In article ,
"Swingman" wrote:

"Robatoy" wrote in message
In article
"Swingman" wrote:


[snip]

What's so hard about understanding that, as a military commander charged
with a mission, you are duty bound to do your utmost to perform that
mission, regardless of whether you have "armored" vehicles for the
situation?

Shouldn't there be a measured chance of succes in undertaking any
mission? Will a man, blindly, go over a hill with a pocket knife to take
out a machine-gun nest? (I amplify the hypothesis to illustrate a point)
Is there NO point at which a CO says: "Can't be done, my men will not go
commit suicide (or commit crimes)." ?

Again... just asking.

Tsk, tsk ... or just baiting? In any event, these shallow, irrelevant
questions miss the mark completely.

That was totally uncalled for. If you need to resort to that method of
debate, count me out.

How about that hockey strike, eh?