Huh? OK, it is their violent opposition to your policy that requires the application of armed force, and why would you set forth policy you know is stupid? Did anyone ever do that? Did anyone ever sort forth policy they knew or believed to be "un-ethical?"
Yes the policy maybe stupid. So what? Run for office and get elected.
They, the enemy, would not be opposing it if they thought it a good idea would they?
My concern in the setting forth of policy, via violence because the policy is violently opposed. If my policy maker says this is not a military problem, then why are we discussing it? The question has to be predicated on the need to set forth the policy and that policy is violently opposed.
Yes, I agree, you can save lots of money by simply doing nothing. How does that provide anything useful or any insight?
Bookmarks