Monday, July 26, 2010

My report: Total war vs limited war

Rush was talking about Obama's new "rules of engagement," that supposedly Petraeus wants to change.

And so Rush is talking about our bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (which gets the Japanese ticked off to this day, and which many Americans and Japanese view as having been racially motivated and a war crime. For myself - taking out one city might have been necessary - there was no need to take out both.)

And he talked about Dresden - another totally unneccesary action during World War II that was certainly not about destroying the civilian's will for Hitler to carry on his war, but all about revenge against the country itself, and there was no need for it. It took place in February 1945 when everyone knew the war was lost. There was no need to kill all those civilians.

Then he mentions Sherman's letter in which he says he plans to exterminate the enemy, there's no other way. And of course Sherman is hated in the South to this day.

In 2010, with all the technology we have, is it really not possible to make surgical strikes that take out only soldiers and their rulers, not civilians? Now, admittedly those brave terrorists hide in amongst the women and children, so how else are you going to kill them? But still, you'd think there'd be some other way..

No comments:

Post a Comment