Comment: Thanks

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: As Far as (see in situ)


Clarification is appreciated.

If a war is worth fighting it will be won without any injury to anyone other than hurt feelings as the aggressors are no longer able to seriously count their chickens before they hatch.

The choice of war however is a choice made by aggressors when they do feel happy about their prospects of getting something for nothing more than a few million tortured and dead victims.

So the question to be answered may be the one that identifies how to keep power flowing to the aggressors before that power overpowers the potential victims.

In the case of The Revolutionary War period in the 18th century the runaway slaves who ran away from persecution in England, taking those long journeys to The New World out West, may have done better, to avoid repeating the same mistakes, by not believing in the same lies, not becoming Tory Loyalists, and as one, in unison, each could have been solid in refusing to become that which we supposedly abhor, we supposedly abhor enough to run away from, and then proven by the fact that we don't become the same thing we supposedly abhor, and we don't for the same reasons we ran from them in the first place.

Involuntary associations are bad, so don't be a part of them in the first place, and if born into such things, at least learn how to minimize the connections instead of falling into the trap that lures each in turn to supposedly employ the problem as if it were a solution.

In other words, in context, only the aggressors check the box that says War is OK, while the defenders end up with two choices, as the aggressors offer only one choice: an offer you can't refuse offered by the aggressors and Liberty or Death realized by the defenders in time or too late.