(January 1, 2011 at 12:40 am)Ubermensch Wrote: Not easy, never easy. But it certainly doesn't always have to be made more difficult. By killing so many people, we would only be making more enemies.
As opposed to leaving enemies to actively recruit instead of passively?
By your logic, Lebanon (Isreal's war) should've ended well. It didn't. In fact, Hezbollah is again influential despite bribes against them and mere terror.
(January 1, 2011 at 10:15 am)Ashendant Wrote: You're right, mass murder in the information age is not possible to not get more enemies and human right court would force anyone that gave that order to be imprisioned
Redefining war to "mass murder". Cheery. That evades the discussion, which centers around military tactics in days past and their effectiveness compared to modern day "pound them from above and run away" incursions.
"Mass murder" implies that friendly and neutrals are targeted - one who actively supports the economic or military structure qualifies as "enemy". That is long established in total warfare. Also, on the front of targeting friendlies and neutrals, (unfortunately) no influential court as of this date has convicted the US Military, for example, for bombing Islamic wedding parties, etc,. So already the ability to target unassociated peoples is considered "acceptable" enough by the powers that be (however awful).
Henceforth, your statement is unrealistic and rather silly.
William T. Sherman Wrote:If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking.
