Subject:
|
Re: best way to minimise civilian casualties?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:22:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
270 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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
"No, the best hope seems to be to go on as we are - pressing forward towards
Baghdad with the hope of bringing the Republican Guard to action in the
open, where it can be devastated by the overwhelming firepower of the
American armoured units and air force."
Or we could just lure them all out into the desert and drop a nuke. I think
any military strategy that involves "hope" is doomed to failure.
ROSCO
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
