Warren Ockrassa wrote:
Well, they're usually about conquest _by one side_. The side that's trying to prevent itself from being conquered is not usually described as fighting for conquest.
I'm not sure what spin doctors would put it that way; whether one is on the offensive or defensive is immaterial. If one is not engaged in war with the sole purpose in mind of conquering one's enemy, one is doomed to lose.
Having watched this debate rage backwards and forwards, this one response probably sums up the whole topic - Iraq, lessons of the Vietnam war, culpability of the politicians involved in both, etc.
To be fair, the US did spend most of its time just securing the south against invasion, not trying to overwhelm the north, so you're both right.
Cheers Russell C.
------------------------------------------------------- This email (including any attachments) is confidential and copyright. The School makes no warranty about the content of this email. Unless expressly stated, this email does not bind the School and does not necessarily constitute the opinion of the School.
If you have received this email in error, please delete it and notify the sender. ------------------------------------------------------- <<<<GWAVAsig>>>> _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
