Subject:
|
Re: best way to minimise civilian casualties?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:12:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
105 times
|
| |
|
|
I think I heard Rumsfeld was considering using non-lethal chemical
weapons. It would be both illegal and rather ironic; but it *may*
deliver the desired result with reduced civilian deaths.
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> Some pundits have been advocating that the best way to minimise civilian
> casualties in this war (taking as a given that it has started and that it
> will be seen through to the end one way or another) is to win quickly even
> if horrifically... the "Sherman strategy" of not just marching through
> Georgia, but burning it as you go.
>
> This pundit argues instead that the best long term strategy is to do just
> what is being done:
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/03/27/do2701.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/03/27/ixportal.html
>
>
... if the letters page is on-line, it is normally worth a scan.
Scott A
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | best way to minimise civilian casualties?
|
| Some pundits have been advocating that the best way to minimise civilian casualties in this war (taking as a given that it has started and that it will be seen through to the end one way or another) is to win quickly even if horrifically... the (...) (22 years ago, 27-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
