 | | Re: Hotel Palestine
|
| (...) That decision is easy to take. In a few words, the tanks can fall back to point "A", where no mortar can reach. (...) Indeed. (...) Sorry, I misread. My bad. (...) But I'm not advocating delay under exposure - that's why I say fall back, (...) (22 years ago, 10-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Hotel Palestine
|
| (...) This is what Frank was talking about when he mentioned the circuitous nature this conversation has taken on. I say *why* simply pulling back is not the answer, and you simply repeat that the thing to do is withdraw without addressing my (...) (22 years ago, 11-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Hotel Palestine
|
| (...) (scratching my head) All that what you've said is what appears reasonable, but strictly from a military POV. Although the casualties can be (arguably) decreased in regular action with that quicker method, the risk of catastrophic failure under (...) (22 years ago, 12-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Hotel Palestine
|
| (...) Yes, it is from a military point of view, but it's a military situation. You can only manage things on a political level down so far, and then it becomes counter-productive. Planes are easier, because there are fewer and thus easier to manage (...) (22 years ago, 12-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
