[Skunk]

Originally posted by John D Harris: But, I believe there is more then a little difference between a man branishing a Sword, a weapon that requires up close and personal contact for it to be anything more then to be considered a dectoration to a solider armed with an automatic weapon capitable of killing at distance. Occupping a building is differant then killing people, to a degree that far exceded what would or could be considered a Little. If there is any doubt on that point, I'll make a deal with anybody on the board, I'll not occupy any buildings if they quit breathing

He was the leader of the group - and, like most commanders, wasn't carrying serious personal weaponry since he didn't expect to fight himself. The men that accompanied him were armed to the teeth with the regular array of assault rifles, rpgs, grendades etc. They expected to occupy the buildings and administration centres, the British to attempt to remove them by force and a heavy battle to follow.

When the British didn't do as expected, the adrelenine left and then so did they. And however you might ridicule the British approach, it DID work - without any loss of face or authority on their part - they're still in control.

Of course, we are now beyond that approach and into the 'how do we get out of this mess' stage. Best option at this stage is to try to introduce the cease-fire and pull waaay back (at least 5 Km). That way they will get the time to calm down, the casualty rate drops and the country calms down. Meanwhile, if anyone in the city wants to continue fighting, they'll have to leave the cover of the city to do so - making them both easy targets and minimising the risk of civilian casualties.

There are NO drawbacks to that approach.


[ 04-10-2004, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: Skunk ]