Simple really, no decent human can ever claim to support another if they don’t consider the dreams, aspirations, thoughts, and philosophies of that person. In other words, you can’t claim to support the soldier, when you leave the soldier out of the equation. To do so is incredibly paternalistic and insulting … yet so perfectly leftist.
For all those that say we all have to support the troops, I am a supporter of this particular mission, but I am curious about whether a population always has to support what its troops do? Is this a necessity? Should the troops always obey their commanders?
For all those that say we all have to support the troops, I am not a supporter of this particular mission, but I am curious about whether a population always has to support what its troops do? Is this a necessity? Should the troops always obey their commanders?
For all those that say we all have to support the troops, I am not a supporter of this particular mission, but I am curious about whether a population always has to support what its troops do? Is this a necessity? Should the troops always obey their commanders?
Funny Sean say nothing is won by the barrel of a gun (except WWII perhaps) and the British actually were able to force their wishes on the Afghans when they beat them completely at Kandhar in 1880 and forced then to accept Abdur Rahman on the throne, which allowed them to continue their policies at minamal costs, a typical British solution of the time.