007-01-18 07:57:21 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yeah! One nuke would get it all over with quickly. Everyone would piss and moan for a while, but they'd get over it.
During the final days of WWII, the Japanese were ready to hold out in Japan down to the last man. After only two A bombs fell, they gave up. It wasn't the destruction that caused them to surrender. It was the awe of the weapon. When you feel the ground quiver 200 miles away from impact, you feel there is a force greater than God at your doorstep.
One such display in the Middle-East could change the direction of things there.
2007-01-18 08:23:45 · answer #1 · answered by Overt Operative 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Because only an idiot fights with torches in a room full of gasoline, and only a thug thinks that you can win hearts and minds by kicking A***es.
You might look up Thuggi. They thought they could throw out the English that way, Instead they turned their own people against them. And it was Gandhi who used your idea of PC to toss them out on their ear.
The Islamist were well on their way to accomplishing the same thing, till GW made America a bigger target than the Islamists.
If you had any sense you could find this out for yourself, but psychological research says you won't.
2007-01-18 08:18:32 · answer #2 · answered by Dragon 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
wars can be won this way.. the problem is that if you don't set some type of standard then you have mercenaries, not soldiers.. these soldiers represent our nation to the world and should be held accountable as such... did you know that in the olden days people would go to a hill and watch the battles? it was entertainment to them... granted our means of destruction have improved.. and with it warfare has evolved.. but that doesn't mean some shred of decency shouldn't be adhered to.
2007-01-18 08:06:56 · answer #3 · answered by pip 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It is absolutely idiotic to fight a war this way.
The reporters were talking to a white house air force officer on the use of "wiley pete" which is white phosphorus which burns and kills through a hot burning chemical. They said it was "inhumane" to use white phosphorus on the enemy.
This is the same enemy who kidnaps innocent people and beheads them on camera, but we can't use whatever means necessary to win a war.
It is like the statement says "All's fair in love and war." Great question, if they really supported our troops they wouldn't tie one hand behind their back before they fight.
2007-01-18 08:05:57 · answer #4 · answered by infobrokernate 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because they'd rather make sure some terrorist's wife doesn't get hurt than make sure our nation wins a war.
2007-01-18 08:06:56 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋