Not familiar with the Golden Bridge, but I'll assume it's Sun Tzu's principle that you always leave a route for the opposing army to escape, lest they dig in and fight to the death rather than withdraw.
Correct. What is important to remember though is that he also argues the principle should be used as a way to set up a coup de grace against your enemy, either by destroying them in detail as they retreat, or by forcing their surrender.
However, I do agree with the overall point that there should be the option for mercy, as long as there is genuine change reinforced by words. After all, a not insignificant amount of the people currently helping to pull this off used to Dems, as Carl pointed out.
Correct. Of course, if you can defeat them even if they dig in... there is no reason to offer mercy. My main point is that these decisions should be made based on interest and not some misplaced sense of morality (these people deserve mercy - no way, I don't want to give evil people mercy).
Not familiar with the Golden Bridge, but I'll assume it's Sun Tzu's principle that you always leave a route for the opposing army to escape, lest they dig in and fight to the death rather than withdraw.
Correct. What is important to remember though is that he also argues the principle should be used as a way to set up a coup de grace against your enemy, either by destroying them in detail as they retreat, or by forcing their surrender.
However, I do agree with the overall point that there should be the option for mercy, as long as there is genuine change reinforced by words. After all, a not insignificant amount of the people currently helping to pull this off used to Dems, as Carl pointed out.
Correct. Of course, if you can defeat them even if they dig in... there is no reason to offer mercy. My main point is that these decisions should be made based on interest and not some misplaced sense of morality (these people deserve mercy - no way, I don't want to give evil people mercy).