Quote:
|
Originally Posted by scaeagles
Something tells me that if that were the case there would be a lot less sentiment trying to understand the people that were doing it, and there would be fewer cries to give up and leave CA on their own.
|
If the government that bombed CA (in the middle of the night killing women and children in Sacramento) said that they had weapons of mass destruction and then found out there weren't any, people might be interested to get to the bottom of everything.
Also, if the strategy was suddenly changed to say that the gov't was liberating CA from the oppressive Swarzeneggar, then people would say, 'Well, what happened to Arnold's WMDs? Wasn't that the point of the war?' When there wasn't WMD, which many people knew there wasn't, then people world wide would question the government that seemed to be attacking CA for other reasons.
Eyebrows may also be raised if LA, SF and Sacto were still burning and the leader of the attacking government came out and said, 'All done. Nothing to see here. War's over.' Many would go, 'Uh, my loved ones are still fighting and dying in Inglewood and in Downtown SF... The war's over?'
Then years later, the war still continues with Northern Californians and SoCal residents possibly getting into a civil war over this... People in other countries might say, well they should leave them to sort this out because with that other gov't's help, things don't seem to be getting any better...