2007-11-17 02:09:23 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
According to Clausewitz "War is an extension of diplomacy´by other means".
In other words if they don´t respond to your veiled or unveiled threats or demands then feel free to kick the living daylights out of them but don´t call it a war, call it a police action as the word war has gone out of vogue since the last big one and besides which if it´s not a war you are not bound by the Geneva convention on the treatment of prisoners.
2007-11-17 02:22:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
There is nothing expeditious about this war. In fact, I think diplomacy could have worked much faster. Of course, we wouldn't own the country then and Bush wanted to occupy his oil supply.
I believe this is more a fiduciary matter.
2007-11-17 10:21:28 · answer #2 · answered by Jackie Oh! 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Definitions, in this country, mean nothing. If what we do is ugly, or illegal, we just start calling it something else. War is peace. Hate is love. Sorrow is joy. War, especially the false kind we are engaged in is simply mass murder.
2007-11-17 10:22:19 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Don't forget the blood, severed heads, limbs, orphaned children, refugees, etc.
And where does negotiation come into war?
2007-11-17 10:15:37 · answer #4 · answered by Dastardly 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It just depends on your definition of expeditious.
Wars begin where you will, but will not end where you please.
Machiavelli
2007-11-17 10:17:49 · answer #5 · answered by Lettie D 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's one way of looking at it.
2007-11-17 10:15:55 · answer #6 · answered by Mark A 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes.
2007-11-17 10:12:46 · answer #7 · answered by Gengi 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it's murder.
2007-11-17 10:12:15 · answer #8 · answered by the Boss 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
sure
2007-11-17 10:19:06 · answer #9 · answered by Alex G 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋